February 23, 2009

Palin Expresses Support for Concealed Weapons Regulations

JUNEAU - Governor Sarah Palin encouraged U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to support recently adopted regulations allowing concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges. Secretary Salazar has directed a review of the regulations that were approved by the previous administration.

In a letter to the Interior secretary, Gov. Palin outlined the importance of the possession and use of firearms as a matter of safety.

“The possession and use of firearms are critical to urban and rural hunters in Alaska. As you know, my state contains vast, pristine areas where the ability to carry firearms can address a potentially life-threatening situation, enabling citizens to respond to bear and other wildlife conflicts. In addition, many urban and rural hunters utilize firearms in the pursuit of wildlife to satisfy their nutritional and cultural needs. Like the residents of other states, Alaskans also rely on firearms for self-defense in the vast acreage encompassed by our national parks and refuges. “In my opinion, reliance on state laws governing the possession and transport of firearms will not detract from the purposes of national parks and wildlife refuges. Existing state and federal laws are adequate to protect public safety and natural and cultural resources against poaching, vandalism, and other offenses.”

Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Comments (32)

I have seen in a couple of instances where the SAF and NRA teamed up to bring lawsuits against jurisdictions who had onerous gun laws.
I have contributed to all of the gun rights organizations, when I can, but since I have been an NRA member for a long time, and since I am a Benefactor Life Member of that organization, I have concentrated most of my support on the NRA. Another organization that
supports our cause is the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA). I have a life membership with them, and a life membership with the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA).
Often times, we overlook our state NRA affiliated organizations. In Texas, the TSRA has been very active in bringing about the defeat of anti-Second Amendment legislation, while also taking a very active, effective roll in passage of pro-Second Amendment laws and programs. TSRA also conducts a variety of programs and activities in the shooting sports.

Posted by: canovack | March 4, 2009 11:37 AM    Report this comment

The SAF, and the CCRKBA are both run by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman. They put out the New Gun Week newspaper, and have a radio station or two up in Washington state. I frequently see press releases by them, and I think they've been party to a few lawsuits fighting bad gun laws. Gun Week is a pretty good newspaper.

Posted by: Gaviota | March 3, 2009 10:31 PM    Report this comment

Thank you Colonel for the kind words. I appreciate the knowledge you bring and I admire Gaviota's passion, your both fine gentlemen. Do you, or anyone else, know much about the Second Amendment Foundation?

Posted by: Robert J | March 3, 2009 12:06 PM    Report this comment

canovack, may I say that you hit the nail right smack on the head. May God Bless you and yours and May God Bless Americaand our Service Men and Women.

Posted by: bear1 | March 2, 2009 10:56 PM    Report this comment

I concede. Politics being the art of compromise (haawkk! *spit*), I'm no good at it at all. I just hate it when principles are compromised in the name of expediency.

The question I have now is: What do we do now?

Posted by: Gaviota | March 2, 2009 3:34 PM    Report this comment

Firstly, I think Robert J is eminently qualified to be a debate moderator. He has very articulately summarized this long-running discourse and brought an air of conciliation to our dialogue. Also, Mr. Gaviota, I do appreciate your input and your side of the argument. I believe that our sort of lively discourse is healthy and benefits all of the readers in this forum. I have been observing the political arena for quite some time. I can
attest, that my first big disappointment was with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68). I watched and fought GCA 68 as it was being crafted by Senator Thomas Dodd, the current Senator Christopher Dodd's father. Tom Dodd brought the foundation of GCA 68 home with him after he completed his service as a prosecutor at the Nurmburg Trials. In essence, old Tom took some of the onerous provisions of the Nazi's Nuremburg Laws (which allowed the dis-enfranchising of Jews, communists, etc) and cut-and-pasted them into his bill. When Lyndon Johnson signed GCA 68 into law, it became permanent. So.....my approach to bad legislation is to nip it in the bud. If it can't be nipped, we need a president who will not sign the bill into law. With Eric Holder joining forces with his Congressional friends, he is promising to re-instate the Clinton gun
ban and make it permanent. There should be no doubt that any other onerous legislation will also be permanent.....meaning without a "sunset clause". If that sort of legislation reaches the Oval Office, we need a president who will NOT sign such stuff into law. My experience tells me that once we get bad laws on the books, it is very difficult or impossible to rectify it.

