For all, including Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who thought the rules change concerning carrying concealed weapons in national parks would simplify life, Yellowstone National Park is proving the case of some of what's wrong with that rule change.
The problem, you ask? One park, three states, three different sets of gun regulations. Indeed, apparently Idaho has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country when it comes to honoring another state's concealed weapons permit, while Wyoming has reciprocal agreements on concealed carry with 23 other states, Montana with 40.
Cory Hatch of the Jackson Hole News & Guide points out that while a gun owner from West Virginia could legally enter Yellowstone in the Bechler region in the park's southwestern corner, which spills over into Idaho, once that individual crosses into Wyoming they'd be breaking the law since Wyoming doesn't honor West Virginia's gun permits. But if that same individual made it quietly up to Mammoth Hot Springs, which is in Montana, they'd be legal once again.
Beyond the state laws, Yellowstone officials still are trying to sort out exactly what is a "federal building," which are off-limits to guns. While it's obvious a visitor center is a federal facility, how are lodges -- which in most cases technically are owned by the federal government but run by concessionaires -- categorized?
And what about trailhead restrooms? If the later is off-limits to guns, what will an armed hiker, who just came off the trail, do with their weapon if they want to use that restroom?
While Secretary Kempthorne applauded this rule change as a step towards simplifying gun laws in the parks, Yellowstone's situation would seem to run contrary to that interpretation. And, of course, there are other parks that span multiple states: Death Valley, Great Smoky Mountains, Natchez Trail Parkway. Blue Ridge Parkway just to name four.
Comments
Beamis--
You have posted another over-the-top comment. Why not chill a little?
Rick Smith
I still think you're brushing with an awfully big brush and can of paint. Some no doubt would describe me in some conversations as left-leaning, yet in others right of center. And I experience no shock and horror over gun ownership. In other words, I don't neatly fit your stereotype, and I don't think I'm alone in my views.
As for Wal-Mart (talk about thread drift, but what the heck), I think you again are using a pretty big brush in trying to explain the "disdain" folks have with the chain. Is it really over the "swarming masses" that shop there, or is it more tied to corporate practices that pay employees as little as possible, both in salary and benefits, and which drive home-grown businesses out of business?
RAH, as I stated over at another article in response to your misinformation, firearms have been disallowed in national park service units since the thirties. The change in the seventies was simply one of several revisions in the intervening years that actually weakened previous protections. This recent change in large measure overturned a lot more than just thirty years of precedent.
I also know of the attitude Beamis speaks. Humans are social animals and as such social position is very important. City folk throughout time have ridiculed the country bumpkin cousin. Hunting was a cultural tradition that both city and country folk enjoyed and it lead to a lot of conservation efforts and many of the NPS. Roosevelt is a classic example.
From the 1970’s and forward, hunting blinds on the Chesapeake have disappeared. The people who used bird dogs in MD also faded. My neighbor in Bethesda has national champion bird dogs and in my same neighborhood Sen. Pete Domenci lived up the street. Less people were familiar with hunting firearms and the gun control act of 1968 was a response to Kennedy’s assassination and the later riots that scared whites that blacks in cities were rioting and they have guns. So most of America was OK with the 1968 act, since it really targeted "those folks".
Later as Sarah Brady and other gun control activists managed to persuade that "guns are bad" They pushed the utopian line that if there were no guns then crime with guns would go away. That is when DC in 1976 passed its draconian gun ban. Chicago in 1972 so the educated urban elite adopted the same left liberal attitude that "guns are bad" and only barbarians such as the hillbillies used them. Thirty tears have shown that gun bans only affect the law-abiding from the crime stats of shootings and murders with guns by criminals in the cities such as DC. The gun ban was totally ineffective to fight crime. They did not even use it to add charged to criminals they caught. Only the odd case of a homeowner or a Congressman caught with a gun has been prosecuted and those were usually dropped.
Maryland passed a law against” Saturday Nights Special” that specifically target inexpensive guns that the poor could use for defense or for crime. They ignored the poor that were the crime victim’s and their need for a self-defense weapon, and only banned them to target the criminals. The criminals never had a problem getting guns, they would steal them. Some even came from police departments which had property losses over the years as they sold those guns to the street for their criminal relatives. So gun control was pushed as a mean to protect against the poor who might be criminal minded and the blacks. It definitely had a racist tinge.
For example in high school I shot skeet twice a week and always had shot shells not used in my coat pockets from the night before. I would take them out and cut them open when bored in class. It was no big deal. Teachers were not hysterical about that. Students would bring in long arms to show and the only comment was is the firing pin removed? That was in the 1970’s; now compare that attitude to the often hysterical ranting of anti gun folks in comments and letters to the editor?
Are the urban left leaning elite against guns? My opinion is yes, and that really does extend to suburbia. Guns are scary, they reminds people that danger exists. So people prefer not to see guns, because only criminals have guns.
James Watts, DOI secretary under Reagan put the regulation that guns had to be dissambled and not available . If Anonymous knows better please post the link so I can verify. I would agree that many parks had a patchwork of rules about firearms prior to that.
My information I beleive is correct but I will be glad to check out any other claims.
Beamis,
I am a native-born, been-here-all-my-life Tennessean. I wear my camo and drive my pickup truck with pride. I come from a rural, agricultural background, and live in a community of less than 5,000 people in one of the reddest counties in the state. I shop at WalMart nearly everyday and spend most of my money there. I am a 'redneck Southerner', more or less.
