Moving at a politically expedient speed, Interior Department officials are proposing to allow national park visitors to carry concealed weapons with them.
Whereas the National Park Service has been dragging its feet on endorsing Glacier National Park's decision not to allow a railroad to use explosives to control avalanche danger, Interior moved practically at light speed in proposing the gun language. Put up for limited review today, it will formally be published Wednesday in the Federal Register, barely two months after Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne decided to open up the regulations for possible recasting.
"This is truly changing the culture of the National Park Service in literally one stroke of a pen," says Kristen Brengel of The Wilderness Society.
The proposed regulation calls for a 60-day comment period, but there was no mention of plans for public hearings on the change. Interior Department officials were not immediately available to comment on the proposal.
The highly controversial change has been opposed by seven past Park Service directors, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the National Parks Conservation Association.
The coalition wasted no time in criticizing the proposed regulation.
"We think the proposed rule is manufactured and driven politically to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Data show that parks are among the safest places to be in this country. Moreover, we believe it will create more problems than it can possibly fix," said Bill Wade, who chairs the group's executive council. "It is likely to alter, over time, the friendly atmosphere visitors look forward to in parks, where they go to get away from the day to day pressures and influences of their everyday lives, including worry about guns.
"How many visitors want to be concerned about whether the person next to them during a ranger-guided walk, or that shares a backcountry campsite, has a concealed, loaded gun? Reliance on impulsive use of guns in the face of perceived threats or disputes, such as in campgrounds will increase the risk to visitors and employees," continued Mr. Wade. "Impulsive uses of guns in response to being startled by or by perceived threats from wildlife will increase the risks to wildlife and to visitors, such as from wounded wildlife or shots fired at wildlife, such as in campgrounds, that miss and connect with nearby campers.
"Administrative requirements related to this rule in parks will become complicated. Issues of reciprocity of authorities for guns between states will have to be sorted out. Decisions about how to keep guns out of administrative and concession buildings will involve signing, further cluttering the developed areas; and potentially even security screening. The existing regulation works just fine, and has for decades. This is a proposed rule that deserves to be shot down!
At The Wilderness Society, Ms. Brengel said the "argument for revising the regulation seemed poorly thought out and rather short."
"So, you can carry a gun as long as the state allows concealed weapons and the analogous state lands allow for possession," she said. "And this is supposed to clear up confusion? Or, is it supposed to create confusion?"
Indeed, there are a number of national parks that cross state boundaries. Yellowstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Death Valley, and the Blue Ridge Parkway come immediately to mind. The proposed regulation made no allowance for how rangers were to police the various gun laws in those parks.
While the proposed regulation said DOI officials were uncertain whether a review under the National Environmental Policy Act would be required, Ms. Brengel thought a thorough review was necessary.
"Rather than directly addressing potential harm to wildlife, the agencies didn’t even mention poaching, off-season hunting, and other possible problems with this proposal," she said. "The public deserves to know if Park Service professionals, not political appointees, think there will be impacts to cherished wildlife and hunting opportunities due to this change in the rules."
If the decision to make guns more available in national parks stands, it will be interesting to see not only how it impacts domestic visitation to the parks, but also international tourism in light of how many other countries view America's pervasive gun laws.
Somewhat curiously, in light of the building debate over how this change would impact national parks, comments on the proposed regulation are being directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose lands also would be open to concealed carry under this change.
A copy of the Federal Register notice is attached below. Comments are being directed to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.
Secretary Kempthorne's decision to consider concealed carry in national parks came in the wake of lobbying by the National Rifle Association, which got U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, to introduce legislation that would overturn the current regulations, which allow weapons to be transported through parks as long as they're broken down and stored out of easy reach.
Additionally, roughly half of the Senate's 100 members wrote to the Interior secretary asking him to reconsider the regulations.
Somewhat ironically, the current regulations were adopted by the Reagan administration. A much earlier version of the regulation was established in 1936 to prevent the poaching of wildlife, and was included in the Park Service’s first general regulations adopted after the creation of the agency in 1916.
In opposing a change, the seven former Park Service directors told Secretary Kempthorne in a letter that, "Informing visitors as they enter a park that their guns must be unloaded and stowed away puts them on notice that they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor’s enjoyment and the enjoyment of others."
