Allowing legal gun owners to bring loaded firearms into national parks is a bad business decision? Statistically, concealed carry license holders are some one of the most law-abiding groups on the planet. Why should it arbitrarily be illegal to defend oneself from 4-legged and 2-legged predators in a national park?

Crime happens in the forest, or on the trail too, you know. Good luck fighting off a wild animal attack with your pepper spray.

The article acts like it's completely mind-boggling that legislation got passed with unrelated measures attached. It happens all the time.

@Travishamockery: I think the point they're trying to make is that it has nothing to do with credit card reform.

They need to port that app over to DS or Windows CE for me. Hurry.

Disagree with firearm ownership or not, the ability to carry firearms in wildlife areas is good. As an avid outdoorsman I agree with the provision due to the simple fact that there are quite a few dangers that you can run in to way out in the woods. I have had several close calls with Black Bears, a Rabid coyote, several poachers and more than a few shady people harvesting their pot crop. Being armed in those situations is insurance you just cant beat. 99.99999999% of the time, law abiding citizens will not abuse provision, and criminals, well.. they ignore the law by nature. So I feel strongly that it is a good thing.

@GavinEstecado: If you read the article itself, it's pretty clear that they're attacking the national parks decision. Regardless, unrelated legislation gets passed on one bill all the time. I don't see why this is particularly notable.

@Travishamockery: I think the point is not that it's necessarily a bad rider in and of itself, but given that it could have lost support for the bill and was completely unrelated to the consumer protection oriented goals of the bill itself, it was still bad taste.

@Travishamockery: Wasn't the last minimum wage increase tied to a bill to increase funding for up-armoring Humvees?

Ya know, I actually liked Tropicana's redesign. It's too bad that it was associated by consumers to being a generic.
I'm not blaming the consumer for that, it's just too bad that the quality, clean design was trumped by the ridiculous straw-in-an-orange and little-kid-font.
I wonder what other designs PepsiCo had considered aside from this one, and if they, too, were better than what's currently used. Maybe it wouldn't have had the backlash and we'd have something less ridiculous for Tropicana packaging.

@Megalomania: Eh, could be, but the writer's bias certainly shows through when she quotes the aide of a senator, and instructs the reader "don't go waving your firearms at Yellowstone just yet".

But hey, that's the media I guess.

@bornonbord: I agree, that in a vacuum, the redesign is a good one. Unfortunately, in an aisle SCREAMING with different bright and busy designs, the Tropicana carton disappeared or just looked generic.

It's less about having a good design, and more about having a distinctive visual brand. The big sales hit they took after the redesign tells the tale.

@thebluepill: Good comment, especially this part, which many people forget:

law abiding citizens will not abuse (the) provision, and criminals, well.. they ignore the law by nature.

Thumbs up to the folks that think that the guns in parks thing is good. Criminals are smart. If they know that there is a place that is full of unarmed people , they will see that as sanctuary and act accordingly. I like the idea that someone who cherishes their freedom and safety can now fire back at these low lifes. I will personally offer a free beer (or 2) to anyone that pops a cap in the ass of an (armed) assailant or robber that is killed while committing a crime in a NP.

All of you whiny weiners that think that this is barbaric can smooch my ass. Robbing or assaulting the innocent is barbaric. Defending your person is civilized.

@Travishamockery: By the way, my critique is directed at Fortune/CNN, not Consumerist.

@Travishamockery: As an east coast elite liberal I never understood some of these gun restrictions. I can own and carry a gun but what am I supposed to do at the park gate, stop at a bus station sytle locker and deposit my fire arms until exiting?

That endangered animal was coming right for me!

@bornonbord:

People become emotionally attached to iconic graphic representations -- mostly those that represent real-life objects, often in a glowing or nostalgic manner. The Morton Salt girl, the Tropicana orange, the Geicko gecko etc. have an emotional appeal that clean, spare graphic design doesn't. This probably annoys the crap out of purist designers (and I work with some), but it's a marketplace reality that many organizations have used to brand themselves and cement themselves in the public imagination.

Oh please let's not make this post about guns! The original topic is so much more interesting. Just MHO.

A 17 page article? Seriously CNN? Is that really necessary?

@Travishamockery: According to whose statistics? The NRA's? Statistically, people who defend the idiotic tend to be idiots as well. How do I know this? I just made it up.

Regarding #4...

What is it about toilets that having them winding up in so many examples of excessive spending? There must be some sort of primal human behavioral pattern that exists...

