Is it just me, or is it really a sad sign of the times when the National Park Service is promoting "factory direct" body armor to its rangers, body armor that not only stops most bullets but which is "a great choice for active rangers"?
Heck, there's even a women-specific line: One of the reasons that Savvy Armor for Women fits so well is that the company requires that each officer be personally fitted by one of their technicians.
And is it merely coincidence that the following release comes as top Interior Department officials are moving to allow more guns in the national parks?
The WASO Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services is pleased to announce the establishment of a new partnership with BAE Systems, a major government contractor and manufacturer of body armor.
BAE Systems (formerly known as Armor Holdings) has provided the NPS with special factory-direct pricing (less than GSA pricing) on soft body armor. Their products represent an exceptional value to the NPS while providing maximum safety to officers. Please note, however, that the NPS has not contracted to purchase these products and that law enforcement personnel may purchase appropriate body armor from any vendor.
RM-9 requires that all commissioned employees be provided with soft body armor. These body armor options meet or exceed minimum performance levels for ballistic protection. Two choices are available:
ABA – Xtreme HP level IIIa vest with soft trauma plate and carrier. The cost is $423.50. The new Xtreme HP soft body armor provides high performance level IIIa stopping power in a flexible, lightweight vest. Offering the latest in ballistic and fabric technology, this product is a great choice for active rangers.
Savvy Armor for Women – Flair PST level IIIa with soft trauma plate and two carriers. The cost is $696. This is a new women-run company offering an exceptionally comfortable product designed just for women. The division has been very impressed with this new company and its products. Two NPS rangers have been wearing their products for over six months and have nothing but positive remarks about the women-specific fit and comfort. One of the reasons that Savvy Armor for Women fits so well is that the company requires that each officer be personally fitted by one of their technicians. At this time, the only technician is at FLETC. They are working on establishing a road show with additionally fitting locations at various cities throughout the year. A notice will appear when this happens.
Comments
Deep breaths now....ahhh. I stated many many times on this site, and for some reason, people feel the need to sensationalize without thinking about what they're saying. This proposed rule change WILL NOT allow any ol' Joe to bring a gun into the park. It will only permit those citizens and/or "citizens on patrol" to carry their weapons they already carry with permission of the state, into the park.
There is no legislation in the world that will make someone obey the law. I'm sorry but the sad fact is we all have our own ability to choose. Criminals will not be allowed to carry guns into the park if this rule change is reversed back in accordance with the second amendment.
Tough concept to grasp but please try to understand. If you are a "law breaker" and you want to take a gun in the park...you will (why? because you have no regard for the rule of law). If you obey the law and have permission of your current state to carry a firearm then you don't have to keep it in a lock box outside the park or hidden in your car for someone to steal should you decide to grab a sandwich. If you have a concealed carry permit and the state where you are visiting the NP doesn't have reciprocity with your state....you can't legally take it into the park (no rule now or even if this change goes through will change that). Please read the legislation proposal before freaking out because all gun accidents are reported and relatively few gun heroics are reported.
The parks are the same sanctuaries as they have always been. Only the public perception of fear has changed. There are no gunfights in the park, no armed gangs lurking for backcountry hikers. I don't have access to any archive of the "morning reports", but how often are rangers shot at? Like never?
Go out, have fun, don't worry about dangers that won't affect you even in several life times. Worry about accidents on the road to the parks, but not about gunfights in the backcountry.
Where are these official reports of rangers being shot at? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but please do share this information with us rather than create control through fear. By simple fact that our parks are so unsafe with criminals who would shoot at a ranger, you've only created the need for good people to be armed as well. Every argument you make that a ranger should need a gun and have body armor is an argument for citizens to have the right to self protection. Until we have some future predicting ability there will be no way for a ranger to know where every crime is going to happen. No law enforcement body can stop all crime no matter how diligent they are. This arrogance by government agencies (particularly law enforcement) is the exact kind of “god-complex” that should never be allowed to touch a firearm, let alone protect another’s life.
I guess once again it must be stated that we all know there is no such thing as a CCW permit for federal lands. We are asking the federal government to recognize the sovereignty of a state in which the park is designated. This would be a rule change. No one is suggesting that breaking the law is the right thing to do. We're suggesting that there should never be a reason for the federal government to "infringe" on the 2nd amendment in an outdoor peaceful setting where (according to you) rangers are being shot at every year.