"While most gun owners are indeed law-abiding citizens, failure to comply with this minimal requirement can be a signal to rangers that something is wrong," the letter continued. "Removing that simple point of reference would seriously impair park rangers’ ability to protect people and resources, and if necessary manage crowds."
Signing the letter were former NPS directors Ronald Walker (1973-75), Gary Everhardt (1975-1977), George Hartzog (1964-1972), James Ridenour (1989-1993), Roger Kennedy (1993-1997), Robert Stanton (1997-2001), and Fran Mainella (2001-2006).
Comments
Scotty, and all due respect to you as well! The NRA does have a hidden agenda that weasels right into the National Parks. Why be dumb about it and why then would seven past National Park Directors oppose the conceal weapons legislation? I have a gut feeling, that those who are in favor of carrying conceal handguns (weapons) into the National Parks have some affiliation with the NRA. Just a profound thought. I have seen enough gun violence in my lifetime, as former surgical tech, and as a former government park employee. I've witness a young police officer gun down in the line of duty (and murdered) in a botched up armed robbery case. Had a very close family friend of mine shot in the chest by his brother (at close range) and paralyzed from the waist down. I have seen gun violence from all spectrums of society with all types of personalities involved in this deadly mayhem...sane and insane! What I've seen from my own true experiences with the gun issues across the board, and I honestly can say this, I truly believe that gun violence will increase into the National Parks...if concealed handguns are allowed into the National Parks. No doubt about it and regardless how you look at the safety issue.
Scotty, in many of your arguments you're absolutely correct. The real point of contention seems to center around each individual's definition of the term "rights". Where do one person's rights terminate and how far do an individual's liberties extend? Many of us gun owners are responsible in firearms management. It is also an unfortunate fact that many are also less than responsible, which is how hundreds of children and spouses are killed and injured each year in their own homes, with legally owned/ registered weapons. But insofar as a rights issue is concerned, consider these circumstances:
A woman has been legally granted the "right to choose" whether or not to carry a life through a full-term pregnancy. But the life she chooses to discard, which by any and all definitions is a living entity seems to have no voice, either in the courts or with its "owner" / caretaker. An abortion is granted for whatever reason the mother deems adequate and neither the instrument of the procedure, the physician, nor the person who contracted the "hit", the mother, stand any prospect of retribution, at least in this world. HOWEVER, if during the course of a "criminal act", such as robbery, drunken driving, arson etc., a mother loses her child, the person responsible for causing the loss of life is charged with murder, two counts if both mother and child die. Why is the unborn's life weighed more heavily in that circumstance, even if the mother was intending to abort the pregnancy at some future juncture? Her decision is premeditated, which in legal terms shows intent to cause harm, but neither the doctor nor she cannot be charged with any criminal wrongdoing. In the other instance the death is accidental, but charges are brought as though there was intent on the part of the person causing the loss of life. Supreme example of the term “double standard” in my opinion.
In many states, smoking indoors has been banned in public places, such as restaurants and bars, casinos, sporting events, airports, washrooms, rental cars and many other places regularly traversed by the general public who wish not to be exposed to the inconvenience of cigarette smoke. In most cases, one cannot even smoke within a given distance from the entrance to a public facility, generally designated between 15 and 100' depending on the municipality. All well and good as defined. HOWEVER, in some states, if a person is on their own property, say in a garage, on a deck or patio, or standing next to the barbecue in their OWN yard, and their cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke is carried by the wind into their neighbor's yard, the neighbor can call the police and have the offender issued a citation, and a "cease and desist" order.
