A survey stemming from the Bush administration's plan to allow concealed carry of guns in national parks and national wildlife refuges predicts the result will be more wildlife shootings and management problems.
The survey, performed for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, found that 77 percent of 1,400 present and former employees of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predict that the controversial proposed rule reversing the long-standing prohibition of carrying loaded, concealed weapons in national parks and wildlife refuges will have an adverse affect on the ability of NPS and USFWS employees to accomplish their mission.
This finding and others are contained in Natural and Cultural Resource Impacts and Management Consequences of the Proposed Regulation to Authorize the Possession of Concealed Firearms in Units of the National Park & National Wildlife Refuge Systems.
While DOI has neglected to provide an analysis of the potential impacts of its proposed rule, the retirees group performed the survey to assess the impacts that these experts foresee should the regulation take effect. Other key results of the survey include:
* 75 percent feel that there will be an increase in opportunistic or impulse wildlife killings in parks and refuges; and
* 83 percent of survey respondents anticipated that the proposal will increase the overall level of complexity for management of their park or refuge.
In issuing the report, the coalition emphasized that Interior Department officials violated the procedural
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act in failing to adequately examine the foreseeable impacts of the relaxed gun regulation. Additionally, the coalition asserts that Interior officials should have consulted the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to ESA, as 89 threatened or endangered species inhabit the parks that would be affected by the regulation.
Separately, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Ethics predicts that once the regulation is published in the Federal Register, a move anticipated to occur this month, “there would be a multi-group suit filed" challenging the legality of the regulation.
The new report from the coalition highlights the enforcement complexities and threats to public safety that should have been addressed in an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the rule under NEPA.
Based on the report, CNPSR is renewing its call for Interior officials to withdraw the proposed rule.
"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," says Bill Wade, chairman of the coalition's executive council. "Moreover, we believe it will create more problems than it can possibly fix. 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."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
We have reached the point in America where expertise is referred to as "bias."
We once were a country that believed in Execellence and Achievement. Now we are able to attack a distinguished public servant in one breath (post) and deny in the very next what is plain for all to read. We now have a comic book interpretation of the Constitution, and ignore the unchallenged administrative traditions of an Agency of the people that has served us well. No one can claim that the park gun regulations have brought America's freedom to its knees. These regs have never been overturned. They work. The experienced professionals have testified these regulations are needed to efficiently manage the parks, the more so that declining budgets and unfunded mandates make a rangers job harder and harder.
We ignore expertise at our peril, but when we degrade the value of public servants who have given all their professional lives to carrying out the laws created by the people we have elected, it is just stupid.
Who's trying to change the Constitution or the Second Amendment?
Are we talking about the amendment that states:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, including carrying them anywhere they please with total disregard for others' opinions, shall not be infringed..." ?
I'm a proud gun-owner, but the knee-jerk rage and frenetic invocations of the sacredness of the vague wording of the Second Amendment these discussions cause is eroding that pride.
For the record, I'm equally appalled by the radical rantings of the gun-control lobby. Is there no middle ground?
I would suggest talking to Law Enforcement Rangers. Better yet, talk to a National Forest Service Law Enforcement official. National Forests already have concealed carry, and have had no problems with licensees.
I might also suggest getting input from border LE Rangers -- especially those in Organ Pipe and Big Bend, where cell phones don't work and criminal encounters are not unlikely.
Unfortunately, NPS designates most or all of its employees as "Rangers," which creates confusion and lends credibility to non-LE personnel who have no qualifications or expertise in dealing with firearms issues. When "Joe Sixpack" hears that X% of "park rangers" oppose concealed carry, he believes that these are law enforcement agents rather than the folks staffing the visitor centers and giving wilderness hikes. Non-LE staff do not deal with weapons, have no law enforcement expertise or authority, and it's unlikely many of them understand the licensing process or the real impact that the pending change will have on day-to-day operations.
I would expect the average park visitor to have as much insight on concealed weapons issues as the typical non-LE "Ranger." That is to say, none.
As someone who carries under the authority of a license, I'm considerably more qualified to comment on concealed carry than most of the "employees" polled or the anti-CC blogger(s) on this site.
If you want to debate concealed carry (anywhere), at least learn something about it. Go through the licensing process, even if you have no desire to carry. The baseless bashing of the concept of concealed carry is pointless and gets us absolutely nowhere.
It's interesting to finally see a comment from a retired LEO Ranger. I hope my side views your comments accordingly. I will point out that regardless of when you served, if you served in the Parks, you would not have dealt directly with concealed carry licensees since carry has not been allowed in parks since the modern advent of licensing. Nonetheless, you're certainly qualified to discuss crime.
