You are here

Congressman Accuses Sec. Kempthorne of Pandering to NRA on Gun Issue

Share

Congressman Raul Grijalva, who heads the House subcommittee on national parks, is accusing Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne of pandering to the National Rifle Association.

In a strongly worded letter to the Interior secretary on his efforts to allow national park visitors to arm themselves, the Democrat from Arizona asserts that the proposal "is not sound policy; it is pandering to an interest group with no interest in National Parks."

In the two-page letter (attached below), Representative Grijalva not only points out misrepresentations in the NRA's push to see concealed carry allowed in national parks and national wildlife refuges but also says the secretary's proposal will not simplify gun laws across the country as he contends but "will destroy uniformity of application and hopelessly muddle visitor understanding of the requirements."

The congressman also maintains the proposal, if adopted, will further undermine the safety of park rangers.

"NPS law enforcement personal will also be put at greater risk. Most of these brave men and women work alone, confronting large crowds where alcohol can be prevalent. Wading into a situation alone to restore and protect park visitors and park resources is daunting under the current rule. The last thing these dedicated public servants need is loaded guns hidden in the crowd.

Comments

The point you are missing is "concealed handguns," not just any kind of weapon. Hunters (and poachers) don't hunt with handguns, and murderers generally don't kill with rifles (although there have been some notable exceptions). Believe me, a handgun will have little affect on either a charging bear or, if in Yellowstone, a bison. Thus, the point is, why would one need to carry a handgun in a National Park? I've always felt much safer in a park than walking down the streets of any large city, and I'm sure if you looked up the numbers, the percentage of violent crimes committed in national parks is significantly lower than what is committed in the general population as a whole. The enforcement of anti-poaching laws simply is not a valid argument in this case.


Houston, Texas last year. Man trying to stop a robbery in the house next door shot and killed both thieves in the back with no warning to the second one, despite the fact he was told to take no action by the 911 operator he was on the phone with. Need any more examples?


Rick,

Ya know, we could bat this back and forth for years and we wouldn't see eye to eye. That's OK, and it's something I plan to address in another post down the road. That said, I must admit your lack of tolerance for regulations is kinda disconcerting. How do you decide which laws or regulations are worth obeying? If wearing a concealed weapon where they're outlawed doesn't bother you, where do you draw the line?

I also think it's telling that early on you asked for someone to provide evidence of a concealed weapons permit holder who's broken the law, and now you've retreated to asking for proof of a crime "other than a bureaucratic infraction." Along those lines, did you read that Boundary Waters story I cited? Granted, the story didn't indicate whether those involved had concealed weapons permits, but I think it's very telling of what can happen.

Now, you say you'll pay the fine if caught, but will you also turn over your handgun?

As I've said previously, your disdain for the Brady Campaign is interesting, as they use a lot of the same statistical sources you've cited in drawing their conclusions.

I also think you're jumping to conclusions by lumping everyone who opposes concealed carry in the parks as anti-gun. I could care less if you own a firearm. I just don't think there's justification to go armed every time you leave the house.

Now, regarding statistics. Here're a bunch, with the sources cited. True, one can't tell how many of these cases involved CCW holders, but I'd wager more than a few.

* In the United States, children under the age of 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than the children in 25 other industrialized countries combined!
Fingerhut, Cox, and Warner, "International Comparative Analysis of Injury Mortality." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. October 7, 1998.

* In 1998, more than 30,000 men, women, and children were killed with firearms in the United States.
· 17,424 were suicides
· 12,102 were homicides
· 866 died from unintentional shootings
· 316 died in undetermined circumstances
Sherry L. Murphy. "Deaths: Final Data for 1998" Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 48, No. 11, July 24, 2000.

* Gunfire kills more teenagers than all natural causes combined.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Violence, "The Role of the Pediatrician in Youth Violence Prevention in Clinical Practice and at the Community Level," Pediatrics, Vol. 103, No. 1, January 1999.

* In 1999, nearly half of all murder victims were killed by someone they knew such as a friend or family member rather than a stranger.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2000: Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 2000.

* Women are about twice as likely to be shot by their intimate partner than they are to be killed by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means.
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; James A. Mercy, PhD;
"Men, Women, and Murder; Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization," The Journal of Trauma, Vol. 33, No. 1, July, 1992.

* In the United States, approximately two-thirds of all murders are committed with guns.
Sherry L. Murphy. "Deaths: Final Data for 1998" Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 48, No. 11, July 24, 2000.