I'm not making a personal case for any of these circumstances, but my point is, how and where is the line drawn for where a person's rights terminate? It's one person's right to enjoy the freedom of carrying a gun, but it's just as much another person's right to wish not to be exposed to undue chances of harm from stray gunshots. Ask the victims of gang-related drive-by shootings who have lost friends and family members who just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which has even included being in ones own bed, sleeping. When is your behavior considered encroaching on the liberties of another? Some people are notoriously thin-skinned and demand maximum "personal space", which can get outright ridiculous at times, while others are more liberal in their "let's all try and get along" mentality. This issue polarizes the community, and unfortunately for all of us, neither side seems to be able to negotiate a reasonable middle ground. It's the "all or nothing, with all being the only acceptable compromise" attitude that tends to inflame the anti-gun proponents. That blame does indeed lie at the feet of the NRA, who seem to have the childish and completely unacceptable attitude of "any gun I want I can have", be it fully automatic, assault-style, rocket launcher, or pea shooter. There is no just cause for that type or armament EXCEPT by those who are active in military service, and no justification for personal usage of such weapons by the general public under ANY circumstance can ever be deemed acceptable. But that's the position they argue from, which is why so many of us, even gun owners, would prefer they point and shoot using their tonsils as a target. More and larger caliber guns simply does not equate to a safer society. If that were indeed the case we would be among the safest societies on planet Earth, with over 90 guns registered per 100 citizens in this nation, and Lord only knows how many unregistered weapons floating around. It's not the number of guns on the streets or in public places that are carried; it's the number of responsible people in society as a whole that's the root of the real issue.
Lone Hiker, excellent points and your arguments are well structured. It's always a pleasure to read your blogs.
One last item that requires clarification---
I'm there with you on the concealed carry permit in Chicago. There would be less shooting and armed robberies if there was a good chance the victim was carrying. The offender would think twice about pulling a gun on someone if he knows there is a good chance he will get shot. Besides, look at how well dictator Daley's law of no registered handguns in Chicago has done. Shootings and shooting related homicides are up!
Crime statistics published for the City of Chicago will verify that the overall crime rate, rates pertaining to violent crime and the murder rate for the city have been in a steady decline for well over a decade. It is unfortunate that the publicity of gang-related shootings and drive-by shootings are what garner the headlines. Some of this is directly related to the general public's bloodlust, but more to the point is that these incidents make good lead stories and headlines when the victims of these gun-toting idiots are innocent bystanders, and more specifically, innocent, non-gang member neighborhood children, whose only "crime" was being trapped living in an urban war zone. Let's not get all carried away with the lame old notion that "if the shooter knew the victim was carrying they would have thought twice or never pulled their weapon out in the first place". That statement is just pure nonsense, and has no basis in the reality of the urban gang mentality. These morons know full well that other gang members are packin'. If you, in your heart of hearts, honestly believe that the fear of immediate retribution, or future retaliation for that matter, serves as even the slightest deterent in preventing these incidents, then you must be living in the same La-La Land that others believe I inhabit.
That reminds me of what a very close old friend exclaimed when he was told he would then be shot back at,
"Finally, things are gettin' interesting!"
Some years ago, while fishing at a local lake that is in an "out of the way" rural area adjoining the city I live in, I was accosted by a group of drunken teenagers. These five punks had knives and clubs. If it had just been me, I might not have been so annoyed, or I might have just run away. However, I had my wife, 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son with me. After locking my family in our pickup, I stood there, confronting these hooligans, with just my bare hands. Luckily, a park ranger (armed) drove by and forced them away.
I had never felt the need for a gun before that day, but as soon as concealed carry was permitted in my state, I took the necessary classes to obtain one. I , to this day, do not routinely carry a gun, even though I am legally able. I only carry one when I am away from the mainstream of my urban life.
It is my opinion that those who feel threatened by a person carrying a handgun legally are totallly lacking the understanding of many of us who have a concern of the person carrying a weapon illegally, or with antisocial intent. You have nothing to fear from me unless you are threatening me or my loved ones. I will not accidentally shoot anyone, because I do not "play" with my tool for self-defense. I go to great lengths to make sure my weapon is both protected from accidental handling by someone else, and locked and in a safe posture at all times. Everyone of the people, that I know, who has a legal permit to carry shows the same concern for safety. We know only too well how quickly we could be on the wrong side of the law by misusing this privilege.
Those people who are most vocally against the legal carrying of handguns are so incrediblly insensitive to the realities of our world, it staggers me. I am not a violent or "John Wayne" type, but I do not feel I should be forced to subject myself to someone who has no social conscience. We are supposed to be living in a free country. How free are we when we must fear for our safety when just going fishing?
If you don't like guns, don't buy one and stay away from people who have them, if you know. Don't automatically assume that you are in danger because a responsible gun owner has one in your vicinity. You are probably safer.
Thanks Anonymous. I wish I had your skill with words. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said here. See you in the Parks.
No. You spray your buddy by mistake in a panic attack and are lunch for the bear.