With that said, there are a few things I would add to your comments. As you mentioned, an arrest is not necessarily indicative of actual guilt. While I find ANY arrests of CHLs for the offenses you mentioned disturbing, I also realize that arrests are often not followed by convictions because no offense actually occurred or insufficient evidence existed to support a conviction. I recognize your concerns that convictions are simply not being reported, but I don't think that's a realistic explanation. Reporting problems would affect both CHLs and non-CHLs to the same degree, so I would expect the comparison to hold.
As for the suggestion that the data might be "sanitized," I find it unlikely given the source and the statistics that are still included. You mention the exclusion of "disorderly conduct" -- DOC is such a catch-all in Texas that conviction statistics for it would be relatively useless. Playing your music too loud and making obscene hand gestures are both considered "disorderly conduct" in Texas. DOC involving a firearm is classified as "deadly conduct," which IS reported on the most recent statistics.
A more realistic measure might be to check the number of license revocations related to criminal actions. Revocation numbers are quite low, despite the large number of transgressions that can lead to revocation (in addition to crimes committed, failure to pay child support and student loans are grounds for revocation, as is failing to display your license too many times).
My point wasn't that CHL holders are a crime-free group (there's no such thing, unfortunately -- Law Enforcement officers often get arrested/convicted as well), it's that the image promoted here is unrealistic, based on emotional reactions to the the word "gun." As a former Law Enforcement Ranger, do you think it's realistic to assume that license holders will contribute to poaching problems, or will randomly shoot wildlife or other visitors? Why would someone who's tempted to commit these crimes bother to get a license in the first place? If they're not worried about the legality of poaching or murder, they're certainly not worried about the legalities of carrying weapons in the parks.
I'm not going to argue that concealed carry lowers the overall crime rate (that would take six hours), but as former LE who probably has a greater awareness of crime in society, you should certainly know that every time concealed carry laws are enacted or extended, there are wild predictions of blood in the streets, wild west shootouts, shootouts over parking spaces, etc. As someone who has a greater awareness of crime in society, you should certainly know that this wanton violence never comes to pass with the extension of concealed carry rights.
Anyone from Texas with a CHL has been checked out at the county level, the state level, and the federal level. The State has looked for mental health issues, and has gone so far as to check to make sure the applicant pays their student loans and their child support obligations. And per the State of Texas, those who are licensed seem to be much more law-abiding. Hence my use of the term "vouch." Misbehavior or bad judgment by a CHL is a black eye for the State and reflects poorly on all CHLs.
I will agree that some states need to up their training requirements for licensees. The same can be said for most law enforcement agencies -- many agencies require only an (easy) annual qualification and have no expectation that officers practice during the rest of the year. While I found Texas' shooting qualification easy, it was adequate for what it was -- a test of your ability to shoot reasonably well at short distances.
In 2006, there were over 61,500 convictions reported to the DPS. Only 140 of those were committed by license holders. That's not a significant number, any way you look at it.
Re: "it's not that people are trying to change the Second Amendment; it's that people are ignoring it. What about the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" is unclear? "
Ho, ho, ho. Try taking your gun into a military base, on an airplane, on a tour of the White House (a national park by the way), or into Disneyland. There are a lot of places you cannot bring guns - public and private places - so enough of the idea that you are Constitutionally permitted to bring a gun anywhere you want.
What is amazing are the number of comments on this topic every time it comes up. What is it with people and guns? Why do gun owners have such a visceral reaction to guns? You would think the most important thing in their lives is to own a gun. If you define your life by your ownership of a gun, I think there are some problems. I carried one for 20 years as a law enforcment officer and don't own one personally or miss it a bit.
Just to set the record straight, like Jim, I was a protection ranger and carried a weapon for at least half my career. I don't think our points of view are irrelevant.
Beamis' claim that most NPS employees have a liberal bias is laughable. During my 31 years in the NPS, I met far more conservatives than I did liberals.
Rick Smith
This will cause more Game wardens to get their brains blown out. Someone will commit a crime and a Game Warden willl investigate and the person will just shoot the dude instead of dealing with what the hell could happen if there were indifferent repercussions. These permits were designed for Black bear areas of the country. But I would want to carry a gun in case I came across a Black bear who wanted to eat my arse.
Frank C--
I am not providing a study, only speaking from personal experience. Every time I visit a USFS area in NM to camp or hike, I see signs that are shot up. I have seen similar shot up signs on BLM and USFS lands in other states. One sees little of this kind of thing in the weapons-free national parks. I think there is a relationship.
Someone in the above posts mentioned the fact that most law enforcement organizations oppose concealed weapon regulations. He or she claimed they did so because of a question of power. I think that is a bogus argument. They oppose concealed weapon regs because they know that the more guns there are, the more dangerous their jobs are. That's why both the organizations that represent rangeers in the NPS, the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge and tha Association of National Park Rangers (of which I am a member even though retired) oppose the proposed new NPS reg. I kinow you think that their views are irrelevant. I don't.
Rick Smith