Posted by: canovack | March 2, 2009 1:59 PM    Report this comment

I think the big misunderstanding here is politics. Gaviota your views are true and well respected. I think the difference here is the Col. understands the politics end of our right while Gaviota is speaking from the heart of what he really wants and that he is not willing to make any compromise. I respect that, however our country is run, like it or not, by a two party system. What the Col. is saying is that when you take away power from one party you are essentially giving it to the other, there is no third party(that has any power). I understand that McCain may not have been the ideal candidate, however don't forget he was one of us and a prisoner of war to boot. The problem is that there probably won't be a candidate that feels as strongly about the second amendment as we do, we are a minority. With that said, Gaviota, your ideal candidate that would support all your views would be a minority and probably would not get elected. I respect you for your stand in not compromising your principles, it is very noble and a unique quality these days. That being said, the Col. understands politics and compromise is a huge part of politics. PICK YOUR BATTLES, to get what you want. The Republican party does need to rebuild, I think the biggest mistake this last election was that the party did not stand behind President Bush. They coward down to all the liberal media anti-Bush rhetoric and tried to distance themselves from him. They should have stood behind Bush and the conservative principles of the party and went head on with the liberal media calling them out on their falsehoods. I do not like politics, however I realize its the only game in town when it comes to laws. Sometimes you have to play the game. Being soldiers make us a rare breed in which the vast public does not understand and never will.

Posted by: Robert J | March 2, 2009 7:00 AM    Report this comment

Colonel -

I agree we disagree. But judging from the biographical information you provided, you have watched the political scene for a lot longer than I have. If you would care to teach me something, I'd like to know what indicators you see that lead you to believe that the changes Obama is making will be permanent, and will destroy our nation. No sarcasm here, I'm honestly seeking information based on your wisdom and experience.

Posted by: Gaviota | March 1, 2009 7:42 PM    Report this comment

woody-dingo -
What happened?

Posted by: Gaviota | March 1, 2009 7:16 PM    Report this comment

Mr canovack I am on your side here an hope you didn't mistake my comments for the other gents, and i hope that we can hold on to our rights so our tours of service don't go down in history as being totally in vain, and i do hope that you check out the web site on the ammo I posted this morning.

Posted by: bear1 | March 1, 2009 3:59 PM    Report this comment

We welcome your honest and heartfelt comments on GunReports.com. But
we can't allow threatening comments on the site. We don't want to
delete your rhetoric, but if it crosses the line of advocating
illegal actions, threatens people or groups with violence, or attacks
other commenters, then we'll remove such language asap. Admin.

Posted by: woody-dingo | March 1, 2009 3:52 PM    Report this comment

Nonsense! I have taken my oath to protect and defend the constitution as seriously as any of the "principled" commentators responding in this thread. Yeah, yeah.....I did my tours in
Vietnam too. But, what did our nation gain from our sweating and bleeding in a war that was waged only out of our adherence to treaty obligations to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO)? Just how did we honor our oath to protect and defend our constitution in that war? Alas.....I digress.
I took that same oath again, when I retired from the Army in 1984 and became a public school educator for 22 more years. You can bet on it that my students received healthy doses of conservative philosophy, since I took advantage of my captive audiences to reinforce patriotic American values to my students. As far a sarcasm is concerned, I use the metaphors I have discussed to enhance understanding of my points of discussion. There is nothing personal here.....it's just
business. Sure Ron Paul was the embodiment of conservative values in the last general election, but I regret to say.....a vote for Ron was a vote for Obama. By abandoning the only semi-conservative candidate who had any sort of chance of being elected, you handed the election to BHO, and by-the-way sent the liberal dominated Congress a message that they should go right on with their liberal destruction of our nation. No, Mr. G.....It ain't sarcastic, and it ain't personal. It's just business. By failing to support the only candidate who had a chance to beat BHO, you, in effect, decided you didn't like the way the game was going, so you "picked up your marbles and went home". So, my friend, we have arrived at the point in this dialogue where we agree to disagree, and that's OK. But stay tuned to watch what your vote for Ron Paul will result in over the next four years, that in many cases will be permanent and unwelcome changes.....changes that we will not believe in, but will nonetheless be stuck with for a long, strategically long time.

Posted by: canovack | March 1, 2009 12:29 PM    Report this comment

"Party loyalty is wrong. Loyalty to the Constitution is right". I'd like to see protest signs with these statements rather than observing an individual dumping Arizona Tea in some body of water. I think the statements are more likely to penetrate into one's moral compass.

Posted by: JWallace | March 1, 2009 12:06 AM    Report this comment

Well i remember the oath i took for this country and went an fought for that oath and the rights of this country in a war that treated the returning soldiers saliors marines and airmen like crap and i still beleave in that oath and the constatution and my rights under the 2nd amendment I am also a member of the NRA and some other 2nd amendment rights orgs. But what i am worried about is it can only take 4 as you call (short) years to put laws in that can Not be changed by use of the constatution and make it 4 VERY LONG YEARS and a very long life time for my kids and grand kids and famillies all over this country.AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO SAY WELCOME HOME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE to all that served for our great country, GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS OUR FREEDOMS

Posted by: bear1 | February 28, 2009 10:27 PM    Report this comment

it's going to take some pretty fancy politics to hand an election over to the left-wing liberals in order to get back to a government of right-wing conservative values.

