Handguns to Be Allowed in National Parks?

"WTA has not taken a position on the rule change. But it could have the potential to affect your experience on national park trails, wherever you stand on the issue."

I would hope that WTA does NOT take a position on this. Why? If WTA does and it is anti-gun it will alienate a certain amount of WTA's strongest supporters.

Lawful citizens who choose to get a CPL in the first place (and this is what this is concerning) are already following the laws of the state and Fderal Govt. Do you realize that to have a CPL you have to go through a background check? That your fingerprints are on file with the FBI? People with CPL's are some of the safest with firearms - they don't want to lose their rights!

And this: you wouldn't even know that someone IS carrying if they are carrying concealed! It won't "affect" your hiking experience because you won't even know! Point is this: have you ever hiked with someone who chooses to carry? Do not let your own feelings affect an organization that represents the hikers of Wa.

My request is that the WTA does NOT get political here. If WTA does my husband and I will be very disappointed in the leaders for going down a slippery slope. Do what you do well: protecting trails. Let the citizens do what they want. Your job is not fight something that is legal nearly everywhere else in our state.

I for one am very comfortable with concealed carrying and have no qualms about it if the person has a CPL.

During a recent WTA work party, we shared an NPS bunk house with an Law Enforcement Ranger who was there for a recurrent training class. We discussed this proposed rule change. He shared some rather hairy experiences, intervening alone, many miles from backup, with drunken boaters celebrating July 4, in domestic disputes in Park campgrounds, in traffic stops on Park backroads, and when tracking poachers. He said the current ban on firearms in National Parks was one of his best enforcement tools. You can imagine the position he feels this proposal places him in... and he completely deserves our support.

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 all oppose this rule change. It is a purely political proposal by Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

However, I must agree with fellow WTA supporter Sarah that WTA should take no position on this issue. This issue predictably descends into a highly emotional political debate which can only be devisive and harmful to WTA. Let's express our differing views on politics outside of WTA, and join to concentrate on trails within WTA.


p.s. If WTA feels compelled to enter this fray, please consider my proposal: that only women be allowed to carry in our Parks. That would address most of the Rangers' enforcement concerns with drunken idiots and poachers, and most legitimate needs for personal protection. If a male hiker is all that scared of black bears or whatever, he should bring a woman along to protect him!

Rod Farlee posted this hearsay: "He said the current ban on firearms in National Parks was one of his best enforcement tools. You can imagine the position he feels this proposal places him in... and he completely deserves our support."

As the prior respondent noted, concealed weapon permit carriers are, as a class of people, the safest, most law-abiding that can be found. As she also noted, they have had their backgrounds checked, they have biometric information on file with law enforcement.

Mr. Farlee believes the issue is "bears". That is not the issue; the issue is two-legged predators.

Why do Rangers carry firearms? To protect themselves from two-legged criminals. Farlee's excerpt above unintendedly gets right to that point. The issue isn't unruly or criminal bears, it is unruly or criminal people, with nearly absolute guarantee that concealed permit carriers won't be in that party. Why should Park Rangers have special protection that Citizens do not? We aren't even talking ALL Citizens, but specifically those who have had the background check, who have provided their fingerprints, who have gone beyond the Natural Right of self-protection and submitted to government "approval" of that right.

Having additional law-abiding people in the National Parks, carrying their firearms will benefit everyone. Criminals will no longer have the assurance that their victims are disarmed by bureaucratic policy.

We used to be a nation that trusted its citizenry to be trustworthy and self-sufficient. Our founders observed that the final guarantee of safety from petty tyrants (called criminals) to organized tryants (also known as abusive governments) was from citizens assured their Natural Right to self-protection. That right is embodied in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our National Parks will be safer once that right and self-sufficient spirit is revitalized.

Hmm... if so, the National Association of Park Rangers, the U.S. Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Coalition of Park Service Retirees would support this proposal. Instead, they say "We are concerned that overturning this regulation would lead to increased crime rates in national parks", "would compromise the safe atmosphere that is valued by Americans when visiting national parks" and "would inhibit the ability of park rangers to halt poaching because brandishing a weapon would no longer be probable cause to initiate a search for evidence of wildlife parts."
http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm
http://www.rangerfop.com/guncomment.doc
http://www.npsretirees.org/[…]t-allow-guns-national-parks

Perhaps you too should talk to a Park Ranger about this issue? Convince them, you'd convince me, and perhaps most Americans.