* Gunfire killed 3,792 young people ages 19 and under in 1998.
Sherry L. Murphy. "Deaths: Final Data for 1998" Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 48, No. 11, July 24, 2000.

* The annual cost of gun violence in America in terms of direct medical costs, lost productivity, and lost quality of life is $100 billion. Furthermore, through public health care and public debt, the taxpaying public pays an estimated 85%-96% of medical charges for firearm injuries.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. G.J. Ordog, J. Wasserberger, G. Ackroyd. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Journal of Trauma, February, 1995.

Of course, this is really an exercise in futility because -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- if the regulations remain unchanged gun owners like you will still flaunt the "questionably legal" regulations.


Blair just doesn't get it:

> the point is, why would one need to carry a handgun in a National Park?

Why do you have fire insurance? Are you planing for you house to burn down? Why do you have car insurance? Are you planning to be in a car crash? Why do you have health care? Are you planing to be sick? Life is kinda fickle and we choose to be prepared. At least some of us do.

We are talking about concealed handguns in the possessions of citizens lawfully exercising their rights. There's a saying, "don't take a knife to a gun fight" If I knew I would need a firearm to defend my life I guarantee you I would be carrying at least my AR-15 instead of a SIG handgun. My handgun is my little life insurance policy. It doesn't come out of the holster until the appropriate time as defined by law.

As for that guy in Houston OK, maybe you got me there. You provided one example of a citizen doing something wrong. I didn't object to removing the scum but the law provides for consequences under those conditions. The research also proves as many as a million times a year citizens lawfully use firearms to defend themselves. I think I'm still ahead of you.

You also make my point, concealed carry permit holders don't poach and vandalize while carrying and don't murder. I'm glad you feel safe, however. If you feel so lucky, though - well do you? Then why don't you forego your homeowners insurance, car insurance and health care? Murderers, rapists and thieves commit their acts of social indiscretion with a variety of weapons. Most of which are classified as lethal and the victim is entitled under law to respond to that assault with deadly force. Having a concealed handgun is the same as pulling out your insurance card.

If you are ultimately the victim du jour then you and your clean conscience can go to meet your maker knowing you held to your convictions. I've chosen to even the playing field a bit and am not willing to go quietly. I've come too close to being there.

Also, I don't know if the aforementioned shooter in Texas had a concealed carry permit. He was just the neighbor who happened to be armed and sick and tired of people being victimized by thugs. Oh yeah. And where were the cops in all this? Uuuhhh, I guess they were enforcing laws elsewhere in the town and not situated at that location protecting someone's life or valuables.


Kurt,

The statistics used by the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructors Association are drawn directly from the Texas Department of Public Safety Concealed Handgun Licensing Section and put into the proper context as measured against the age appropriate population of Texas. The instructors are DPS qualified and work closely with the Texas DPS.

The Texas DPS maintains it's own website which anyone can visit:(http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm)

Rather than simply taking dictation from gun control organizations, you might want to visit the websites of the actual state agencies and review the statistics concerning CHL holders. Unless of course you believe that the state and federal governments are part of some "grand conspiracy" to hide the wanton criminality of CHL holders.

The FBI also gathers statistics comparing crime rates between states with liberal CCW laws and those with more restrictive gun laws. Not surprisingly your side does not fair well. "The FBI, drawing from data it has collected and published in the Uniform Crime Reports, concludes that "violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense." Particularly, the FBI notes that the total violent crime rate is 26 percent higher in the states with restrictive CCW laws than in the less restrictive states. Likewise, homicide rates are 49 percent higher, and robbery 58 percent higher, in more conservative states. The only reasonable conclusion is that liberal CCW laws help to reduce the overall crime rate, and particularly to reduce the frequency of violent crime."

"The FBI estimates that each year, Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times; by contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with guns, of which 70 percent are committed by 7 percent of criminals, including repeat offenders, who pay no attention to gun laws anyway. Furthermore, 99.9 percent of self-defense firearm uses do not result in fatalities. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Justice Department, 34 percent were driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens, and 40 percent decided against committing a crime for fear that a potential victim was armed."

It is a common tactic of those whose arguments are not supported by the evidence to use false or misleading statistical claims. When called out, these people claim that everyone manipulates data and as a result no one's evidence can be trusted. This technique has the effect of putting the legitimate evidence under a cloud suspicion and diminishing the impact that evidence has in the debate.

