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
As a Liberal, I disagree with Bush 95+% of the time. However, I like this regulation change. I believe in all the Bill of Rights, not just those that are supported by the left or right. You are also fooling yourself, if you think that people aren't already bringing concealed weapons into National Parks for self protection. Another misconception I hear is that gun owners are looking for a fight. I think the reverse is true. Every CCW holder knows that if they use their weapon to protect themselves they could still face some legal and certain civil repercussions even if it is for self defense.
I am a father of a 7 and a 9 year old daughters and CCW permit holder. When I go camping, I am always thinking of how to avoid confrontation with other campers and animals. I am more concerned about people than animals. If the lives of my family are seriously threatened, I intend to ensure they walk away alive. It is better to be judged by 12, than have your child carried by 6.
The RIGHT to bear arms should not be restricted . Be it in a park or mall or at work..
You damned Democrats will never give up until the phrase "only criminals own guns" become a reality and no one can defend themselves or their loved ones from the violence YOU CAUSED.
40 out of 50 states have proven again and again, when citizens can defend themselves, violent crimes decrease significantly. When are the rest going to figure this out?
Productive members of society that choose to carry concealed weapons to ensure their safety and well-being should not be labeled criminals by you democrats.
NRA MEMBER..
are you?
I am 24 years old, VA resident. I was gun shooping around Thanksgiving 08. I was asking a myriad of questions (as I often do when pursuing something new). The gun dealer told me a story that him and his son (10 years old) went camping. They saw a relatively small bear and it began to charge the boy. The father fired a warning shot over the bear's head to scare it away, it continued to charge the child. The father unloaded a full magazine of 10mm rounds into the bear. The bear died. POINT 1, that is why people, not necessarily "need to", but should be able to, carry guns in a National Park. POINT 2, had the gun slinging camper not had his weapon, his son's world would've come to an end. If a National Park allows guns to be carried, there are still state laws that surround the park that will regulate who can and cannot carry a gun. It won't be a free for all, guns and their owners will still have to adhere to strict guns laws. The politicians are simply upholding our second ammendment rights. Believe me when that bear is charging you in the woods, you'll want that gun in the hands of a trained and willing citizen.
What are you going to shoot it down with if you can't take a gun into the park?
Concealed Carry holders are some of the most law abiding most checked "civilians"in the country. It is amazing that the anti-gun folks really seem to believe that since it was illegal to carry a gun that people did not carry a gun. Now the law abiding citizens can carry as well. You can carry concealed in 48 states. Millions of people across the country legally carry concealed everyday. A despite the constant fear mongering of the anti-gun crowd every place that allows reasonable access to concealed carry has seen a REDUCTION in crime. The myth that these people carrying guns are going to snap and shoot someone over a parking place has not happened. The myth that the police will not know the difference between a concealed carry holder and a criminal has not happened. It is has not turned into the "Wild West" with blood running in the streets like the anti-gun crowd promised. It is also a fact that the places in this country that are the most gun restrictive, are also the most violent. All of these facts can be confirmed and I would ask all of the anti-gun crowd basing their opinions on emotion and ignorance to learn more about what they are blindly opposing.
I don't necessarily agree with the "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" concept, I think most of those arguing against the new proposal are kidding themselves about what would happen. Does anyone doubt that some people have been "packing" in national parks for years? Have any of you ever been frisked? I haven't, and I'm not convinced that the change will lead to more irresponsible gun carriers - they're already there.
Just my opinion, of course.
When I was young..... my dad used to take me out hiking for long 3 or 4 day weekends. We used to hike in for an entire day and never see anyone. I haven't gone in years. I have recently decided to start going again with my son. I also remembered my father used to carry a little revolver in his hip bag. I only saw it acouple times... he called it his snake shooter... we have some fairly poisonous snakes around here. I always assumed it was for overall protection of the family. Long story short, I never thought twice about it and I purchased one for my outings. I was very surprised to find the issue in such in uproar. I guess it where you are from and how you were raised. fearful or not fearful of firearms. I agree. maybe people who are against them are just generally against them in all circumstances. I just always seemed unprepared not to have it. a compass, utility knife, water, rations. Were not all picnic basket carrying all wheel drive station wagon park people. some of us could actullay live off the land if we needed to and sometime choose to on occasional weekends. I do not see this creating anymore confusion than the overally politically interested people
I never met Timothy Treadwell, but I am quite familiar with the area and circumstances relating his and his companion' demise. Personally, I consider Treadwell's fate the outcome of a death wish. From any objective perspective, Treadwell's behavior was bizarre and self destructive. He did almost everything wrong in re: to his interaction with bears. He literally set up himself and his friend for a fatal attack. Being armed would not have changed the outcome. I once encountered an individual camping at a site on the Katmai coast. He had established a long-term camp in a location with intensive bear activity. There was a resulting buildup of human waste and other debris around his camp. I informed him that he had to move the camp and clean up the mess. Fortunately he decided to leave. You might be interested to learn that park visitors and brown bears regularly interact at close quarters in the park, including the primary developed visitor facility, Brooks Camp. Visitors to Brooks River are not permitted to carry personal firearms, even though bears may approach them within a few yards. This facility would likely have to close if park visitors were permitted to carry personal weapons and to use them at their own discretion.