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
Semantics.
Suppose the Second Amendment said "A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Now suppose the government makes a law stating you can keep your books on you in a national park, but the book must be kept in a case and you can't open it and you can't read it. Absurd, right? So is the current regulation. Thinking the founders would think "bearing arms" means keeping them unloaded and in a case represents delusional thinking.
Again, if you don't like the Second Amendment, why not go through Constitutional proceedures to change it? Why ignore it or violate it? No one will address this issue. The government and its citizens should not be able to ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like.
Actually, how exactly the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted has been questioned for quite some time. Does it mean states can field a militia, or that individuals have a right to bear arms?
We might soon have an answer to that question, as the U.S. Supreme Court this past November agreed to consider a case out of the District of Columbia that brings into play exactly what the 2nd Amendment means.
The court's ruling, no doubt, will spur some serious reaction from both sides.
Good point Kurt. That is exactly what conservatives (when we actually had 2 parties instead of the hodgepodge we have now) have been saying for years. Leave such laws to the state and not the federal government. This then lends to the point of the proposed law change. Let the individual state (who knows their citizens better than the fed) determine how their laws are legislated and enforced.
Further, let's get the states out of the city government's business and let's get the city out of the community's business. The fact that we keep having all these national organizations (National association of park rangers) saying they don’t want us to carry in their parks just further lends to the national control government usurps on its constituents. It’s not the park ranger’s park; it’s the individual citizen’s park.
As a hunter and supporter of the National Park Service, I see no point in changing the firearm rule. The amount of visitors I see every year in Yellowstone and Grand Teton get too close to wild animals on their own accord are not deserving to protect themselves with a firearm. If you are within 30 yds of a grizzly / elk / bison/ etc, you deserve to be munched or trampled if that animal chooses to do so. Bear Spray is allowed in the park, which is proven far more effective than a firearm in an animal attack situation. I urge all supporters to petition against this change for the betterment of the park and it's visitors.
Arguing that people have an absolute right to carry guns because of the second amendment is absurd. There are, and always have been, many places, federal, state, local and private that have prohibited (and do prohibit) loaded weapons besides our National Parks. I doubt that loaded weapons were allowed in the Constitutional Convention, for that matter. In this post 911 world is no time to relax restrictions on carrying guns in places like the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial, Capitol Building etc. Nor is it a time to relax them in Yellowstone, Yosemite etc. Should we allow students and teachers to carry guns in our schools? How about airports, train and bus stations etc.
States and local governments all have tons of restrictions on who may or may not carry a gun, what permits are or are not required etc. Some might argue that these are state and local governments, and the second amendment is only designed to restrict what the federal government can do. I would disagree. Does this mean that my local or state government can restrict my freedom of speech then?
Surely "Anonymous" above is joking when he says, "The government and its citizens should not be able to ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't like." My Dear Sir (Madam), where have you been? The Bush administration, and the Patriot Act, have totally shredded the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments! What makes the second so holy, while these others are disposable?
What about that young girl what was brutally murdered while walking the Appalachian trail a few weeks ago? The animals are not what I fear while transverse the back country, it’s the two legged critters I don’t trust. I am a gun owner and CCW licensee, but I don’t hunt . My creed is , “don’t kill it or bother it, unless you fully intend to eat it”. My local supermarket supplies me just fine. But if you want to hunt I have nothing against that , just do it legally. This silly idea that if you let licensed hand gunners into a National Park that poaching will go berserk is totally unfounded and stupid. Here is in the Smoky Mountains, a few years ago a black bear killed a woman while her and her boyfriend were fishing or picnicking . Another incident occurred when a black bear invaded a camp and killed another woman and hurt a child. So don’t tell me this won’t happen. After all criminal will continue to prey on unarmed citizens, and they will carry their weapons , laws or no laws. I guarantee you that Park Rangers don’t go into the back country unarmed, so why should we? So get off your “I know better than you , liberal attitude.”
I believe the "fools" are already carrying loaded weapons in the National Parks. Laws such as this one don't keep lawbreakers from breaking laws (see the "war on drugs" for an example). This law will affect the law biding citizens who don't carry because it's illegal; these are the same folks who don't rob a liquor store because it's wrong and illegal. Those you are concerned about (justifiably) don't care about the law.
Dear Anti-gun activist....If you chose to be a potential victim, that is your privilige. I would much rather have the ability & means of protecting my loved ones & myself via my 2nd amendment rights. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. There are many other countries in the world where this is a fact of life.