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
Random Walker,
Please let me start by saying you are well spoken and I respect your opinion. This is the healthy banter that gets us to look at all sides of the issues.
Maybe you are right, you don't need guns in the Parks. Respectfully, Let me ask you this, because you don't want/need guns in the Parks and you are comfortable without them, should that comfort level extend to the Rights of others? I thnk not. The gun owners that are seeking entry into the Parks make a great point. These folks are upstanding citizens, they are fingerprinted, background checked and certified to carry. Perception of danger and fear I believe is a bit inflamatory, think of it from the perspective of preparedness. Would you go into the woods unprepared? Of course not. Also, your version of prepared is not the same as that of others and it shouldn't be, it's part of the American way. Though not having a firearm for self protection and that of loved ones is your Right and an acceptable risk for yourself, I do not think those risks need be imposed on others or their Rights.
Scotty
I don't understand why I should "need" to carry a concealed handgun into a park. Why do my second amendment rights disappear when I enter a park? Anywhere that I go is a place that people with evil intent may also go, so why is there this illusion that NP's are completely safe? Hikers go missing and are found murdered every year. Sure, the odds are that I will not need a gun, but why restrict me from having one? Also, if parks are so safe, why do rangers carry pistols? If there is any reason for a ranger to have a pistol I'll bet it is a legitimate reason for me to have one too.
The NRA sure knows when to pile on a blog! I guess the gun craze issue will be with us until the NRA gets everything it wants...lock, stock and barrel!
The NPS will not have the final say on this. The Supreme Court will. The recent Heller decision said that a complete ban on firearms can be a violation of the Second Amendment.
Anon-
In response to your comment.....
Since when does an American who wants to enjoy the parks get labeled the "NRA"? Ignorant remarks aimed to belittle people only show ignorance the lack of any ground to stand on. In reality people who want to defend themselves/family and carry concealed pose no threat to you or any other law abiding citizen. The only ones in danger are agressive predators, whether they are 2 or 4 legged. This is not an NRA issue it's a safety issue.
Yeah Scotty, tell me what's the NRA's masterplan for this country? It first starts with fear mongering! Besides Scotty, this isn't a subject that I wish to dwell on, give credence or provide propaganda flak for the NRA. It is an NRA issue! Simply because it touches the very heart of the subject that's hell bent on fear mongering. GUNS OUT OF THE PARKS!
This is one topic that can be argued over for ever. There will always be people who don't believe in guns as well as people that do. There will always be people that follow the rules and those that don't. As I stated earlier, you will always have guns in the park, because the dishonest people don't care about the law, and will continue to carry them into the park. (as they have done for years) It is ashame that the world has come this, but it has, and people need to take their blinders off their eyes and see reality. Just one question....do you REALLY think that by keeping honest people from having a gun in the park is going to keep guns out of the park? I will leave this issue alone, I have stated my peace, and did not intend to step on any toes. If I had upset anyone, then I am sorry. These were just my thoughts on the issue. (right or wrong).
Anon -
In response to your comments I must respectfully submit to you sir that this is not an NRA issue. It is a freedom and liberty issue. The NRA's vision and masterplan, is not of any concern in this issue. People, all people, should have the freedom and liberty to do as they please as long as no harm comes to others. If a person is background checked, fingerprinted and certified by the FBI, State Police and Local Sheriff and licensed as a good guy to carry a concealed firearm, why should they have their rights denied? The only fears being portrayed here are by yourself. Our freedoms and liberties need not be eroded by baseless fear.