@thebluepill: How about the ability to carry concealed firearms in child care centers? Public libraries? Churches? How about amusement parks? Seriously, the guy (I think it was Sen. Inhofe (R-OK)) who managed to get this rule approved has been pushing for this and MORE. He puts this stuff out there because he knows it's divisive and will piss people off. That's his goal, to divide the majority and piss them off.

Well, it didn't really work this time because we had more important things to worry about than whether some jackass with a lifetime NRA card can conceal his piece at Yosemite. We got the bill Inhofe hated so much passed anyway. So there.

@Travishamockery: Gun control issues aside, I believe the point of attaching that particular rider was an attempt to sink the credit card reform act.

It has been noted many times that people against a particular piece of legislation will push to have a rider that is extremely contentious in an attempt to sink it.

@thebluepill: Why they gotta open that can-o-worms.

@HurtsSoGood: You associate concealed carriers with jackasses and the NRA? I'm not sure who should be more insulted by that comment, NRA card holder or gun carriers.

It's not "Apple's iPhone "shake the baby" app." It's a "shake the baby" app that someone built and put into Apple's iPhone app store. Apple didn't design the app. I know this is nitpicky, but the way this (and, honestly, the Fortune article) is written makes it sound as if this was Apple's idea.

Wow... did you intend to imply that the "shake the baby" app was produced by Apple? Because it sure looks like you did. Approving the app is a much lesser offense than actually writing it themselves. Personally, I'd prefer they approve anything that isn't malware. We don't need Apple to shelter us from offensive things.

I hope you edit the article to make it clear that Apple didn't produce the app.

I'm just finding it amusing that the co-editors of a book can't even make sure they spell the title correctly. The expression they wanted is "Ad nauseum".

@jvanbrecht:

Actually, it was kind of the other way around. People in favor of the gun provision knew it could never survive a straight up-or-down vote on its own, so they attached it to a bill that many members would be loathe to vote against.

@Scrutinizer:

Nope, just keep it unloaded and locked in the trunk of your car. Not saying you can't have guns in the park, just saying you can't have loaded, concealed weapons in the park.

@Snarkysnake:

Except that allowing concealed weapons will almost certainly result in an increase in innocent deaths, given that guns+booze has a generally less appealing outcome than guns+fists, and given that the level of violent crime in the parks was very low to start with:

[www.nationalparkstraveler.com]

@thebluepill:

I don't have a problem with people carrying guns in national parks.

But I really dislike the notice that so many went with that this is going to offer any more protection to people against animals. Weirdos in the woods? Sure, maybe so.

Well, it might help with little animals up to foxes or jackals. Because short of a bear charging Dirty Harry, most handguns aren't going to stop one. Especially when you consider the kind of target shooting most people do, the odds of them hitting a moving target with all that adrenaline pumping is pretty much zero. Even more remote is the chance of bullet doing enough damage to do much more than piss it off. It's just like carrying a gun because you're worried about stingrays while you're walking knee deep in the ocean.

And if the animal isn't moving, it's not charging at you and you shouldn't need to shoot it just because it's standing there. Which is what I worry will happen a little too often. And if someone shoots an animal will they report it? Or just leave the carcass there to attract several new critters to the area? Which naturally puts more people at risk.

It's all in the illusion of safety that most people get just from having a gun when in the "wilderness."

I've been camping when we've come in sight of a grizzly, and I can tell you any handgun wouldn't have done much if it hadn't wander off on its own.

@bornonbord: I'm with you, man. The Tropicana redesign was an improvement in my book, very clean and more professional than the previous design.

@HurtsSoGood:

I hold a valid CCW and in my state, the only place I can't carry legally is a public protest. Strangely enough, it causes no problems.

You mention carrying a weapon in church for some reason. Well, prohibitions on weapons in church sure didn't stop the whacko from blasting that abortion doc a while back.

Same thing with any mass shooting incident at a public school. "Gun free zone" is just an advertisement that people actually following the rules can't fight back....

@Josh_G: My issue is that you get some gun happy nut in the woods who decides that every rustle in the bushes is a rapist or bear attacking them. A national park is very different than your home where you know the terrain and the noises.

Also, I fear this is simply a way to allow hunting a la Southpark.

@Snarkysnake: How about a compromise? Any one found guilty of shooting an innocent, shooting someone while intoxicated, or for any other reason than someone was directly and imminently threatening them with grave bodiy injury gets 50 years in prison, no parole? No unlawful discharge of a weapon or even assault, attempted murder or murder.

