You are here

Brady Campaign Sues Interior Department over Concealed Carry in National Parks

Share

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department over its plans to allow national park visitors to arm themselves. While the rule change is set to take effect January 9, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also seeks an injunction to prevent that from occurring.

The lawsuit (attached below) was not unexpected. Indeed, what was more of a question was which group would file it. In announcing the lawsuit, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke says the rule change would endanger national park visitors.

"The Bush Administration's last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law," said Mr. Helmke. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."

The lawsuit, which names as defendants Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, claims Interior officials violated several federal laws to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office. Specifically, it charges that Interior failed to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Brady Campaign also believes the rule violates the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.

Rules in place since the Reagan Administration have allowed visitors to transport guns in national parks and wildlife refuges if they are unloaded and stored or dismantled.

While proponents of the rule change have maintained park visitors' safety is at stake, statistics would seem to indicate otherwise, as crime data show the park system to be one of the safest places in the nation. In arguing to block the rule change, the Brady Campaign claims its members will be irreparably harmed because they "will no longer visit national park areas and refuges out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas. Moreover, those who do visit such areas will have their enjoyment of those areas profoundly diminished by the increased risk to safety created by this rule change."

Additionally, the lawsuit maintains -- citing Interior Department records -- that more than 125,000 comments were received on the proposed rule change, "and that many of these comments expressed opposition to a change in the existing rules."

"In support of their final rule, defendants summarily dismissed various comments that were raised in opposition to the rule change. Among other things, those comments stated that defendants should not rely on state law to manage firearms because Congress has given the federal government complete authority over federal lands," states the lawsuit. "They also pointed out that there is no reason to allow visitors to carry a loaded and concealed firearm for personal safety since national park areas and national wildlife refuges are among the safest areas in the United States.

"These comments also emphasized that parks and refuges are designed to be havens of peace and safety, and visitors who do not like guns will not be able to fully enjoy such areas if they know that another visitor in close proximity may be carrying a loaded and concealed firearm. Finally, these comments pointed out that the rule change will inhibit the ability of park and refuge managers to halt poaching of wildlife in such areas."

Since at least 1936 it has been clear that visitors are not allowed to carry weapons in national parks, unless that park allows hunting, of which there are relatively few. But under the rule change pushed through by the Bush administration, concealed carry in the parks would depend on myriad state laws, some of which carry quite a few nuances.

Jim Burnett, a commissioned law enforcement officer during much of his 30-year Park Service career, discovered the significant challenge that exists for sorting out all of those conflicting regulations. Here's a sampling of his findings:

The State of Wyoming Attorney General's website sums up this problem: "It is extremely important for all concealed firearm permit holders to be aware of the requirements and laws of all reciprocating states. The permit issued by your state does not supersede any other state’s laws or regulations. Legal conduct in your state may not be legal in the state you are visiting."

The State of Florida website on concealed weapons permits notes, "The Division of Licensing constantly monitors changing gun laws in other states and attempts to negotiate agreements as the laws in those states allow." Even if someone took time to sort out the concealed weapons laws of all the states he'd be visiting, some of those laws may have changed recently, so the process has to be repeated before every trip.

Here's only one example of the problem: Florida has reciprocal agreements to honor concealed weapons permits with only 32 of the 50 states. Visit the other 18 and you're out of luck, so don't forget to lock up your gun when you cross the state line. To make matters worse, Florida's official website notes seven different exceptions to those agreements, so even among the 32 states with agreements, guidelines vary. Are you a resident or non-resident? Are you over the age of 18 but under 21? Are you from Vermont, which doesn't even require a concealed weapons permit? (Sorry, you can't "carry" in Florida under the reciprocal agreement guidelines, since Florida can't "reciprocate" if a permit doesn't exist in the first place.) The list of exceptions goes on.

Making all this a bit more complicated are parks -- Yellowstone, Great Smoky, Death Valley, and the Blue Ridge Parkway just for example, as there are more -- that span more than one state. As a result, rangers will not only have to be schooled on those states' gun laws but also, presumably, carry a GPS unit so they know in which state they're in when they're in the backcountry so they'll know which set of laws to apply to armed backcountry travelers.

According to the Brady Campaign, numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.

"Experience in states that have allowed concealed carrying of firearms has shown that thousands of dangerous people are able to get licenses. In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime," says the group. "Since becoming the first state to allow the concealed carrying of firearms in 1987, Florida consistently has had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. Florida has been ranked as the state with the highest annual violent crime rate more often than any other state in the last two decades."

Comments

Concealed carry permit holders have been through a thorough background check and completed classes in gun safety and handling.