"Rangers deal with enough illegal guns..."
Really? How many?
"...so please give then a break..."
Citizens with CCW permits are trained and can give law enforcement rangers the "break" they need by protecting themselves. Criminals know it's illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry arms in parks, which makes visitors attactive targets, especially since rangers, in critically short supply, are the only legal bearers of arms in parks.
"...and don't make them worry about more guns in the parks."
I knew one law enforcement ranger who didn't "worry" at all about his own gun, a Glock 9mm that he left unsecured out in the open on the living room floor of his shared housing.
Joel is absolutely right that every argument supporting the need for armed law enforcement rangers is an argument that supports the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms in national parks.
Kurt,
I do not understand your obsession with denying licensed law abiding men and women the right to protect themselves in a National Park with a firearm. Courts in cities like Washington DC which has an extensive gun ban have already ruled that the police are under no obligation to provide protection to private citizens in "Warren v. District of Columbia”. Since large areas of park are patrolled by a few rangers why shouldn’t citizens be allowed to carry a firearm if they have a permit? Discharging a firearm is against the law in a park as it is anywhere else. If two women choose to enjoy the back country themselves and they have a CCW what’s wrong with it being legal for them to bring along their protection? Or anybody else for that matter?
I do enjoy some of your other stories on the national parks. We all know you don't like guns.
Joe
Joe,
I know you're just baiting me, but since you asked....
Your first question cuts both ways. If you're law-abiding, why such an obsessive problem with abiding by or trying to overthrow the existing law? And really, more than a few "law-abiding" CCW holders already have said they broke the law by carrying in the parks, so what's your definition of "law-abiding"? And answer this: If the current regulations are left intact and you are found to be carrying illegally in a national park, will you forfeit your firearm? Will you agree that you are a criminal?
As for your last comment, how do you know I don't like guns? I've gone hunting in the past, have an air rifle to keep the varmints out of the garden, even had the pleasure of firing off a few rounds from a Casull .454, and long admired the Browning collection in Ogden, Utah, and the Cody Firearms Museum at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center.
While you chew on that question, here are some findings on RTC laws from the National Academy of Science, which produced a report, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, in 2004 (it's the most recent study on this issue):
You can find the entire report here.
I'm glad you like some of the other national park posts you find on the Traveler. Believe me when I say I'll be glad when this issue is put to bed, whichever way it goes.
May I come in with a fresh viewpoint? Question: are visitors to the parks being assaulted when they visit (more than, say, once a year)? If so, if gun violence in national parks is rampant, we have a bigger problem than is solved by allowing everyone to carry guns will solve; we have a societal problem and an enforcement problem. If there is NOT a significant volume of gun crime in parks, then why not preserve and respect the current laws prohibiting gun carrying in the parks.
The reference to storm troopers sounds like crazy talk. But I understand that not everyone takes that attitude. It does seem that a national park should be a disarmed zone; park rangers should be able to carry guns if they wish. Has anyone, anyone at all, accused them of committing gun crimes? The park is not the same as general state property, and should be considered differently from generic land. The park is disarmed to protect the wildlife.
I know some people disagree - but I will end by repeating this question: is there currently a genuine need to defend oneself in national parks, or is this fight over the PRINCIPLE of the matter? If the former, I would say we need a careful look at the whole situation (and maybe more park rangers!) and possibly, possibly allow legal gun carrying. If the latter, then I say, disarm our parks - and pursue the visual, the olfactory, the aural enjoyment of nature.
David I must respectfully ask, from your own comments ("If there is NOT a significant volume of gun crime in parks, then why not preserve and respect the current laws prohibiting gun carrying in the parks"); Are you objective enough to ask the same question about why this law was placed on the books in the first place, (the parks did not always designate themselves as a "gun-free zone")? If its really only about poaching then why would we have FEDERAL lands oppose a constitutional amendment? Certainly you understand the difference between a hunting rifle and a concealable weapon? Certainly someone who speaks on gun ownership and the role of the federal government understands ballistics enough to know the range of a .375 H&H Mag and a .380 Auto. Even more confusing would be a .50 Cal Desert Eagle and a .50 Cal Barret. The designation you're looking for is "concealable". While all weapons can be lethal, states have laws on what powder and size a cartridge must be for each game type so as to not inflict a non-lethal wound on an animal.
If there is no need to change a law because of lack of evidence then there is no reason it should be on the books other than to restrict individual rights.