Moving at a politically expedient speed, Interior Department officials are proposing to allow national park visitors to carry concealed weapons with them.
Whereas the National Park Service has been dragging its feet on endorsing Glacier National Park's decision not to allow a railroad to use explosives to control avalanche danger, Interior moved practically at light speed in proposing the gun language. Put up for limited review today, it will formally be published Wednesday in the Federal Register, barely two months after Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne decided to open up the regulations for possible recasting.
"This is truly changing the culture of the National Park Service in literally one stroke of a pen," says Kristen Brengel of The Wilderness Society.
The proposed regulation calls for a 60-day comment period, but there was no mention of plans for public hearings on the change. Interior Department officials were not immediately available to comment on the proposal.
The highly controversial change has been opposed by seven past Park Service directors, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the National Parks Conservation Association.
The coalition wasted no time in criticizing the proposed regulation.
"We think the proposed rule is manufactured and driven politically to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Data show that parks are among the safest places to be in this country. Moreover, we believe it will create more problems than it can possibly fix," said Bill Wade, who chairs the group's executive council. "It is likely to alter, over time, the friendly atmosphere visitors look forward to in parks, where they go to get away from the day to day pressures and influences of their everyday lives, including worry about guns.
"How many visitors want to be concerned about whether the person next to them during a ranger-guided walk, or that shares a backcountry campsite, has a concealed, loaded gun? Reliance on impulsive use of guns in the face of perceived threats or disputes, such as in campgrounds will increase the risk to visitors and employees," continued Mr. Wade. "Impulsive uses of guns in response to being startled by or by perceived threats from wildlife will increase the risks to wildlife and to visitors, such as from wounded wildlife or shots fired at wildlife, such as in campgrounds, that miss and connect with nearby campers.
"Administrative requirements related to this rule in parks will become complicated. Issues of reciprocity of authorities for guns between states will have to be sorted out. Decisions about how to keep guns out of administrative and concession buildings will involve signing, further cluttering the developed areas; and potentially even security screening. The existing regulation works just fine, and has for decades. This is a proposed rule that deserves to be shot down!
At The Wilderness Society, Ms. Brengel said the "argument for revising the regulation seemed poorly thought out and rather short."
"So, you can carry a gun as long as the state allows concealed weapons and the analogous state lands allow for possession," she said. "And this is supposed to clear up confusion? Or, is it supposed to create confusion?"
Indeed, there are a number of national parks that cross state boundaries. Yellowstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Death Valley, and the Blue Ridge Parkway come immediately to mind. The proposed regulation made no allowance for how rangers were to police the various gun laws in those parks.
While the proposed regulation said DOI officials were uncertain whether a review under the National Environmental Policy Act would be required, Ms. Brengel thought a thorough review was necessary.
"Rather than directly addressing potential harm to wildlife, the agencies didn’t even mention poaching, off-season hunting, and other possible problems with this proposal," she said. "The public deserves to know if Park Service professionals, not political appointees, think there will be impacts to cherished wildlife and hunting opportunities due to this change in the rules."
If the decision to make guns more available in national parks stands, it will be interesting to see not only how it impacts domestic visitation to the parks, but also international tourism in light of how many other countries view America's pervasive gun laws.
Somewhat curiously, in light of the building debate over how this change would impact national parks, comments on the proposed regulation are being directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose lands also would be open to concealed carry under this change.
A copy of the Federal Register notice is attached below. Comments are being directed to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.
Secretary Kempthorne's decision to consider concealed carry in national parks came in the wake of lobbying by the National Rifle Association, which got U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that would overturn the current regulations, which allow weapons to be transported through parks as long as they're broken down and stored out of easy reach.
Additionally, roughly half of the Senate's 100 members wrote to the Interior secretary asking him to reconsider the regulations.
Somewhat ironically, the current regulations were adopted by the Reagan administration. A much earlier version of the regulation was established in 1936 to prevent the poaching of wildlife, and was included in the Park Service’s first general regulations adopted after the creation of the agency in 1916.
In opposing a change, the seven former Park Service directors told Secretary Kempthorne in a letter that, "Informing visitors as they enter a park that their guns must be unloaded and stowed away puts them on notice that they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor’s enjoyment and the enjoyment of others."
"While most gun owners are indeed law-abiding citizens, failure to comply with this minimal requirement can be a signal to rangers that something is wrong," the letter continued. "Removing that simple point of reference would seriously impair park rangers’ ability to protect people and resources, and if necessary manage crowds."
Signing the letter were former NPS directors Ronald Walker (1973-75), Gary Everhardt (1975-1977), George Hartzog (1964-1972), James Ridenour (1989-1993), Roger Kennedy (1993-1997), Robert Stanton (1997-2001), and Fran Mainella (2001-2006).
Comments
RonC
I love ONP also.
I see bear (up close even) about every backpack.
Try the east side tree line meadows late summer during blueberry time.
Could be early fall this year (?)
I'll be out there for sure!
IMHO carrying a weapon for fear of bear and other critters,
into Our National Parks in the lower 48 is just silly.
HYOH!
