Thanks to a brilliant tactical move, gun rights advocates are a step closer to arming themselves in national parks and national wildlife refuges across the country following a U.S. House of Representatives' vote on a credit card bill.
By attaching the gun legislation to the widely popular bill that would redefine the ground rules for credit card companies, Congress essentially made the firearms provision bulletproof. The House passed the measure, which earlier this week cleared the Senate, on a vote of 279-147 Wednesday, and sent it on to President Obama, who is expected to sign the legislation into law this weekend.
Condemnation of Congress's move came quickly from park advocacy groups.
Theresa Pierno, Executive Vice President, National Parks Conservation Association
“We are disappointed in the members of the House and Senate who allowed this amendment to pass, as well as in President Obama. By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association. This amendment had no hearing or review, and will increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures, and threats to park visitors and staff.”
“These are special protected places, where millions of American families and international visitors can view magnificent animals and majestic landscapes and experience our nation’s history, including sites where lives were lost to preserve our American ideals.
“The Reagan Administration’s regulation requiring simply requires that guns carried into these iconic places be unloaded and put away is a time-tested, limited and reasonable restriction to carry out an important and legitimate goal of protecting and respecting our national parks, monuments and battlefields. It is a tremendously sad day that it has been thrown out by political leaders from whom we expect more.”
Bill Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
“Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else.
"Legislators who voted for this amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources. Moreover, they've just contributed to diminishing the specialness of this country's National Park System. We hope the American people register their disappointment in the actions of these legislators.”
Scot McElveen, President, Association of National Park Rangers
“Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting.”
John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
“One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards? We are disappointed that Congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of our national parks. If signed by President Obama, this will clearly be a change in his rhetoric towards taking better care of our environment and protecting federal employees."
Comments
I wonder when the same logic that is now being used for concealed weapons will be extended to permit pets in the backcountry and on park trails?
Just think, the political influence of the NRA is nothing compared to a hundred million worried about the vacation rights of the furry members of their family. Some might argue that the underactive wildlife could use the presence of a few domesticated personal trainers.
I wonder how many potential park visitors don't go to parks because parks are not pet friendly? Maybe if State Parks and State Recreation Areas allow pets off the leash, so should National Parks?
This will raise threats to our employees significantly. When we consider the law and some of our units of the National Park Service some of us work in areas where open carry will be reported as a person with a gun and our staff will respond accordingly. Any time you have people pointing guns at each other, you raise the level for serious injury and or death. Visitors who choose to wear a weapon in the park based on state statute should make sure they are carrying it appropriately and that they are not brandishing it. For now I respectfullly reqeust NPS advocates do as much research as you can in all states and get that information to park service personnel as quick as possible. Information with the concealed carry came out slow and it was very confusing.
To answer Rangertoo , Why not? The point is that having a gun openly or concealed is not to be considered an indication of criminality. The person who uses a weapon to hurt, intimidate, steal has then comitted a criminal act. It is the people's criminal actions that are the problem, not they tool they use.
Now decent folks can be armed and defend themselves. So if a vistor is seeing the Liberty Bell they can be armed either open as PA law allows or conceealed. Philly had a different authrority under the law so those partcular laws may apply. Washington Monument goes under DC law at the moment and carry is not allowed so that will not change until DC law is changed. DC is still fighting the ruling to allow posession of guns in DC the carry portion has not been raised in court yet.
As to the appropiateness of gun carrying pulic in MLK home, well MLK carried a handgun most of the time. So does not seem inappropiate. I see no reason that those murdered should be sanctified that requires that others should be defencless also.
VT fought a change in the law that would have allowed students who had CCW to be allowed that priviledge on campus, When it got shot down. VT said now their staff and students could feel safe. A couple months later Cho shot over 50 people and killed over 30. The perception of saftey from a rule barring CCW did not provide that reality There were students on that building that had CCW permits and professors also that were capbale of defending themselves but did not have the means when a killer stalk the halls. Instead the other classerooms tried to barricade doors and jump put window or play dead an allow more bullets to be pumped into their bodies.
