The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees sees no need to change gun laws in the national parks, saying that allowing the public to carry weapons in the parks could jeopardize the safety of visitors.
Last month, you might recall, the Traveler pointed to an effort by nearly half the U.S. Senate to allow concealed weapons to be carried in the parks. Current Park Service policy allows permitted weapons to be transported through the parks, but they must be unloaded and stored so as they're not readily accessible.
Forty-seven senators, led by Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, don't think that's good enough. He says varying gun laws on federal lands can be confusing to gun holders. (The New York Times pointed out, though, that if gun holders are confused, perhaps they shouldn't be permitted to carry guns.)
In a letter to Representative Nick Rahall, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, the coalition asked that if legislation proposing a change in the current regulations reaches his committee, that it not gain favorable consideration.
We believe that to change these regulations so that visitors might wear or keep firearms close at hand in national parks - guided by differing state laws -could significantly increase the danger to visitors in national parks. Equally worrisome is that such a practice would almost certainly put wildlife in many parks at greater risk, wrote the coalition. Poaching would become easier. And visitors who believe that carrying a firearm provides them with extra “security” and the authority to shoot animals would be far more likely to use deadly force whenever they feel the slightest threat. Information gathered by State and Federal wildlife management organizations throughout the country overwhelmingly indicates that both people and wildlife are safer when guns are not the first choice when people feel threatened.
Comments
I think it is obvious that the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is implying that they know better than the rest of us concerning the impact of concealed carry in National Parks when they joined the Brady Campaign to sue the government for allowing concealed weapons on federal parks. Indeed, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees makes only vague references to environmental impact and human safety, but they haven't produced any studies. As a former law enforcement officer, I can attest with confidence that armed citizens are safer and more responsible than those who would deny them their right to bear arms, I could also suggest that the leadership of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees review the statistics in the National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics if they have concerns about law abiding armed citizens on public property and around animals. Illegal users of firearms and criminal behavior against persons and property in National Parks is nothing new and should be the only issue here, that is why law abiding citizens should be able to readily defend themselves. Perhaps addressing the issue of crime should be a greater concern of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, than pushing a non-scientific political agenda.
Why should our 2nd Amendment rights suddenly be stripped once we step foot into a national park? I wish everyone entering the national parks was highly trained in the use of personal protection firearms and had passed FBI background checks. Then, I wish it was well known that qualified people were legally carrying guns in national parks. I am being serious. That would deter criminals from preying on people because they would have to assume everyone was armed.
Thanks for reading.
Bill
This debate will always be just that, a debate. If you do not want to carry a weapon for self defense, don't carry one. But don't deny me the ability to protect myself. I am retired and travel with my wife in many national parks during the year. I have never feared wildlife, only respected it. However, people are another problem. One individual mentioned a 'war zone'...well, he's kind of right. Many people in this country do not have the same values as Americans once had 40 years ago. Forty years ago, I would of never feared people anywhere I went. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold true today. I believe in being a good boyscout and being prepared. I probably have more training in firearms then any park ranger and have a concealed weapon permit. But why would you fear me? I am not the problem, but could be the solution if a threatening criminal came into our campground. But you'll never know I'm armed, I'll be the gray haired guy at the campfire showing off pictures of his grandchildren, not his firearm. Please don't get jerk knee over this new regulation, I saw the same thing when states went to concealed carry and it never became the problem the naysayers said it would.
Do the Park rangers own the National Parks ?, would banning guns from National parks stop criminals from bringing Guns into the Parks ?, Should Park Rangers be allowed to carry firearms ?.
You need to ask yourself these questions before you jump on the Ban Firearms band wagon.
The truth is, as I'm sure you will someday find out, is that no Firearms banswill stop firearms in the National Parks if criminal intends on using one.
If you want to ban Firearms than I would agree if National Park Workers were also banned from having Firearms, after all why do they need them ?.
I agree with your statement 100%, I have carried a Firearm for almost 40 years and have never used it in a crime, but I have used it to save a Woman from being Raped, an LEO that made an arrest on an individual by himself that was overpowered and subdued because the criminal was bigger and armed with a Kitchen Knife.
The truth is people have far to many unfounded fears of people that are legal carriers of Firearms and fearing them is akin to fearing someone of another Race because they don't know them. Oh and for those that are scared of Guns, please look at the latest FBI study, their study clearly shows you are 3 times more likely to die from a simple Medical procedure than a Firearm, so maybe we should ban surgery ?.
BTW, The reason I'm armed is because it takes almost 15 minutes for the Police to come when you call them, while it only takes 1 second for a criminal to kill me.
So, it's been just over two years since the new law has been in effect for our national parks. Have the "killing spree's" that were predicted happened? I’d like to see the statistics but am unable to find them online.
QUOTE
[color=#800080]http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-park-retirees-caution-that-visitors-to-americas-national-parks-are-likely-to-see-more-guns-84022602.html[/color]
Members of CNPSR strongly opposed this new law for several reasons:
1) More guns in national parks increase the likelihood of shooting at wildlife and some historic resources, such as prehistoric petroglyphs.
2) More guns in parks increases the risk to rangers.
3) More guns in parks increases the risk to visitors in places like campgrounds where disagreements, often fueled by alcohol, sometimes occur.
4) National parks have always been hospitable to visitors from around the world and are seen as "sanctuaries" where people could get away from the routines, threats and risks they face in their daily lives. But more guns will change those perceptions.
5) Until now, one regulation pertaining to firearms applied to all 392 areas in the National Park System. But now each of those areas will be subject to the laws of the state in which it lies. This is likely to lead to significant confusion by visitors traveling though parks in a number of states.
6) Federal buildings in parks will now have to be signed to prohibit firearms and conceivably security devices will need to be used.
END QUOTE
I would be willing to bet that overall crime against persons has dropped and crimes against wildlife has not increased.
Well - recently someone with a CCW permit just killed a 17-year old kid who was walking home from a convenience store. It doesn't give me the warm fuzzies thinking that people like that who probably dreamed of being able to use a weapon on a person (especially a F&&@#&g C**n as described in his 911 call) sometime in his life.
Any your evidence that the same thing wouldn't have happened if he didn't have a CCW?
"people like that who probably dreamed of being able to use a weapon on a
person (especially a F&&@#&g C**n as described in his 911
call) sometime in his life." don't need a CCW, or worry about gun laws in the first place.