I don't want to be on the other end of some druken trailer trash who thinks my taking a leak in the bushes is a robber or a bear coming to get him.

According to whose statistics? The NRA's? Statistically, people who defend the idiotic tend to be idiots as well. How do I know this? I just made it up.

First, concealed carry license holders have to pass an extensive State and Federal background check before their license is issued. You can't say the same for the average guy hiking in a national park.

Second, here are the statistics to back my point:

People with concealed carry permits are:
• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

-From "An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population", William E. Sturdevant, PE, September 11, 1999

Care to refute with facts or peer-reviewed research of your own?

@jvanbrecht:

It has been noted many times that people against a particular piece of legislation will push to have a rider that is extremely contentious in an attempt to sink it.

@nova3930: Also, he wants to forget that the shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs was ended by a concealed carry permit holder. The woman who killed the attacker is a former police officer, but at the time of the shooting was nothing more than a law abiding civilian with a concealed carry permit.

Here's a link about the story

Carrying her handgun in church saved a lot of lives. The criminal who walked in shooting had 3 guns and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Imagine the damage he could've done without anyone there to stop his killing spree.

@ARP: That seems like a more than fair compromise. FYI, it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon if you've been drinking whether or not you have a permit. A concealed carry license doesn't give the holder any special rights beyond simply carrying a concealed handgun.

@ARP:

"How about a compromise?"

Because you cant make a good deal with bad people. We already have laws on the books that do what you propose.Law abiding ,licensed gun owners are the best friend that law enforcement has. Their interests are the same as the police (peace and freedom). They are not the threat , lawbreakers are. I am not drunken trailer trash. I carry a gun. I value life. I'm trained to use my firearm safely and respect it's power/danger.I would rather take my chances with legally licensed firearm owners than the outlaw element.

@Travishamockery: Hey, I'm all for folks packing heat wherever they go.

What I question, and I'm assuming Consumerist does too, is the relevance of packing heat to credit-card reform. If there's an inherent connection between the two, I don't know what it is ... nor do I know anyone else who does.

@schernoff: I don't know how you could dedicate an entire magazine to anti-static cling dryer sheets either.

The Yankee seats in that article you linked are 2.5k (previous) and now 1.5k - Im not sure where you came up with 200k

@revox: Apple, however, has made news multiple other times for nixing other applications because it felt they might be offensive, but this one just sailed through. That little wrinkle in this story is what makes it notable.

(For example, they turned down a graphic novel of one of Cory Doctorow's short stories about a girl who plays an MMO because it showed her MMO character attacking a troll *inside a game* and there was some blood in that one image. So *that*, a depiction of a fictional event within a fictional story, was too gory, but an app encouraging the user to shake a crying baby until there were X's over his/her eyes and the crying stopped wasn't. If they're going to decide they're the morality police (and they have apparently decided that, as far as their app store goes) then they need to be more consistent.)

@PsiCop: Oh, I'm with you on that. I don't like measures being attached to random bills in any case, I just happened to agree with this one. It is kind of a reach for the article to claim that it's one of the "Dumbest Moments in Business for the year 2009".

@Josh_G:

Its not an illusion, but a fact in my opinion. Yes, a 9mm is going to have limited stopping power against a charging Kodiak, some measure of protection is better than none. There are many predatory species in the us that fall in the range of a handgun being defensive. Many wild cats like mountain lions, canine species from wild dogs to wolves, boars, snakes.. the list goes on.

The most dangerous animal I have run across has two legs and a bad attitude. In my jeepin days I have run across a lot of folks poaching, which is very intense, as they will go to jail if they get caught.. Same with people harvesting their marijuana crop, they will stop what they are doing and stare you down until you leave.. It happens a LOT more than you might think. Considering you might be alone or with your family and the only other person for 20 miles in any direction is doing something illegal that you just caught them.. Ill let you use your imagination on that. Several times the fact that I was open carrying stopped a potential confrontation. It certainly never escalated one.

@pippenz: If you read the Fortune article they talk about how the 2.5k seats added up to 200k if you wanted those seats for the season.

@kathyl: Agreed. But there is a difference between poor/inconsistent approval standards and creating something offensive.

@Travishamockery: Thanks for a good post. We should note that this change merely makes rules for national parks consistent with laws for state parks in the state the park is situated. It does not force that horrific Right to Keep and Bear Arms on the people of such crime-free areas as Chicago, where would-be criminals leave town rather than trepass against the strict anti-gun laws.

As to bills having simple purposes, this has never been a requirement, but might be a way to save billions of dollars with the current federal government.