You are here

Comment Period For Revised Gun Regulations for National Parks About to Close

Share

Barring a last-minute change of heart, the Interior Department on Monday will close the public comment period on a proposal to allow national park visitors to arm themselves.

But don't expect the controversy to simmer down once the comment period closes. Rather, expect it to be notched up a bit as the Interior Department is sued over failing to conduct any environmental studies into how the proposed rule would impact the national parks. Already Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has indicated it will sue the agency on just that point if it changes the regulations. Here's what the organization said in a release:

Another large defect with the plan is the failure of the Bush Interior Department to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for conducting a formal assessment of any significant action with potential environmental impacts. In its Federal Register notice Interior concedes the proposal will have effects on "visitor safety [and] resource protection" but states that:

"We are currently working to determine the appropriate level of NEPA assessment and documentation that will be required for the promulgation of this regulation."

Nonetheless, the Park Service has prepared NEPA assessments for far less significant proposed rulemakings. If these rules are adopted, a NEPA lawsuit would likely result in the judicial cancellation of the rules until NEPA requirements have been satisfied, a process that would take months, if not years.

"NEPA litigation will stall these firearm rules until the next administration where they may never again see the light of day," says PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is completely in character for this Interior Department to overlook the very environmental laws they are supposed to be administering."

As to what impact the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on gun rights will have on the current national park gun rules or the proposed change, it's hard to say at this point, though some question whether it will have any impact at all.

"It is difficult to fully speculate on the impact of the decision having not read the court's opinion myself," Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, tells me. "If the sound bites I've heard are accurate, then the opinion of the court makes two points:

"1) that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bears arms (which I applaud)

"2) this individual right is sacrosanct is one's home (which I applaud), but it is not sacrosanct at all other locations and times (which I really applaud)

"So, there is going to be a long period of sorting out these other locations and times, including NPS sites," Mr. McElveen continued. "There will be those that report the individual right part of the opinion without mentioning the court's equally valid conclusion that there are locations and times where firearms restrictions are reasonable and constitutional, as well as restrictions on certain types of firearms.

"I speculate these same folks that would try to put this spin on the court's opinion will also try to imply that loaded firearms are now a right in NPS sites," he added. "The department may use this case as they respond to the comments submitted by citizens as part of their rationale to adopt the proposed regulation. My perception is that this decision does not really impact the guns-in-parks revised regulation in reality. Only the spin of those that will try to expand what the court said might."

Over at the National Parks Conservation Association, legislative liaison Bryan Faehner said his organization hoped Interior officials would extend the comment period in light of the Supreme Court decision.

"Clearly, having two business days to review the decision before comments are due on the proposal is inadequate," said Mr. Faehner. "The DOI needs to provide an extension as we requested back in April. The Supreme Court last looked at the 2nd Amendment 70 years ago. Certainly a 60-day or more extension is warranted so that the public can better inform their comments."

If you haven't yet submitted your comments on the proposed rule change, you can do so at this site.

Comments

I just read the article posted by the PEER. They sound like gun-grabbers to me. I just can't understand how I will impact the Park environment by carrying my CONCEALED handgun with me. Is it the extra weight causing me to make deeper footprints? C'mon, it only weighs 31 ounces! You've got to be kidding me.

They actually make a good point to justify how important it is for me to carry my pistol: “Rangers are few, and the miles of roads and acres in the park system are many."

And please explain to me again how this affects poaching. Any Ranger will be able to tell that I didn't fire my gun. Especially when he sees that the first four rounds are rat shot. If the Ranger is trying to apprehend a poacher, I'm going to offer to help him/her find them!


Bob Janiskee --

It's probably fair to call it either one, or perhaps more accurately than either, Lee's Strategic Error. Longstreet argued against it but faithfully followed orders, however reluctantly. Pickett was the guy on the front line but it surely wasn't his idea.

I may have borrowed the General's name but I don't profess to be an authority on all things Civil War. I admire the General, though, for his integrity and courage in respectfully challenging his superior when he had deep concerns about his orders. He remained loyal despite his misgivings, and executed those orders to the best of his ability. He paid a profound price for doing so the rest of his life and in history. It's only in recent years that a more complete picture of the General has emerged. (For the record, I also think he was on the wrong side but the South had a number of leaders worth learning from, even admiring, despite everything.)

Ah, but this is WAY off the pertinent NPT topic!

J Longstreet, not the Civil War General but a National Park Superintendent


When 51 U.S. Senators sign a letter to change the rule on carrying firearms and 20,000+ comments are submitted (most favoring a change to allow concealed carry) the debate is essentially over.

At the first level of a lawsuit someone might find a sympathetic judge but on appeal those grasping at this straw are going to lose.

The Supreme Court ruling is going to be applied well beyond a person’s home and in the case of the National Parks where you are sleeping becomes your temporary domicile—this is a long standing common law interpretation.

The fat lady has sung.


Speaking of Gettysburg, it is the prime example of why the firearm prohibitions in national parks rule needs to be revised, First of all it isn't easy to determine within the town of Gettysburg where the town ends and the national park begins, it is an insane burden upon someone who is otherwise legally carrying a firearm for self protection. Second, Criminals don't care about the NPS regulations, As a matter of fact the last time I was in Gettysburg, there was a store on Steinwehr Ave, that was robbed at gunpoint, thankfully no one was hurt but it could've ended much differently.

In the end there is no reason why a person who has a license to carry should be forced to disarm while visiting a national park. These people have submitted to background checks and are certified good guys. They aren't going to instantly change into homicidal maniacs when crossing the border into a national park. It's ludicrous.


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.