Meanwhile, the National Park Conservation Association, other local Park support groups and all of the former Directors of the NPS support our Park Rangers.
http://www.npca.org/keep_parks_safe/

There are too few of them, spread too thin, to consider making their job any more difficult than it is already.

(And here in and near ONP, there are far too many reports of poaching of elk, eagles, salmon and even of a whale. Yes, all using firearms. And we're not talking legitimate hunting, but simple wanton murder for sport. I might hope you'd be willing to accept a limit on your "rights" in order to further the purpose for which our National Parks were founded in the first place?)

Sorry, but the self-serving citations from the bureaucracies that oppose a fundamental right have no bearing on the issue, they are merely bureaucratic excuses. These citations aren't even relevant to the issue of concealed carry by permit holders.

CONCEALED CARRY is by definition NOT BRANDISHING, that should be an exercise in simple English, but perhaps a visit to a dictionary is in order.

Why anyone would think that the Constitution should be suspended in National Parks is beyond rational. No one is "safer" when excuses are made for usurpation of rights.

Let's explore this for one moment:

Start of Quote----

Rod Farlee posted this hearsay: "He said the current ban on firearms in National Parks was one of his best enforcement tools. You can imagine the position he feels this proposal places him in... and he completely deserves our support."

As the prior respondent noted, concealed weapon permit carriers are, as a class of people, the safest, most law-abiding that can be found. As she also noted, they have had their backgrounds checked, they have biometric information on file with law enforcement."


--End of Quote

So, your rebuttal to "hearsay" is to turn around and commit the same sin? Please support that finding with statistic evidence. Wait. That's right, the Centers of Disease Control is prohibited from studying gun-related violence by law. I wonder why?

"Having additional law-abiding people in the National Parks, carrying their firearms will benefit everyone. Criminals will no longer have the assurance that their victims are disarmed by bureaucratic policy. "

Can you back this up with a study? I find this assertion difficult, if not impossible, to swallow at face value. I do agree that a gun, if needed, would be the best deterrent under certain circumstances.

"We used to be a nation that trusted its citizenry to be trustworthy and self-sufficient. Our founders observed that the final guarantee of safety from petty tyrants (called criminals) to organized tyrants (also known as abusive governments) was from citizens assured their Natural Right to self-protection. That right is embodied in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our National Parks will be safer once that right and self-sufficient spirit is revitalized."

Again, how does this make National Parks safer? Please explain. It may prevent a few attacks. It may cause other violence. It may be statistically inconsequential.

Dirk Rabdau claims to see “hypocrisy” but merely is capable of unquestioningly believing the original fallacy posted by Farlee. His complaint pretends to be that it isn’t properly documented that concealed carry permit holders are, as a class, much more law-abiding that the general population. It must be severely doubted that Rabdau would have a sufficiently open mind to look at the data, such as can be found in John Lott’s rigorously academically-reviewed book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Or able to consider the following points:

• Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
• Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
• Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licenses, and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
From http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

Rabdau then says, in a manner apparently supposed to be dripping with sarcasm, "Wait. That's right, the Centers of Disease Control is prohibited from studying gun-related violence by law. I wonder why?"

I wonder if Rabdau can possibly see the irony of his own unsupported statement above. Pot, meet kettle.

You will note that I have now provided two citations compared to zero for the anti-Bill-of-Rights duo. My error has been corrected, thank-you for the opportunity to correct that.

"Having additional law-abiding people in the National Parks, carrying their firearms will benefit everyone. Criminals will no longer have the assurance that their victims are disarmed by bureaucratic policy. "

Rabdau asks, "Can you back this up with a study? I find this assertion difficult, if not impossible, to swallow at face value. I do agree that a gun, if needed, would be the best deterrent under certain circumstances." Your pessimism appears to stem from a preconditioned bias, not from any legitimate academic doubt. The bureaucratic prohibition should not have been made in the first place, since it was done without benefit of study. Why is it that the bureaucrats can make prohibtions based on mere hearsay and convenience, without "back[ing] this up with a study?"

But to answer your question, yes, see Lott's book above.

