Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was non-committal, though with a decided rightward lean, when asked by a National Park Service employee whether he would challenge the recent rule change to allow park visitors to arm themselves.
During a get-to-know-you meeting with Interior Department employees earlier this week, one that was telecast through the agency's offices across the country, Secretary Salazar, in part because the rule change is the subject of legal wranglings, said nothing of substance when asked about the rule. Rather, he simply said he would "take a look at it."
The short reply came in response to a question from Einar Olsen, an assistant regional director who also spent time as chief ranger for the agency's Capital Region. Ranger Olsen pointed out that the National Park System gets more than 275 million visitors annually and statistics show that park rangers have the most dangerous jobs in law enforcement when it comes to the number of assaults they attract.
Secretary Salazar told the ranger that he was brought up with guns and feels entirely comfortable with them. "I'm a defender of the 2nd Amendment," he added. "We'll take a look at it. I don't have an answer for you at this time."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
It's nice to see that someone in the new administration isn't bashing guns at their mere mention. Responsible gun owners are the backbone of America, no matter what slant the press is taking these days. Just ask the people in Australia what happens when the guns are taken away from them - the crime rate against citizens jumps.
I am a Retired Viet Nam Marine Staff Sergeant. I was also a State Trooper for several years. I am now completely retired, live in Florida and Have a Concealed Weapons Permit. I am pro second amendment and believe that a person should have the right to own and carry a weapon if they are trained in it's use. I further believe that crime is detoured in areas where there are armed citizens. I have lived in areas where citizens are not allowed concealed carry and personal serious crime is double digit compared to areas where concealed carry is permitted.
As a former police officer, I discovered that the people who carry weapons legally and were trained in their use, were more responsible and more safety consicous, as a rule, that the overall public. I am futher convenced that our nations law enforcement community need more hands on training than just once a year qualification. "Officer survival" is a key concern of mine and I read about too many acidential shootings amoung our under paid, under staffed and over worked law enforcement officers. I also agree that Park Law enforcement, Game Wardens, and recreational law enforcement officers are, as a rule, not appreciated nor respected as they should be.
Obviously, supporters of the 2nd amendment (as it's interpreted) fail to look at statistics. Countries where firearms are illegal get a fraction of our gun related deaths. Firearms, except for shotguns, should be banned, especially in the parks where they have no use.
I have been hiking all my life and literally all of the people I have encountered have been friendly. It appears that those who spend time in the outdoor spaces where hiking and such occur are for the vast majority civil people.
I work with a woman who's husband is both an alcoholic as well as physically abusive. This same man owns several rifles and guns. During hunting season I don't even consider heading out into the woods which is regretful because fall is so beautiful. Frankly I don't want to be subject to the likes of him in our national parks with the possibility of guns in his posession. I go there to enjoy the beauty of the places and for peace.
As far as protection form wild animals is concerned there are so many effective methods to deal with that firearms aren't necessary. At the same time if animal control is necessary I could support a hunting season in the parks as the park administration deems appropiate.
You know it would be nice to see the civility I have encountered remain as well as furthered through a code of conduct that actually states firearms in certain places in this country are actually redundant.
I acknowledge that most people carrying licensed firearms are probably responsible people most of the time. And while I do worry about the potential dangers to LE Rangers, I do have some wildlife related concerns.
Unless a gun-carrying park visitor is an active hunter of big game or avid wildlife watcher, they will likely incorrectly read many human/wildlife interactions. This can happen to detriment of wildlife and people. Most guns people would carry on a hike, or store in their glove box, for protection are not effective at protecting people from wildlife.... but most people don't realize that. And even if a bear is going to attack you (i.e., is charging with intent to kill you) you will only have seconds to react and even less time to properly aim. Even if you get a shot off unless you are lucky even a solid hit won't end a charging griz.
OK, if you are too afraid of going on a hike in a National Park without a gun, please do not go. I enjoy my guns as much as the next guy and never once have I felt the need to have one with me while hiking. Now if there were people out there with them, then I might have something to be afraid of. I can't even understand why this is an issue. Keep the guns where they belong, in a hunting blind etc...
I guess I'm lost. Just WHY do people want to carry guns in a National Park?
Yes indeed, Anonymous (1st post).
The Brits also want their guns back as Britain has a soaring crime rate. A couple good articles for ya:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/07/is_gun_control.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/7/3/is-gun-control-behind-ou...
Oh, and if you read this blog, THANK YOU, Secretary Salazar!!