Interior Department officials finally did what was expected Friday when they published a rule change that will allow national park visitors to arm themselves.
In a decision that surely will delight some and surely disgust others, the Bush administration ignored all past living directors of the National Park Service, the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the National Parks Conservation Association in deciding it would be OK for park visitors to carry weapons if they hold concealed weapons permits and the park they are in is located within a state that allows concealed carry.
“Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association. This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades,” said Bill Wade, president of the retirees group.
The administration received almost 140,000 comments, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal to allow loaded guns in national parks.
The groups opposed to the rule change say the "final regulation is even more extreme than the administration’s original proposal, and permits concealed and loaded guns to be carried in national parks located in any states with concealed carry laws, not just those that allow guns in their state parks as originally proposed. Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded."
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006—making national parks some of the safest places in the United States. Those opposed to the rule change say the new regulation could increase the risk for impulse shootings of wildlife, and risk the safety of visitors and rangers.
Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law, and some believe that opens the door for a lawsuit to halt the rule change.
“Land management agencies have worked diligently over the years to successfully create the different sets of expectations amongst the visiting public to reflect the differing levels of resource protections for each specific area,” said John Waterman, president of the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. “National parks are different from other public lands. The visitor population expects, demands, and gets a higher degree of protection, enforcement, and restriction in a national park.
"Furthermore, while national parks are amongst the safest areas to be in, the toll on the U.S. Park Ranger is high: U.S. Park Rangers are the most assaulted federal officers in the country. This vague, wide-open regulation will only increase the danger U.S. Park Rangers face.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service said that there is no need to change the existing regulation. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
At the Association of National Park Rangers, President Scot McElveen said “American citizens have traditionally valued the professional opinions of park rangers when it comes to managing national parks. In the professional opinion of ANPR, this regulation change will have negative impacts on park wildlife. Our experience in operating parks creates disbelief that wildlife poaching rates will not increase under the new regulation. We oppose this rash regulatory change.”
Echoing these concerns, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees last month released a report revealing that more than three out of four of 1,400 current and former employees of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predict that this controversial regulation will have an adverse affect on the ability of agency employees to accomplish their mission. Furthermore, it found that 75 percent of respondents feel that there will be an increase in opportunistic or impulse wildlife killings in parks and refuges.
“With this decision, many state parks across the country will now provide a more protective environment for wildlife and visitors than national parks—once the safest place for families. Furthermore, this decision undermines the ability of national park professionals to manage the parks and runs counter to the overwhelming majority of Americans who wrote in opposition to allowing loaded firearms in our national parks,” said NPCA Associate Director for Park Uses Bryan Faehner.
Comments
(Note to those readers who do not like big words: you will not like this post, there are some big words in here.)
Frank,
There are already parks where personal vehicles are not allowed. That being one of the rules of entry, visitors respect that.
It would be interesting to hear statistics on how many personal rights advocates per year insist on driving their cars where they are not allowed. Might we find a loaded concealed weapon or two in their vehicles as well?
The NPS could restrict cars from every park and I wouldn't care, as long as some provision for access was available to visitors. In fact, from a resource protection perspective a ban on personal motorized vehicles might be a very good thing.
You see Frank, I put my trust in the decision makers of the NPS when I feel they are making decisions consistent with their mission. And I, like you, voice my concerns when I think the rules are unnecessary or restrictive in some way. But I balance my personal rights against the greater mission and needs of the greater good when making those personal choices.
Large organizations, private and public, do not threaten me. Rules that might restrict my actions in some way do not automatically make the rule makers tyrants in my eyes. But that's just how I personally view the world.
Why, if I am opposed to carrying loaded personal weapons in National Parks, am I anti-Second Amendment?
When it comes right down to the nitty gritty Frank, I am not anti anything. Sure, I do enjoy the debating aspect of an issue like this. But will I ever personally own and carry a loaded hand gun? Probably not. Do I really care if you do? No.
I just don't feel the need to question the NPS on it's ban on personal firearms because I can see the larger picture and respect the decision making process they used when making the decision.
In relation to interpreting The Bill of Rights and The Constitution I believe that contemporary circumstances and needs must be part of the discussion and decision making process. I do not think our founding fathers expected interpretation of these great documents to forever remain within a 19th century perspective.