"We used to be a nation that trusted its citizenry to be trustworthy and self-sufficient. Our founders observed that the final guarantee of safety from petty tyrants (called criminals) to organized tyrants (also known as abusive governments) was from citizens assured their Natural Right to self-protection. That right is embodied in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our National Parks will be safer once that right and self-sufficient spirit is revitalized."

Rabdau asks how following the Bill-of-Rights can make a population safer: "Again, how does this make National Parks safer?" Please explain. It may prevent a few attacks. It may cause other violence. It may be statistically inconsequential.

Individual liberty always enhances the public safety, always. Try some sometime.

I agree that the WTA should stay neutral in this topic so it will not alienate its members.

If it does not, let me add my two bits. This law is already being violated by those two legged critters the rangers carry guns for. The current law has not stop them. How fast can rangers respond to a trail head? How about on the trail? Can you even call for one? Paranoid? Maybe, but I would rather have an option of protecting my love ones. I could go on and on, so could the anti-gunners, so WTA stay out of this one. It’s a lose, lose topic for everyone.

Oops - I meant to say - I agree that the WTA should stay neutral in this topic because it will alienate its members.

The Bush administration has had seven years to change this rule. Why are they proposing it now? My guess is that this issue is being raised now as a potential hot button for the November election.

The WTA would be wise to stay neutral provided the new rules clearly require the weapons to be concealed. I have a permit to carry a concealed pistol in Washington State but I do not envision carrying one while hiking in a National Park due to the weight and lack of need for self defense. However, I would like to have the privilege in case I change my perception or forget to unload and secure the weapon while traveling by car through a National Park.

Thanks to everyone for their good and thoughtful comments on this post. I am Jonathan Guzzo, WTA's Advocacy Director. I'd like to clarify a couple of points.
 
WTA is not currently engaged in pulling together a position on guns in National Parks, and no position is in the works for the future. The reason we blogged on this issue is that we are interested in the views of our members and website users and to let people know how they could comment in the event that they were interested.

Thanks for the good discussion. Just wanted to make that one clarification.

Personally, I find this rather humorous. Why? If a criminal wants to poach etc in a national park, having a no guns rule won't stop them. It only stops law abiding(innocent) citizens from protecting themselves from the criminal if you have the unfortunate occurance to run into said poacher/thief etc who may or may not let you leave his presence alive after being detected.

I have already seen people carrying in National parks and they weren't rangers. If you are going on a long trip why not carry, if you already have the on-file permit. What, ditch the gun in a ditch if you enter a national park??? If its ok to carry in Federal Forest, I see no difference in a National Park.

I am not in favor of hunting/target shooting in the national park due to the fact that I see the National Parks as a preserve and the fact that there are a much higher number of fellow citizens in the area.

Brian
PS This law covers hand guns and long knives, not rifles/shotguns

Legal or not, I have been carrying since I started day-hiking several years ago. I don't hunt or target shoot, and am strictly against any such activity in National Parks. 99% of my hikes are done alone, and I am not going to venture out into the wilderness without some kind of defense. You can't predict who or what you may come upon. If an event occured in which my handgun would be needed, it would be only as a LAST resort option.

If the law passes, great. Law-abiding legal citizens with permits should be allowed to carry with full protection of the law. If the law does not pass, are rangers going to start checking hikers at trail-heads? Likely not. Either way, nothing will change.

There was an interesting discussion regarding this subject at backpackinglight.com. The law, as it is proposed, would apply state gun rules to the National Parks. (This creates a sticky situation where parks run across state borders).

While I do agree that it probably won't make a huge difference for the reasons mentioned, the question remains: why would state gun law pertain to a federal National Park?

The point made by Rick Dreher is that this is an attempt to subject federal lands to state rather than federal regulation.

"And when you think about, it’s the perfect ploy, as the tussle over guns always shuffles people to their usual corners for the ritual dung flinging, while the real prizes are yielding to state control over road-building, logging, mining, gas and oil and real estate development of federally controlled land.

The irony is rather delicious in view of the current administration’s assertion that states have no right to establish their own emission standards."

An interesting assertion and one that I believe is worthy of consideration.

Issue 1 (right to bear arms in National Parks) related to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Issue 2 (state emission standards) related Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where arbitrary state emissions laws would be used to impede interstate commerce.

There is no irony in this, other than perhaps Rabdau's desire for decreasing liberty whether by state rule or federal rule.