This change has not passed and Obama may not sign it. But more agree with my viewpoint than the antigun folks. That is reflected in the vote total in Senate and House
Re: Mr. Burnett
Under the previous regulations, there were at least some controls to reduce the immediate availability of loaded guns, including rifles and shotguns, in parks. The idiots who use firearms irresponsibly at least had to keep them out of sight. When they didn't, and when rangers spotted those weapons, they could take appropriate action without being forced to wait until shots were fired.
--
I have worked law enforcement for the NPS and in a city in a state that allows open carry of a firearm. The notion that a Ranger has to wait until shots are fired to take appropriate action is an inaccurate statement. Your statement opens the door to reader visualizing gangs of armed thugs waving guns around in our parks, and the Ranger waiting until shots are fired until he / she takes action. Any law enforcement officer worth his salt, can at most any time, find a legal violation that prompts law enforcement contact and further investigation.
In my experience, criminals generally don't like to highlight and draw attention to themselves to law enforcement or the general public. Criminals who bring weapons into parks after this bill is implemented, would have brought them into the parks before this bill was implemented. The difference now - law abiding park visitors have legal means to protect themselves.
Personally, I am still on the fence with this issue. I find this bill appropriate for some parks, and not for others - which logically does not hold water. Ultimately I side with the law abiding citizen having the opportunity to protect him/herself.
This isn't getting as much attention, but I think this rule also applies to national wildlife refuges. That may be more alarming. I just wish the pro-gun people would at least acknowledge for once that some people feel more safe with less guns around. Their argument should therefore be: "I know you feel less safe and you fear for the safety of yourself, wildlife, and other natural resources in national parks, and worry that some people are not responsible enough to carry firearms, be it legal or not, but I nonetheless feel that it's more important that I be able to carry my gun so that I can feel safe." That would at least be a more honest argument. Instead they just talk about their rights and how they're responsible. Likewise anti-gun people should acknowledge that some people can safely use firearms, maybe even the vast majority. But all I ever hear about is rights and fears about criminals lurking in national parks but no statistics or responses about crimes that could have been prevented by allowing gun-toting visitors.
This is completely nuts. It shows how far to the right the politics of this country has shifted that this kind of radical legislation can sail through the Congress with barely a whimper. However, it is revealing that the proponents of this legislation, led by ultra-reactionary Sen. Coburn, recognize that most American citizens would oppose it if it were exposed to the sunshine. So, they made sure there were no public hearings.
They knew that public hearings would show:
- The current regulations, put in place under the Reagan administration, have worked just fine.
- There is no evidence that there is any need to change the regulations.
- There are lots of reasons why this legislation is a really bad idea for wildlife, historic artifacts, visitors, and park staff.
- All responsible groups involved in parks, public lands, and conservation oppose the legislation.
- A long parade of respected citizens and organizations would line up to testify against this legislation.
Instead, we had the kind of back room dealing that was the hallmark of the Bush administration and Republican Congress. Except this bill is even more radical than the Bush regulations. It is clearly a gift to extreme gun advocates in the Republican base, enabled by spineless Democrats who are afraid to stand up for our parks against the gun lobby. I am totally disgusted.
Irony. The defenders of the anti carry bias from NCPA has resulted in a broader bill that allows carry for all not from people that have had their backgrounds checked . The intial rule change was an attempt to address the fears of the public about making sure that responsible people only would be allowed and that the weapon would be concealed so not to scaree the public. Now that is different.
It's all just so sad that so many people feel they must arm themselves to be safe. Worse is the visceral, emotional attachment to firearms. How did this country ever get into this mindset? If we feel we must be armed at all times the criminals have already won - they have caused us to fear and cower in our own homes, stores, and now parks. Somehow, lots of other advanced, prosperous, free countries manage to live peaceably and safely without being armed to the teeth. Why can's we?