As I said before, it is perverse to concentrate so much passion against people who are, by all accounts, law abiding citizens willing to submit to criminal background checks and safety training just to exercise a right guaranteed them under our Constitution.


It's true to point out that we could argue about this for years. It would be a much better use of this valuable space to dissuade people's irrational fears of fellow Park visitors who might be armed. There have been more than 9,400 comments posted about the proposed firearm regulation change. It's probably safe to say that the rule change will take place. I think it would be incredibly sad if some folks stopped visiting our beautiful Parks because they think that they are in some newly-created "fear factory".

Most people fear something because they don't know anything about it. Can't we use this space to inform people about the complete irrationality of their fears? They have nothing to fear from me or any of my fellow CCW-holding brethren. They will actually be safer now then they were before, in spite of many, many "facts" to the contrary.


> Ya know, we could bat this back and forth for years and we wouldn't see eye to eye.

Art did a good job of presenting the factual Texas data. Thanks, Art.

I ‘ll admit you’re probably right, Kurt, and I give you credit for enduring this discussion. But my intent wasn’t to persuade someone to buy a gun or convert them, it was to point out the vacuousness of the anti-gun arguments in this situation and the bigotry and prejudice many anti gun people have – especially the Brady and VPC organizations that pander to these prejudices.

> I must admit your lack of tolerance for regulations is kinda disconcerting. How do you decide which laws or regulations are worth obeying?

It’s easy. It’s when some bureaucrat writes regulations that violate my Constitutional rights. That’s why I set out to change the national park and the state park regulation. I think I’ve had a modicum of success in proving my point to date.

> you asked for someone to provide evidence of a concealed weapons permit holder who's broken the law, and now you've retreated to asking for
> proof of a crime "other than a bureaucratic infraction."

I haven’t retreated. I’ve still not gotten an answer. I want proof of a permit holder committing a gun crime against another citizen. And, yes, it’s a bureaucratic infraction that denies my constitutional right. Sit in the back of the bus until you understand this ;^)

> Now, you say you'll pay the fine if caught, but will you also turn over your handgun?

Well, I guess since I will have, at that point, had to defend my life that’s the least of my worries. You’ve heard the saying, “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” There’s no room for compromise when it comes to self-defense. I can buy another handgun but I can’t buy another me, or another wife or child. I told you before, I was close enough to a nasty situation in Cumberland Gap that I saw the light and realized gun control laws are downright stupid. I'm lucky enough to be here telling you about it.

> I also think you're jumping to conclusions by lumping everyone who opposes concealed carry in the parks as anti-gun.

That’s a red herring. Why should I defend my right to self defense under the Constitution then turn around and say it’s conditional within artificial geographic bureaucratic boundaries. If you are someone who sees the logic behind taking responsibility for you own welfare and safety you don’t say self defense is valid in point A and then somehow be opposed to it in point B. All of you seat belt advocates can say it’s mandatory on highway 81 but not on highway 95. Where’s the difference?

It’s relatively apparent that most of those posting are anti-gun because they all use the same old Brady/VPC mythology rhetoric . If they own guns maybe they’re the Obama “sportsmen and hunters” who have nothing to worry about. ;^) If they oppose concealed carry in parks they, well, probably don’t carry a gun for self defense. You can’t be ambivalent in this situation.

> I just don't think there's justification to go armed every time you leave the house.

Maybe you live in a really safe neighborhood. Maybe you’re lucky. Do you cancel your homeowners insurance, health insurance or car insurance under capricious circumstances? It’s my Constitutionally guaranteed right, hence my justification. Whether you employ the means to defend yourself is your decision. If guns are so superfluous why do cops need guns?

> In 1998, more than 30,000 men, women, and children were killed with firearms in the United States.

Jeez, talk about old stats. I don’t understand why you would post this data after I’ve posted the most recent government data. And your still guilty of the doing same thing all the anti gun gangs do: “[people] were killed with firearms.” Inanimate objects don’t cause actions. “40,000 people were killed by cars…” X people were killed by alcohol.” People do the killing, driving and drinking. Yours is just a rehash of the gun banner spin machine. I provide links to more recent data compiled by the government not anti gun groups with an agenda and with detailed explanations of the death circumstances. As I said, more than half, and closer to 75%, of the homicides are crime-related and involve criminal acts. I guess the criminals weren’t up on that law that murder is illegal.

As hungry as the media are to report such spectacular news, I still haven’t seen any reports of a concealed carry permit holder committing one of these murders. Interestingly, the media overwhelmingly ignore any occasion where a concealed carry permit holder has actually prevented a crime or saved a life.