But the debate will forever be muddled by that nasty little prefatory clause at the beginning of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
I get confused by this statement, because individual visitors carrying their own personal loaded weapons, wherever and whenever they please, looks to me like thousands of one-person militias marching around all over the place in search of a tyrant to battle.
Is your intent that they will all get together and create one big militia inside the Parks? Why is the militia meeting in a National Park? I just don't understand...
The NPS wisely stays away from this muddy debate as well, focusing on the resource protection aspect of the issue which the DOI and the Bush administration chose to ignore when writing the rule. And there is no denying that the administration chose this course of action in a last ditch effort to appease the NRA and other organizations that could possibly increase the Republican vote in the next election.
Again I am asking: will someone that supports this new rule please tell me why they are not happy with the Bush administration for waiting until the final hour to publish this rule? Why does no one find this suspect?
To me the silence on this question smacks of the naughty boy in the back of the class, shooting spitballs, but getting away with it because the teacher never catches him. But that's just me.
Capt:
The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
militia: noun
- a military force that is raised form the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
- a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
- all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
SO... personal arms are necessary in the event that a civilian militia is needed to SUPPLEMENT a REGULAR ARMY in an EMERGENCY,
OR... personal arms are necessary if the INTENT is to gather and create TERRORIST opposition to an ARMY,
OR... personal arms may be seen as a definer of the able-bodied, READY FOR MILITARY SERVICE if called,
AND... the government needs us to use our personal Arms.
In the framework of the Amendment itself, our right to keep and bear Arms is given IN THE EVENT that a civilian militia becomes necessary. It DOES NOT provide us the right to form our own individual one-man militias, always at the ready for any perceived threat to our own PERSONAL safety.
Every definition of the word "militia" within the framework of the way the Second Amendment is worded relates specifically to assisting an established Army. When have you EVER in all your visits to a National Park been called upon to, on the spot, defend the State, i.e. The United States of America, against an army invading the park you are visiting at the time? For that matter, when ever in your life have you ever been called upon to use your personal Arms to, on the spot, defend your country?
How, in any way, does the Second Amendment, and the dictionary definition of the word "militia", give us the right to carry our loaded Arms wherever we please? IT DOES NOT.
The Second Amendment does not refer to 21st century fears of two-legged predators lurking behind every tree and boulder, waiting to give us an opportunity to defend ourselves against attacks on our PERSONAL safety. It refers to our ability to assist the established Army if called upon to do so.
I do not know if this argument has already been brought up, either here or in another post, and I apologize if it has, but I fear that this policy change may result in an increased risk to the average person. I am not saying that every Park visitor is now going to be carrying a gun, but I would think it is safe to assume that the incidence is going to go up; and with that perceived increase in a sense of security, we will see an increased amount of visitors venturing into the backcountry, many of whom don't have any right being there, because of either a lack of basic backcountry knowledge or skill.
Now before I get hammered for being some kind of rugged elitist, I want to state that I count myself in the aforementioned group of people that shouldn't be out there. I'm very 'Bear Aware', but have no practical experience, and I know my limits. But anymore it seems that I'm in the minority in that regards. I fear that people will view their firearms as a tool to keep themselves out of harms way, much like many do with their cell phones (a topic for another post), and put themselves into situations where they shouldn't have been in the first place.
I will admit that a gun would help protect the wielder from many a small or mid-sized animal that one would happen to run afoul of while hiking/camping, due to any number of reasons. But these small or mid-sized animals don't really pose much of a threat to people. When startled, if not cornered, they will run the other way. It's the larger animals that you need to be concerned with, such as a black/brown bear or mountain lion. And since I'm talking about the average person, who would most likely not be carrying a high powered rifle or comparable weapon, but something smaller that would not pack the requisite stopping power, I feel that they will have unnecessarily put themselves in harms way. I'll let you figure out how the confrontation would end.
All that being said, I'm as tired as the next guy of the federal government continuously interceding and limiting the number of ways that we can hurt ourselves. I grew up with way less legislative restriction and regulation and I turned out just fine. But I can't see any reason to have changed the old law in this case, of having the firearm separated and cased. If you wanted or needed your firearm, you still had it at your disposal. But that's it too. When visiting a National Park you shouldn't need a firearm to begin with. If you don't have the background, then you stay in the frontcountry and you'll be fine. If you have the know-how and venture into the backcountry, then again you should be fine.
Maybe you will find this as too simplified view, but this is a simple world that we live in. That is until politics and political views get in the way. Or at least it should be.
