Kirk--

That's a tired argument: "guns don't kill people, people kill people." True enough, but people with guns kill more people than people without guns. The people who are arguing against concealed weapons in parks are making the same point that most police unions do: the more guns there are, the more likely that accidents and incidents are going to occur. I don't care whether you or cut and dried carry in your home town; I just don't want you to carry in Carlsbad or Big Bend or wherever else in the National Park System. That seems simple enough.

Rick Smith

I believe that our National parks are the greatest resource in America. I am also a gun owner and support concealed carry in general. But with regard to this issue, it is important to look at the MISSION of the parks and the initial and longstanding reason for the the ban on LOADED guns in parks.
The mission of the Park Service is:
"to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the WILDLIFE therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
The point of the loaded gun ban was to protect wildlife, and just because you and I wouldn't take pot shots at critters doesn't mean that it won't happen. It already happens all the time. Crime rates against park visitors are exceptionally low, and violence in National Parks is generally very low except along our southern border. However, NPS rangers are frequently assaulted because they are outnumbered. There is also the fact that many people like to use National Parks as their own peaceful place to kill themselves.
So while I can see the value in the strategic victroy for the NRA, and I can see why people think they should be able to carry "in the woods", I think that the longstanding law works quite well the way it is.
p.s. I wish my fellow second amendment supporters would be as supportive of conservation of wildlife and protection of public lands... TRoosevelt would be ashamed.

Captain Kirk (sorry about picking a user name so close to yours...I didn't realize there was another)
You quoted:

"to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the WILDLIFE therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

There is nothing in that mission statement that would justify banning firearms in national parks. You make the arguement that if there are weapons in the parks that the wildlife will be put in danger. There are laws on the books that outlaw poaching so if someone "takes pot shots" at the wildlife they are in voilation of the law and are subject to prosecution...and I will be the first to turn that person in! Archery gear is also able to kill animals (silently!)...is archery gear outlawed, spears? I live in Alaska and when I go out in the woods (which is quite often...however not necessairly always in the national parks) I ALWAYS carry a firearm...ALWAYS! and it's usually a high caliber rifle over my shoulder. I don't do this so I can take pot shots at the wildlife, I do it in case I am forced into a situation to protect my person or property. I am an avid hunter and have had a freezer full of game meat for the last 20 years. I hunt legally and make every effort to preserve that game until hunting season. Some of you folks are putting the well-being of the wildlife over my right to defend myself. Every year I pay for those national parks and I have a right to use them as long as I don't abuse them and as long as I obey the laws of the land. If I am out in the woods in an area where I am considered food by the wildlife you can bet your ass that I will have something that levels the playing field (national park or not). I may have a different opinion if I was in yosemite (or similar) where all the predatory wildlife is more focused on dumpster diving and begging along the roadways but, to date, the national parks in alaska are the real deal and when a grizzly is heading in your direction he ain't looking for your bag of cheetos.

In response to "Roosevelt would be ashamed" please take note of what I wrote above, and copied here...

It was the park service that buried a D9 Cat and a couple hundred barrels of fuel in our national park, not the gun owners.
Some stewards! And it wasn't the gun owners that ran natives off their land and claimed it. They'd been there for 4000
years, before the bears were. (considering the end of the last ice age and natural geological changes which changed
the land from a game migration route to a salmon filled river.) That was natural, bear management by the natives.
The bears didn't come until the parkies stole their land some 50 plus years ago. It's a wall-less unnatural zoo now.
I have a hard time respecting the "stewards".
(I'm not positive about the exact type of heavy equipment buried but it was buried.)

My right to conceal carry in Alaska shouldn't be checked at the gate because of (deleted) thousands of miles away.
You guys in the lower 48 can do what ever you want with this issue under state laws governing guns.
Just don't impose it on us. (Alaskans)

And, in response to Rick Smith. Sorry, I don't consider my constitutional rights and my attempt to keep them as a "tired old arguement". I've got some statistics here as published by the US Census Bureau. These are annual figures for deaths in the US
Motor vehicle--43649
Falls--14986
Poisoning--9510
Fire--3741
Drowning--3488
Choking --3206
Medical complications--2929
Firearms--1134
Aircraft -- 1061
RIFLE --947
Boating--675
Train --565
Electricity -- 482
PISTOL -- 187

Of the 1134 accidential deaths as a result of firearms the number of deaths as a result of a pistol are 187 so I added the rifle and pistol numbers (in caps) to the census list above. The list clearly shows that a person is three times more likely being killed by electricity than they are by an accidental shooting from a pistol.
According to the USGS there were 226 bear attacks in alaska in the last 10 years and that number is rising.
And, according to CDC, there are on average 82 ligheninig fatatalities each year with a 53 to 100 range. So, you should be able to see that accidental deaths from pistols are substantially less than your chance of getting hit by a train and just slightly more than your chance of getting killed by lighetning.
It seems to me that if you were going to be a champion to reduce the number of accidental deaths in the US, you would get a bigger bang for your buck by advocating life jackets for everybody in a boat, or spreading the word about the benefits of a function smoke detector and/or fire sprinklers...etc. You or your family member is 233 times more likely to die in a car than they are with a handgun. You don't like guns...that's fine, I won't make you own one. I like guns and I would hope that you won't infringe on my right to own one or protect myself and my family with one. If there is a tired arguement here it's the notion that accidential gun deaths are a plague in the US.

Cut and Dry, could you please be more specific about where the D9 Cat and "hundreds of barrels of fuel" were buried? Are they still in place? I am just curious, because the story has a familiar ring. Insofar as running off Natives, are you by chance referring to Katmai? As I recall, most Natives relocated from what is now Katmai following the eruption of Novarupta. The monument was created afterward by presidential proclamation. The Park Service does not have the power to unilaterally create park units. That power resides only with the president and Congress. Katmai is a complex mix of land classifications with differing regulations. Brooks River is part of the old monument with more traditional national park regulations. The northern preserve is open to sport hunting, so the regulations tend to be more liberal in regard to firearms. Neither sport or subsistence hunting is legal in the ANILCA created park (not preserve) lands added to the periphery of the old monument. Then there are private inholdings within the park that are not subject to park regulations. The mix of land classification also includes the ocean tidelands below mean high tide that have special status.

Alaska is unquestionably a special place. However, the national parks are, first and foremost, national. They belong to all Americans and must be managed accordingly. If you visited a national park in California or Wyoming you would be expected to abide by park rules and regulations. The same holds true in Alaska. If you are uncertain as to a particular park's rules relating to firearms, please contact the office of the park or the National Park Service in Anchorage for more information.

Sorry Mr. Bane but I'd rather stay anonymous.
The garbage is still buried where it was unless it was removed this last winter
which I highly doubt. I know personally the guy that put it there under park
service direction.
Good reply. I appreciate your level headed and knowledgeable reply but I won't
comment further.

I don't understand the fuss about carrying a concealed weapon in a park. What is the difference between carrying a weapon in public (which someone can legally do with a permit) and carrying a weapon in a park. Are parks not a public place as well? When I got my permit there was a background check, fingerprinting, and an explaination of the laws that applied in my state. Through this process the state was basically confirming that I am an upstanding citizen with no history of committing violent crimes. Therefore, if I am allowed to carry a firearm while standing next to you in the grocery store line, then why would it be illegal for me to walk beside you on a park trail doing the same? If anyone would have a problem with either scenerio then I would say they don't have a problem with carry weapons in national parks--- they have a problem with the 2nd ammendment.