> Gunfire kills more teenagers than all natural causes combined

No, teens committing crimes generally kill other adult teens. The anti gun gangs spin the data to make it seem like (a) it’s the guns doing the action and (b) all of the teenagers were innocents just minding their own business. In most cases this is gang and drug activity.

> in 1999, nearly half of all murder victims were killed by someone they knew such as a friend or family member rather than a stranger.

That’s generally the case because drug deals gone bad involve acquaintances - albeit criminal acquaintances. Criminal against criminal crimes are quite prevalent. Yes some innocent people are killed by others but not by concealed carry permit holders. What does the more recent data indicate? here's another link to FBI data. http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/

To reiterate, you don't need to shoot someone to stop a crime. Just showing the criminal you have one is sufficient deterrent. More than a million times each year.

You did read the DOJ study that recognized that gun control laws are essentially useless and futile because (drum roll!) criminals don’t obey the law, right? That’s why these folks continue to rob, rape, kill and sell drugs. They don’t care about laws. Citizens who go through the hassle of getting a permit are somewhat less inclined to do so for the purpose of criminal intent.

> Of course, this is really an exercise in futility because -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- if the regulations remain unchanged gun owners like
> you will still flaunt the "questionably legal" regulations.

If bureaucrats write regulations without my consent or involving a democratic process and that violate the Constitution why should I or anyone else? If a comfy overpaid bureaucrat denies me the means to defend my life and refuses to provide me with a bodyguard why on earth should I abide by this regulation? And whether I or any other gun permit holder choose to prioritize the Constitution over a bureaucratic regulation I guarantee you’ll never be aware of it. Unless you break the law and try to attack me.

Getting back to the original issue, though, I’d still like to hear about macho, NRA-brainwashed, testosterone-infused (I know, that’s redundant) permit holders packing heat who might poach, just shoot wildlife maliciously, damage property or threaten park visitors. That is what we’ve been talking about, right?

The perception of those who don’t like guns is seems to be that when the regulation is changed all of these heat-packers will somehow swarm the parks whooping and hollering and forever destroy the pristine visitor experience of those genteel, sophisticated, experienced park veterans who choose to not carry a gun.

I’ve not read anything here from anyone who has indicated how they have been affected adversely by someone lawfully carrying a concealed handgun outside the parks (no one has complained yet about the criminals outside or inside the parks).

And I’ve still not seen anyone legitimately explain how this regulation change will result any differently from what has taken place in the 40 states that have enacted right-to-carry legislation.

Or how it will differ from the experience in national forests where, by golly, there are also big predatory critters, scenery, visitors and regulations on what and when you can hunt and what you can or can’t do to property?

If a criminal sees two people and knows one has a gun and the other doesn’t, guess who he’s going after. This is enhanced for the criminal by stupid, gun-free victim zones. You don’t hear of crimes in national forests to the extent that take place in national parks. And more citizens are packin’ heat in the forests. Why aren’t national forest visitors chiming in here to add their horrible experiences with concealed carry permit holders?

Yes, it does come down to a love guns/hate guns issue of emotions. Unfortunately too many people continue to leave the facts at the door and run with trendy politically correct groupthink fueled by emotionally misleading propaganda from the anti gun grops.

The main facts constantly being ignored are that in the hands of responsible citizens guns save lives, and permit holders are among the most responsible citizens. When the regulation is changed the only thing you’ll notice is less crime. Because the criminals will have to work harder to determine if their victim will shoot them. Ask criminals in jail what they fear most. Answer: armed citizens.


Dear Fred:

Because of the threat of poaching, the presence of an assembled and loaded weapon is a reasonable threat ON ITS FACE. This is a real reason there have been no successful challenges to the existing regulation on Second Amendment grounds. All judges and reasonable people would agree this is exactly the kind of reasonable regulation the Constitution is talking about.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with idiots with guns, and appeal to reason, implying no one with a handgun would threaten wildlife. Would that that were so ! I saw a guy kill a king salmon with a pistol. I saw a guy shoot at a brown bear -- if you can believe how dumb this guy was -- with a revolver. There is a farmer who farms near here who has a cow that was shot by another moron with a 32.

People expect that that nature of the park experience is that no visitor is packing. If one is, bust them as a legitimate threat to the special rules applying to parks. Your right of revolution will not be compromised by either choosing to enter a park with no working firearm, or by choosing not to go.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.