For those who argue that people who hold a permit for concealed carry are "well-trained in the use of a gun," check this article out:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20031009/ai_n10028946
I'd hate to meet any of those folks carrying a gun in the Everglades!
I support the right to carry a firearm. Criminals have guns wether legal or not. If there was to be an assault on me, I would want the best tool available to protect my life. Wether the assailant has a gun, knife or just a big club, if my life is in danger, I have the right to keep and bear a firearm as granted by the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, if my life is in danger. (Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about). People who want to argue that it 's not the individuals right, but a militia, please recall that there were indians scalping people and killing families in 1776 (Again, google 1776 if you don't know it's relevance) just as cereal killers and psychos are doing today. With all the crazy people shooting up public places and cereal killers taking advantage of the average citizen, it would be even easier for them to operate in the middle of nowhere. How many people per year go into national parks and turn up missing? Unfortunately, history has proven that humans are savage and no matter how safe one might feel with our laws, unless the police are there to enforce them, human savagery and lack of compassion always shows it's ugly head. If you're a lwa abiding citizen, carry a policeman in your pocket, carry a gun.
I would rather need a gun in a park, than have to need a crime scene investigator. So for prevention of murder, yes guns are needed in parks.
I had my family and myself threatened in a Wilderness campsite on the Jacks Fork River in Southern Missouri by a bunch of drunk fools at 2 am. They ran their pick-up just a few feet from the tent with thier brights on us, honking shouting obscenities and throwing beer cans at our tent. I have a CCW permit and I kept my gun locked in a case unloaded just as the park rules require. In my tent was two 15 year old girls, my ten year old and my wife. When I stepped out of the tent to confront these fools, I prayed that these were just drunk teen agers. They pulled out went I stepped out of the tent, but they came back hours latter to run through the camp again spinning their tires and shouting and honking at us. The nearest ranger was about 25 miles away and there is no cell phone service in that deep valley. I am 56 years old and I have never been faced with this sort of behavior in these parks. What if they had wanted to fight me? Would my kids have been raped? Might I have been beated unconscious? Put your self in that situation and ask yourself what you would have done. My wife and I are scout leaders and our kids are scouts. I have never seen the insides of a police station. I have 10 years in the military and have had more firearms training than most rangers in these parks. My concealed carry permit required a complete FBI background check. I am stunned by the attitudes of those who would deny me from defending myself in these remote places.
You think this sort of thing will never happen to you. Put yourself in my shoes and think about this issue one more time.
@Avid Family Canoeist: Which part did happen and which was your fear? Let us tell that apart. The guys in question were loud, rowdy, obnoxious and cost you and your family some sleep. What did not happen? They did not attack, maim, rape, pilfer, kill or whatever. You wrote: "What if they had wanted to fight me?" - What if questions are not about reality but about perception and in this case about fear.
National Parks and the back country as a whole are safe, as safe as they have always been. What changed is the perception of danger. This nation lives on fear - "what if" has become an important question. My idea is to get over it. Don't worry about fights in the back country, worry about accidents while driving to the parks.
I have a couple of comments.
Lets start with there are HEAVILY armed folks conducting illegal activities in National Parks, well enough armed that the Park Rangers are out gunned. Then we can add bears and cougars, etc. I can't carry a Park Ranger with me(they're heavy) and I don't expect a person security detail to ensure my safety. This is America, we have the right and obligation to protect and defend ourselves, not to depend on others to do so.
I am amazed at how out of touch we have become with our Constitutional Rights. Saddly, in one generation we have quietly gone from a society in which owning or possessing a firearm was "non-event", due to the fact that it is a Right. Now there is this position that firearms need to be heavily regulated. In the hands of responsible individuals firearms are a "non-event" as they should be. Sensational journalism has turned an inanimate object into a demon in our society, guns do exactly what they were designed to do, go bang when you pull the trigger. People responsibly use firearms millions of times a year and between 750k and 2million times a year to defend their lives, we don't see these facts in the press.
The worry and fears of those who are against people carrying in National Parks are those that fear the irresponsible gun owner. Did you know that concealed carry holders are fingerprinted, background checked and certified to carry? People that go this far to excercise a Right are not who/what need to be feared.
Thank you for your time,
Scotty
Though I personally think this does not go far enough, I think it's a good start.
"Guns in the Parks. Do We Need Them?"
Not in the least...
As a kid, you could find me and my cousin walking down the road with our rifles as long as we were tall.
As a teen there was a rifle, shotgun and fishing pole on the rack in the inside back window of my truck.
I was in the military for four years as a young adult.
I spent 17 years exploring the forests, rivers, volcanoes and jungles of Mexico and Central / South America, South East Asia and Australia. I have spent more time than most folks backpacking in designated Wilderness and National Parks across the western half of America. Where I have never carried nor have encountered any situation where I felt a need for a weapon.
While in population, in the USA I have noticed as MRC (not verified) said, a growing perception of danger, a fear of strangers, Mother Nature and the world in general.
IMHO this fear of danger is an unwarranted, typically trite defense for the reversal of Our National Park rules.
Anyway the sun is out, just saw a eagle circle over head, a northern flicker joined me for coffee this morning, deer, raccoon and bear are my closest neighbors. think I'll go out for a visit.