Warren Z said, "Again I am asking: will someone that supports this new rule please tell me why they are not happy with the Bush administration for waiting until the final hour to publish this rule?"
Actually, this rule change has been a LONG time coming, and it is LONG overdue. There has been a LOT of foot-dragging. I quote this tiny tidbit of information. Please note the date (2003):
"Starting in 2003, NRA staff began meeting with officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior to change this regulation and allow state law to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges -- as it does in national forests and on BLM lands."
Warren Z
Where in what I posted above did I even slightly refer to the Second Amendment ? Or to any Law written by the hand of Man ?
I wrote only of inherent inalienable rights granted at birth by the Natural Laws of Life.
To a trained person the elbow or heel of the palm can be just as deadly as any fire arm made. Keep in mind there is only ONE level of dead. Shall we outlaw Elbows ? Hands ? Feet ? Knuckles ?
I do not use or need any legal writings or hocus pocus to justify my carrying Any Means of self defense that I so chose. If I chose to defend myself with an all metal ball point pen in my hand, a Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol or with the jawbone of an Ass then that is my choice isn't it ?
How does my choice of defense tool even touch your life at all ?
Where did you get the idea that you have all the answers and that we should all believe the way you think is correct ?
When did the Bill of Rights become a listing of Rights allowed by Government rather than the listing of restrictions ON Government that it was written to be ?
I do not need the Second Amendment to hide behind. I Will defend my life as I see fit your opinions and laws notwithstanding.
Take some Personal Responsibility, Sirrah.
Toothdoctor makes an excellent point above on the risks of relying on a handgun for defense against a bear attack - although the risk of such attacks is extremely rare. I commend toothdoctor's excellent analysis of the "wildlife threat" and a proper response.
This point is so important to the safety of anyone visiting parks in bear country that I'll repeat below information I posted on a separate thread on Traveler on the subject of guns. (I'll ask for the indulgence of any of you who have read the other thread as well.)
If you're really concerned about a bear attack, here are two suggestions: (1) educate yourself about proper outdoor behavior to avoid most problems with bears in the first place; (2) keep your handgun in a safe place and carry and know how to use bear pepper spray for the rare cases when defensive measures are needed.
An excellent summary of the subject is found in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service article, "Bear Spray vs. Bullets - Which Offers Better Protection?" The full text is found at this link, but here's an excerpt:
If this rule change for guns holds up, it would be both tragic and ironic if it leads to people being killed or injured in an extremely rare bear attack, simply because they used a handgun in a situation where it is not the safe or appropriate response.
I realize I won't change the minds of people who are concerned about all those supposed "2-legged" predators in parks, but I sincerely hope those who are determined to carry a weapon will educate themselves about the proper response to a bear attack. Those concealable handguns are not the best answer in those cases!
How many people carry a concealed weapons permit? I can't quote that statistic but I am sure some better informed blogger than me can. That's who we are talking about. It is a very small percentage of the population. Those who illegally carry weapons into a national park will continue to do so, just as they have always done. Now, a small fraction of the population can legally carry a weapon into the park. Those with permits are not the ones assaulting park rangers. And, as quoted in Kurt's article, U.S. Park rangers are some of the most assaulted federal law enforcement officers in the country. If someone is brazen enough to assault a law enforcemnt official in a National Park, why do some of the bloggers pretend as though it couldn't happen to your average park visitor? Do you think concealed weapons permit holders are the ones assaulting park rangers?
From all of debate, one would think we are going to see throngs of armed park visitors. Let's keep it in perspective. Those with permits are trained, conscientious individuals issued a permit for a specific reason. And, as said earlier, those carrying concealed weapons carry them because of professional responsibilities and/or due to human threat. I seriously doubt many permits have been requested to protect against bear attacks in the back country. Nor do people bother to get concealed weapon permit to randomly and malicously shoot wildlife.
As far as the Bush administration actions go, why not now? He has a few weeks to take care of unfinished business. He needs to get some of it done.
I spent almost 20 years as a National Park Ranger in the Protection Division. I can not imagine going into a National Park Service Area and not having a firearm to protect myself and my family.
I have seen too much to believe that the Rangers can always be there to protect me and mine from the predators that are in the parks, both two and four legged....
For those who say that "Blood will Run in the Parks" it already is, just read the morning report...
.
I applaud the common sense ruling by Interior