And yet that's exactly what happened in 1994.

I'm tired of repeating the same words over and over to a deaf audience, so I'll try to make this as cogent as I possibly can.

I swore and oath in 1973 to "...uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I still hold that oath to be my sacred duty. That is why I voted for Ron Paul, a staunch defender of the Constitution.

John McCain is a domestic enemy. He has supported "closing gunshow loophole," assault weapon bans, one-gun-a-month restrictions, concealed carry restrictions, excise tax increases, and import restrictions. And, in over 20 years in office, he NEVER ONCE attempted to control or secure our southern border.

McCain mistakenly believed, like many Republican strategists before him, that gun-voters will always be with the Republican party. Former Republican National Committee Chair, Lee Atwater expressed it bluntly during George H. W. Bush’s reelection campaign when he asked, “Where else are they going to go?” That expression of contempt was one of the things that cost George H.W. Bush his second term. Bill Clinton got in, and we survived both of his terms.

I still hold true to my oath. I will not vote for RINOs who are enemies of the Constution.

Your willingness, Colonel, to accept a flawed liberal Republican-in-name-only, a domestic enemy, in the name of party power and unity, is a violation of your oath.

I regret the harshness of my accusation, but I deal in facts, not sarcasm.

Good day, sir.

Semper fi.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 28, 2009 9:14 PM    Report this comment

Col. Novack - I concede your point about the judiciary. However, I respectfully submit that your metaphor fails to take into consideration the capability of the commander. You mentioned Neville Chamberlain as someone who lost his battles because of his failure to uphold principles. Would you have voted for him just to "stand united?" Another example: US forces landed in North Africa in January, 1943 under the command of an officer named Lt. Gen. Lloyd Fredendall, whom Maj. Gen. George Patton referred to as "a moral and physical coward," resulting in the worst combat reverses in US Army history, known as the disaster at Kasserine Pass. He couldn't unite his own command, and his moral and intellectual failures alienated superiors, subordinates, and allies alike. Would you have voted for him in the interests of "unity?"

If we stand united behind a liberal RINO, all of our conservative causes will be lost, whether we are united or not. If we do not act upon, vote upon, and live upon our conservative principles, no matter how many minor skirmishes we win, we WILL lose the war.

Your tactics may be sound, Colonel, but strategic thinking requires a long view. A single presidential term is a short term tactical goal. An America united under a government which abides by the Constitution, is fiscally responsible, and honors and respects it's own citizens' liberties is the strategic goal, and may take decades to achieve.

After all, forty years ago, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, and ONE state in the union permitted concealed carry. Now we're up to what, forty-two states with must-issue permits? Forty years is strategic. Four years is tactical.

I repeat the principle I stated above. John McCain was a bad candidate for the Republican party, because those who believe in party power instead of liberty are our enemies, regardless of party affiliation!

Sticking to principles always works, Colonel. I wish to God that John McCain had stuck to his.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 27, 2009 10:12 PM    Report this comment

Short term or long term, the principle is still applicable....."United we stand.....divided we fall". By voting for Obama, or failing to vote at all, those voters who deserted McCain aided in the installation of a hostile regime. Now, since you addressed me by my military rank, let's put this into the perspective of tactics and strategy. No commander ever engages the enemy with the purpose of losing the battle, so he can win the war. If, in fact, this is what you are advocating, the loss of this short term battle will have far-reaching consequences from which we will have more difficulty recovering our losses. Think in terms of Presidential appointments to the Judiciary.
By allowing Obama to win this battle, the voters have given him the reinforcements to carry on his liberal anti-Second Amendment fight to a strategic victory, and a loss to we
gun owners. This president, whomever it might have been, will enjoy the appointment of at least two, maybe more, Supreme Court Justices.
Mr. Obama, sure as hell, is not going to appoint Second Amendment loving judges to any court, let alone the Supreme Court. We must never lose sight of the objective, and by voluntarily losing this battle, our objective will be that much more difficult and costly to attain. I am reminded here of the capitulation
of Great Britain to Adolph Hitler in the form of handing over the Czech Sudetenland to the Nazis, while Neville Chamberlain went home crowing about "peace in our time". Yup, that was a battle that was purposely lost, but had it been won, we might have had a much better shot at defeating Hitler a lot earlier with a lot less expense in life and treasure. The same principles apply here.

Posted by: canovack | February 27, 2009 4:06 PM    Report this comment

Colonel, you're thinking short term. The occupancy of the White House is only temporary, and the actions of that occupant can be reversed, as we saw with Clinton's 'assault weapons' ban. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't really matter who the party in power is, they ALL want to increase their control over us, they ALL want to tax us more, and they ALL treat our civil rights and liberties with contempt.

