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
No, we have to keep the Bubba Burpwads of the world firearm-free in National parks. Think 100 beer-swiggin, gun-toting, triggerhappy Cheney's misfiring at campers. And little kids vacations ruined by wildlife in the death throes of agony.
Mr. Kane makes some excellent points regarding areas the anti-gun groups have used to counter concealed carry in our national parks. While DVP makes an effort to excuse or perhaps more accurately, explain why the NPS handed off such crimes to other authorities, this was not the point Mr. Kane was making. The fact that the NPS did not investigate these crimes was not in question, the point of concern was the fact that they falsely represented the actual crime rates by presenting their stats as accurate representations of total crimes committed rather than a small percentage of such crimes.
As for Mr. Burnett, I must agree with Mr. Kane's assessment of his position. It is obvious that he has a agenda and tries to support that agenda at every turn. While I support everyone’s right to an opinion and to work toward securing that position in the political arena, I do not approve of anyone using position or title in an attempt to lend creditability to skewed facts in order to sway such outcomes. In the numerous posts above, all those claiming NPS affiliation of some sort have continuously quoted these same stats and flawed studies as evidence against the need for concealed carry in parks. Now that someone has clearly pointed out the truth about these claims, suddenly these same people are on the defensive, trying to change the point by explaining "why the NPS was justified in handing off these cases" rather than addressing the point that the NPS misrepresented the statistics in the first place.
I too have lost a lot of faith in the NPS and those groups that have joined in this sad attempt to mislead the public and congress in order to gain a personal victory over the will of the people.
Just like the Brady Coalition, these groups know the facts and statistics do not support their position and that the only way to win their argument is to mislead and skew the facts. This says they are not interested in public safety, rather a personal agenda. This is a sad situation when the group is someone like members of the NPS who have a long standing reputation of being good, honest individuals. I really think these groups have given the NPS as a whole a black eye that will be long in healing.
As many have already pointed out, these claims of blood in the street and drastic increases in crime and accidental shootings are the same rhetoric that has been spewed every time a pro carry bill has passed around the nation and to date it has never come to pass. The actual statistics show that CHL holders are among the safest in the nation, equaling or rivaling that of law enforcement. Likewise, the claims that the new bill's allowance of non-CHL holders to carry long guns in the parks poses a threat, well if it has not done so outside the parks there is no reason to believe it will do so inside the parks.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of the people of this country want this bill and it is not the right of the few to prevent that. It is now law and the will of the people has been achieved, despite the misrepresentation of fact by the small special interest groups. Now it is time for these groups to work on repairing the damage they have caused to the image of the NPS and themselves.
Why do you need a loaded gun in a National Park?
Why do you need to bring a loaded gun to enjoy our National Parks?
Sam -
You're welcome to decide which stats are more credible. I have no way of evaluating the validity of Mr. Kane's claims, including a key source called the eggman.com, or its statement about the unspecified number of cases that were handed off by the NPS to other agencies. Does that site or Mr. Kane have "an agenda" to prove a point?
How many serious criminal cases in parks were handed off to other agencies and therefore "not counted" in NPS stats? Mr. Kane implies the number is large, but doesn't cite any data to support that. I'd also have to wonder why he's hanging his hat on 1996 data. I can only say that in my own experience during 30 years in 8 parks, the number of cases in parks that were worked by other agencies was very small. I can't accurately extrapolate that experience to all parks in the system, but I suspect that neither can Mr. Kane.
I'm a bit amused by the claims that the NPS intentionally misleads people by understating the number of crimes which occur in parks - especially back in 1996, when the gun issue was hardly an issue at all. The federal budget process is largely driven by the bean-counter mentality, which means it would be to the NPS' advantage to "claim" as many crimes as possible, in order to justify additional dollars and personnel, rather than understating them. For better or worse, that's the reality of how agencies justify budgets.
Raw statistics on crimes occurring in parks, whether you choose to use those provided by the NPS or by Mr. Kane, become much more useful when they have some context. What do those numbers really mean in terms of risks from criminal activity actually faced by park visitors?
My comments are simply an attempt, based on my personal experience, to provide some of that perspective. I'm yet to see any credible evidence that suggests I'm wrong in stating that the risk of a law-abiding visitor becoming the victim of a violent crime in a national park is extremely small indeed – and even smaller than suggested by merely looking at the total number of crimes reported servicewide.
So anti gun people are at it again? Listen you fools, you assume that "responsible" people will be the ones that carry guns. WRONG! NO ONE needs a gun in a National Park or State Park. I am a big supporter of the Constitution but until ya all come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of the meek, scared, people, there is no way I want guns in parks. Use your common sense and stop with the chest beating NRA crap. The NRA is totally irresponsible on gun use and fight any and all legislation on gun safety. Some people use them to act big and I have been around these kinds and to boot they were drunk and shooting up everything while my small children were there. My husband almost took this idiot apart as he carries guns every place and not just one. Common sense. We don't need guns in our parks as now animals will definitely be murdered by chickens playing big man or woman.
Back to rebut Rick T. There is no requirement of need in order to exercise a right. It is my right to have and carry an firearm by the 2A. The need is irrelelevant. I do not have to justify my need to any equipment I bring when I visit any location including a National Park. That is what it means to be free citizen of America.
The votes in both the House and Senate were overwhelming in favor. Next year I will plan a horse riding trip and be able to carry if I choose. I will not be a victim to any predator, human or animal. No one has the right to demand that of me. Yet those who puposedly want to disarm me be are choosing that I have no right to live if attacked.
So, No I do not have to state a need, Rick T. You have to abide by my civil rights next February 2010.
Those of us who believe in the Constitution and are determined to regain our rights won this battle. If the control freaks had not pushed it and stopped the regulation change this would have stayed at only allowing CCW holders to carry in National Parks. Now they have to allow open carry also and any firearm, pistol or longarms according to state law. That is a lot of states that allow CC and OC.
Now I do not expect many will do this, but the vehement control attitude on the anti gunners will certainly have groups who plan OC trips in the National Parks jsut because they can. Just like many have picnics in state parks already. Guess what, the guns do not jump out of holsters and shoot people or animals.
So if those who will be uncomfortable and there will be those wil have to accept due to the intrangicence of NCPA. People would have been more polite but I expect that in your face attitude will be more common.
I doubt the story of greenriver kate but if someone is flashing a gun and shooting then I expect tht rangers to arrest the idiot. At least if he threatened me I will be able to defend myself.
The only way that a bad man with a gun is stopped is by a good man with a gun. That may be police or a armed citizen.