The actions of a National Park Service ranger in San Francisco on Sunday may have far-reaching effects among citizens who use national parks and recreation areas, and the incident is already causing political shockwaves equivalent to a California earthquake that could eventually be felt as far as the Pacific Northwest.
Here in Washington State, memories are fresh about another park incident, at Mount Rainier, in which Park Ranger Margaret Anderson was fatally shot in the line of duty. Almost immediately, as this column reported, that tragedy opened the doors for agenda pandering.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the unidentified female park ranger confronted a man identified as Gary Hesterberg, who was walking two small dogs without leashes Sunday afternoon at Rancho Corral de Tierra. That area has a long tradition for allowing off-leash dog walking, the newspaper reported, but that changed in December when the property became part of the national park system. Dogs must be on leashes in national parks.
There are two views of this story, however, that need to be fully appreciated, and just might serve as talking/learning points for armed citizens. According to the Chronicle:
Hesterberg, who said he didn't have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name…The ranger, who wasn't identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene…He tried several times to leave, and finally the ranger "pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her" electric-shock weapon…”
According to park service spokesman Howard Levitt, “That did stop him.”
Some Chronicle readers are not at all upset about how Hesterberg earned his treatment. After all, there seems to be a growing belief among people that they can “cop an attitude” when approached by anyone in authority; ignore rules and push the boundaries of good conduct to the point of belligerence, according to this viewpoint. Here’s what one reader says:
"Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash."
It wasn't excessive for someone who gave false infomration, failed to obey lawful commands, gave the Officer cause to detain, and attempted to flee.
He's an idiot. I hope she hit him on this privates.”—‘oldenatwoody’
Balance that against the equally-growing perception among private citizens that at least some people in law enforcement are becoming badge-heavy thugs. That impression is not helped by how this female ranger reportedly handled the Sunday confrontation.
After all, the newspaper reported this:
“The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off…”
Shot him in the back?! Simplistic as this may sound, this is the West, and you don’t shoot people in the back, at least, not for walking a couple of dogs off-leash.
It goes beyond that, of course. It did not appear to witnesses that Hesterberg posed any immediate physical threat to the ranger. He was just being kind of a jerk, if one believes the account as reported by the newspaper, which tossed in this observation from Levitt, the parks spokesman:
The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule…
Shooting someone in the back with a stun device in front of witnesses is not going to impart broad public acceptance of a new leash rule. It is going to create a backlash. Indeed, it already has, as typified by this Chronicle reader comment:
“The comments here are a very good example of the divide between Americans and Authoritarians. Authoritarians of course believe that citizens should submit to the authority of government where as Americans this it is government that should submit to the authority of We The People. I'm not saying citizens should have the right to run wild as of course we have laws for a reason however an American would recognize that there are two types of laws, ones that protect us and others that enslave us. The litmus test for identifying which category a law falls into is simple. That test is if a victim be identified...”—‘American_t”
This incident happened because of a change in the rules. Remember how anti-gunners in the wake of Ranger Anderson’s slaying on New Year’s Day reacted? This column discussed how blame for that killing was aimed at a change in federal law two years ago that allowed citizens to legally carry loaded firearms in national parks for personal protection.
Walking two small dogs off leash hardly equates with someone walking up a park trail with a loaded firearm, but how well one passes the “personality test” if approached by a ranger could make a lot of difference in the long run. By the same token, how a ranger passes the same personality test also matters a great deal to a private citizen who, under existing law, is not doing anything wrong and does not care to be hassled.
It appears that in San Francisco, both parties failed the test.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard | Oakland Yih-Chau Chang | Gaithersburg Gary Roehm
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns
Comments