But prepare yourself. You might not understand this next part...
I am a Sierra Club member. I don't think that guns belong in national parks.
And I'm not the only person who can be described by both paragraph #1 and #3. So please, do everyone a favor and stop painting people with such a confrontational and broad brush. It's polarizing and not constructive in the least, and gives Tennesseans a bad name (and we wonder why our state is seen as backwards and hick...)
Yeah, James Watt, a well known liberal, under the authority and guidance of President Ronald Reagan, put in place new restrictions on your ability to lawfully carry firearms.
Do you really need supporting materials to understand how that simply could not be true?
In case you do, here is some history gleaned from a variety of sources:
Prior to this latest change, the National Park Service (NPS) last promulgated a regulation on weapons on June
30, 1983 as part of a thorough revision of NPS rules. In general, the regulation prohibits the possession of weapons in parks but provides several significant exceptions. One of the most significant exceptions allows the possession of weapons in vehicles or in temporary lodging if the weapon is temporarily inoperable or is packed, cased or stored. Thus the NPS rule does not impose a general ban on the possession of weapons or firearms.
Prior to the 1983 regulations, the NPS last adopted system-wide regulations in 1966. The regulations of 1966 contained a provision on the possession of weapons at 36 CFR section 2.11. Under the 1966 regulations, the NPS prohibited the possession of firearms, traps, nets, and weapons in “natural and historical areas” of the national park system. “In recreational areas the above referenced items may be used or possessed in accordance with applicable Federal, State or local law.” 47 FR 11602
The 1966 regulation states:
2.11. Firearms, traps, and other weapons.
(a) In natural and historical areas and national parkways the use
of…firearms…is prohibited. The possession of such objects or
implements is prohibited unless they are unload (sic) and adequately cased,
or broken down or otherwise packed in such a way as to prevent their use
while in the park areas….
(b) In recreational areas (except national parkways) the use or
possession of all firearms shall conform with all applicable Federal, State
and local laws…The possession of loaded firearms…in developed,
populated, or concentrated use areas is prohibited.
NPS 1966 regulations prohibited the possession of weapons and firearms. The 1983 regulations liberalized the conditions for the possession of firearms by establishing exceptions that did not exist in 1966. On the other hand, the 1983 regulations tightened the condition for the possession of firearms by eliminating the different standard for recreational areas. But, in the final analysis, the 1966 regulations used very similar language as the current rule at 36 CFR 2.4(a)(3), in that firearms may be possessed in parks as long as such firearms are unloaded, cased, broken down or packed away.
The NPS regulations were revised in 1941 too:
2.11 Firearms, etc.
(a) Firearms…are prohibited within the parks and monuments, except
upon written permission of the superintendent. Visitors entering or
traveling through the parks and monuments to places beyond shall, at
entrance, report, and, if required to do so, surrender all such objects in
their possession to the first park or monument officer, and, in proper cases,
may obtain his written permission to carry them through the park or
monument sealed. Failure to obtain such written permission shall be
deemed a violation of this section.
The 1941 NPS regulation was more restrictive on firearms than any of the successive rules. But one thing the 1941 regulation shares in common with the rules of 1966 and 1983 is that guns may still be possessed in parks but ONLY if sealed, i.e. rendered temporarily unusable. Unlike the successive regulations, the 1941 rules required an NPS issued written permit to possess the sealed firearm while in the park or monument. Note that the 1941 regulation defines “parks” and “monuments” to include national military parks, national battlefield parks, national historical parks, national parkways, Boulder Dam recreation area national historic sites, and battlefield sites and miscellaneous memorials. 36 CFR 2.1 (1941)
Prior to the 1941 revisions, on June 18, 1936, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes promulgated the first set of
general NPS regulations ever adopted under the Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 3). The first NPS regulations say this about firearms:
8. Firearms, etc. - Firearms…are prohibited within the parks and
monuments, except upon written permission of the superintendent or
custodian. Visitors entering or traveling through the parks and
monuments to places beyond shall, at entrance, report, and, if required to
do so, surrender all such objects in their possession to the first park or
monument officer, and, in proper cases, may obtain his written permission
to carry them through the park or monument sealed. Failure to obtain
such written permission shall be deemed a violation of this regulation.
The 1936 regulations permitted possession of a firearm in a park upon the issuance of a NPS permit, and then only if the firearm were “sealed.”
That laws respecting the right to carry arms have been somewhat liberalized by this rule change is a good thing in and of itself. Civil liberties are like that, but their rightful expansion often comes with some confusion and getting-used-to.
Greatly relaxing carry laws or removing the licensing requirements would surely make for less confusion, but such moves are probably unwarranted or unlikely. I firmly suspect that the best solution is a national reciprocity bill, and we are sure to see one coming along soon. There can really be no other way ... currently, 48 of 50 states issue (in one form or another) licenses to carry protective arms. They too issue driver licenses ... but at this time, carry licenses are not nationally-reciprocal like driver licenses are. There can be no other way but to make the licenses nationally-reciprocal, and draw boundaries around some maximally-restrictive standard.
Indeed, the best solution is to make all carry licenses nationally-reciprocal, and to define some maximally-restrictive standards. That way, carriers would know what is maximally restrictive ... and more liberal states could relax those maximal standards as they see fit.