Let me emphasize: Those who believe in party power instead of liberty are our enemies, regardless of party affiliation!

The Republican Party screwed up royally, and got thrown out of power for it. Now is the opportunity to rebuild the party with men and women who respect the Constitution, civil rights, and citizen liberty.

Voting for McCain or any other liberal is wrong. Party loyalty is wrong. Loyalty to the Constitution is right. Loyalty to the freedom and liberty of ourselves and our fellow citizens is right. Let us ALL vote our conservative, liberty-loving principles, and put the Republican party back together the right way. If our elected Republicans start to vacillate, all we have to do is whisper in their ear: Obama!

Posted by: Gaviota | February 27, 2009 3:15 PM    Report this comment

OK,here we are again.....bickering among ourselves, when we should be devoting our energy to unite against our common enemy.
For those who did not vote for John McCain in the general election, the interesting question is: If you did not support McCain, for whom did you vote? If you voted for Obama, or if you voted for an independent, or if you simply did not vote.....you provided the anti-Second Amendment forces with the ammunition to proceed with their agenda to deny/restrict your Second Amendment rights! A close parallel to this is the failure of many gun owners to join/support the NRA. Yeah.....we have all had some disappointments with the NRA
bureaucracy, but the NRA is the most potent weapon we have in the fight for our rights. So, once again.....let's stop the bickering and unite. Harboring petty grudges against
John McCain only cost us the election of a man
who is far and away more gun friendly than Obama. Those same petty grudges against the NRA only weaken our real "Big Dog" in the fight against the anti-Second Amendment forces.
Let's remember: "United we stand.....divided we fall".

Posted by: canovack | February 27, 2009 11:56 AM    Report this comment

Bear1, Palin will probably run in 2012 anyway, so what's the problem? What's your plan to get the Republican party to return to it's principles if you're going to vote for a liberal Republican? You can't get an alcoholic to quit by feeding him more alcohol! Think LONG-TERM here, bear1, not minute-to-minute.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 26, 2009 10:57 PM    Report this comment

Well even with a RINO as you called McCain at least we would not be having to worry so damn much about keepin our rights or our guns and Pa;in would more than likly be running next for Pres

Posted by: bear1 | February 26, 2009 10:31 PM    Report this comment

Well said, Gaviota.

Posted by: RackEmPunk | February 26, 2009 10:20 PM    Report this comment

Well said, Gaviota.

Posted by: RackEmPunk | February 26, 2009 10:20 PM    Report this comment

Like an alcoholic who has to hit bottom before he can change, the Republican Party had to have it's power stripped away before it came to the realization that it's power comes from the people, not vice versa. Yes, Obama got in, but that's the fault of the elected republicans who failed their constituency, not the fault of the fed-up constituency. I refuse to vote for RINOs. That's the RINO's fault, not mine.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 26, 2009 8:18 PM    Report this comment

But by not voteing for McCain in this last election you let a anti gun socalist in office and now we are going to pay the price but i sure as Hell hope it is not to bad but i have my daughts. But anyway you go Gov. Palin

Posted by: bear1 | February 26, 2009 8:03 PM    Report this comment

I feel that Governor Palin should seriously consider running for President in 2012. I know that I have talked to a lot of people that felt she was in the wrong place on the ticket for the 2008 election! Keep up the good work Governor Palin!

Posted by: jinxedjohn | February 26, 2009 11:26 AM    Report this comment

Gov. Palin has the stamp of approval from Larry Pratt of GOA. In the world of 2nd Amendment Rights, that's about as good as you can get.

Now if she could just dump some of those RINO-istic policies that she had to pretend to believe in when she was running with McStain, she'll be good to go in 2012.

Posted by: RackEmPunk | February 26, 2009 9:41 AM    Report this comment

I voted for Gov. Palin and whoever ran with her. Only "John InAne" would be stoopid enough to hit a home run like her -- and then not run to first but to the other dugout so he could "reach across the aisle" -- and get spiked in the groin for being a confused computer illiterate who wore Depends.

Posted by: JOHN C | February 26, 2009 8:45 AM    Report this comment

No question of McCain's heroism and physical courage. But he's still not a conservative, at least not enough that I would vote for him.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 25, 2009 5:14 PM    Report this comment

WAY TO GO Gov. Palin and at least McCain is a Veteran that fought for our rights like alot of us did and are.

Posted by: bear1 | February 24, 2009 11:49 PM    Report this comment

I'd have voted for HER for president, but not if the ticket included McCain. God knows we don't need another RINO (Republican In Name Only) in Washington.

Posted by: Gaviota | February 23, 2009 8:12 PM    Report this comment

If only she got the Whitehouse...

Posted by: Robert J | February 23, 2009 12:00 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In