If only that were true in all states, sadly it is not. There are states that do not require a permit at all, and no vetting nor training is either required nor expected before the legal carry of a weapon. Just sayin'...


"The Bush Administration's last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law," said Mr. Helmke. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."

Seeing as people who don't have clean records can't get a concealed carry permit or legally own a firearm and that people who don't have a clean record and having a history of disregard for the law more than likely will disregard a ban on concealed carry as well who would a law banning concealed carry anywere make things safer for other than the guy who disregards the law? Who are these gun lovers? Most of these people visiting these parks are nature lovers and people who love their families likely visiting the parks with their families. I just don't understand why everyone wants to take away a non-felon's else's legal right? I mean, if you commit even so much as a misdemeanor of domestic violence you cannot lawfully own a firearm so that part is already taken care of. What in the world have I ever done to you concerning a firearm? The legal right is there? Why do you want to take it away? If someone postures, threatens, and shoots without being confronted with the danger of life or limb they lose their gun rights. Easy as that, now what do we do about the people who don't care about the law? That's a tough one. Can we do like the Brady Campaign does and file a lawsuit? If I or a family member become a victim of violence because the law was followed on our side of things and were left without the means to protection to include local law enforcement should we just sue both the state, police, and in some cases such as this the federal government?


The law abiding citizens that have concealed carry permits have gone through a rigirous process to obtain that permit and carry a gun to protect themselves and others from the criminal who will carry a concealed gun or knife whether or not it is legal. The people who carry guns legally don't carry them to "posture, threaten and shoot at each" that is just ignorance. We also are "sane, law-abiding, tax-paying, nature-loving citizens who also prefer to keep our national parks among the safest places on the planet" just like those who choose not to carry a gun.


I think a more realistic way of saying it is:

How sad that criminals exist. But they do exist. Thank Goodness that reasonable, intellegent, honest, law-abiding citizens have their God-given right to self protection guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights. But how sad that so many fools would gladly give up not only their individual rights to self protection, but also plot to take these rights away from the sensible people as well.


We were planning a trip to Big Bend National park in Texas, which borders Mexico. One of the things it says right on the NATIONAL PARK website:

"Visitors should be aware that drug smuggling routes pass through the park. If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene. Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible." -- http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/border_travel.htm

I'm excited about the Brady Campaign because they will make it illegal for drug smugglers to carry guns through the national park, which means everyone in Big Bend should be safe. I guess there's going to be some bins or something at the border where the smugglers can deposit their guns. And after they make gun laws maybe the Brady Campaign could focus on some illegal drug laws too, maybe setup some more bins at the border for the runners to drop off their pot and cocaine.

But until then, I'm headed out to Big Bend to enjoy nature and I'll be carrying a concealed handgun with me in case one of the "safest places in the nation" ends up being not so safe. And the best part is, you'll never know, because it's concealed :)


Dave -

Despite your stated intentions, I still hope you'll follow the park's excellent advice:

If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene.

Therein lies one of the possible pitfalls for people carrying concealed weapons. I believe you'll be hard-pressed to find many cases of visitors actually observing some of that drug smuggling activity - and cases of visitors being threatened by such activity at Big Bend are even rarer (if they exist at all.) However, a guaranteed way to make any such encounter worse is for an untrained citizen to pull out his concealed handgun.

I understand your point is to be able to use your concealed weapon in self-defense, but drug runners in remote locations aren't looking for a fight, and the last thing they want to do is attract attention to themselves by accosting park visitors. Follow the park's advice, stay out of the middle of such situations, and pass the information along as soon as possible.


Another bumbling butt-headed mistake by a ANTI-Self defense group. The Brady Campaign against gun violence is a joke. They might as well change their name to The Brady Campaign for Criminal Protection. Anyone who's going to do anything 'Bad' with a gun isn't going 2 give a crap about the laws. I would not visit areas where wild animals live with out a trusty sidearm to defend myself, not to mention there are so few law enforcement officers in our nations parks that calling 911 would only give then a heads up as to where to find your body if you were being attacked. Some people need to stop living in lala land and realize that the person who is most responsible for their-own safety is themselves and that every citizen who can be legally armed should be at all times in order to take back this country from criminals who prey on the defenseless (those who don't carry a gun). This suit is a waste of money and time.

Editor's note: This comment was edited to conform with the Traveler's code of conduct.


Gee, 2nd amendment, I can be legally armed but choose not to. Does that make me unpatriotic or soft on crime? I notice that anon above says that the second amendment is somehow connected to God so I must be unreligious, also. And, to top it all, I am defenseless. Think I will go eat a worm.

Rick Smith


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.