Four years after it lobbied hard against a proposal to allow national park visitors to arm themselves with firearms, the National Parks Conservation Association is backing a move to block assault weapons sales.
NPCA President Tom Kiernan last week called U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's legislation to ban the "sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing" of a wide range of assault weapons one step towards making national parks safer for visitors and wildlife.
The senator's legislation if signed into law would not only ban 150 specifically-named assault weapons, but also "an additional group of weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have one or more military characteristics," said Mr. Kiernan in a prepared statement. "The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. If passed, this bill would apply to our national parks. The National Parks Conservation Association strongly supports it and encourages Congress to vote for it.
"Nearly four years ago, a law was enacted allowing guns in national parks, specifically authorizing people to carry firearms into national parks to the extent allowed under state law. We aggressively opposed the 'guns in parks' law which made it legal for people to carry assault weapons into many national park units. Some states also allow for open carry of such weapons," he went on. “National parks are places where families, wildlife watchers, recreationists, international travelers and so many others go to enjoy the scenic beauty, historical meaning and cultural diversity of our national heritage.
"Assault weapons have no place in the National Park System unless they are in a museum. We applaud and support Senator Feinstein’s effort to make our national parks safer for all visitors and wildlife.”
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
As suggested by the NPCA statement on this issue, part of the appeal of a park visit is the chance to experience, even briefly, a change of pace from day-to-day life, including a sense of escape from a society that's far too violent.
Is that experience diminished if, during a hike down a tranquil wooded trail, you encounter another visitor toting a military-style assault rifle? Just an opinion, but I'd venture to say the answer is "yes" for a goodly percentage of visitors. There's just no way to judge that person's intentions or state of mind, but several incidents of the past 12 months raise the level of discomfort if we encounter armed strangers in public places.
And no ... I don't dislike guns. I've been a gun owner for a long time, but I don't feel the need to tote one to a national park.
I realize there are some who feel insecure anywhere unless they are armed, and they'd counter by saying their experience is diminished because - evidence to the contrary in a national park - they feel unsafe without a firearm.
If you're in the second group, as pointed out in a earlier comment, you certainly don't need an assault rifle or a handgun with a large capacity magazine for self-defense in a national park... or anywhere else, for that matter. If firearms are legal in parks, at least have the courtesy in such settings of keeping your heat out of sight.
National parks have been - and continue to be - places where violent crime is extremely rare. I haven't seen any evidence that situation has changed by the ability of visitors to bring firearms into parks...so what's the point, other than it's your "right"?
Will any of the proposed bills specifically adress the question of assault weapons or other firearms in national parks? If so, do they have any chance of passage?
Too soon to tell, but sadly, it's seems unlikely on both counts.
And ditto to Jim.
Two useful posts above by Lee and imtnbke, and the summary of the 2008 Supreme Court decsion could certainly be applicable to weapons in national parks, especially in the context of the types of weapons currently under discussion.
The status quo re: guns in the U. S. is clearly not working.
A John's Hopkins study in October 2012 notes, "the homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries" and "The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U.S. is so much more lethal than in countries of similar income levels."
Lee's on target when he said, "Solving this problem will require wisdom and that people at both ends of the extremes soften up a bit and work with those in the middle to find answers to an extremely tough problem."
Hi, Lee — You're most welcome.
an opinion piece from today.... a well known liberal playwright is the author. Please consider his comments...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-....
If I may say so respectfully, I saw David Mamet's fiery Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute on C-SPAN recently, and his speech made clear that he has veered to the hard right (he is happy, even eager, to acknowledge this, although he might not welcome the specific ideological term) and can no longer be thought of as a liberal playwright:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wl2012.htm
This speech does not necessarily make him an idiot, although some will think it does. But he has emphatically renounced liberalism. Here's one of the more intemperate passages:
"The culturally unsettled need a strongman, someone unquestionably superior to themselves in vision and intellect and thus deserving allegiance that will replace the structure sacrificed in the culture's abandonment. This is the czar so beloved of the Left: Lenin, Marx, Freud, Castro, Stalin, Hitler; car czar, enemy czar, director of bisexual-trans-gay-lesbian-questioning-then-queer studies, someone whom one can believe in amid 'the mess we've inherited,' which was previously known as the United States of America. See also Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, Bernie Madoff, and all those claiming by intellect or faith that they can supervene the natural laws."
However, one need not rely on David Mamet for a thoughtful defense of the right to bear arms. (I'm not saying the essay MikeG links to isn't thoughtful; I skimmed it for 30 seconds and so can't tell if it is or isn't.) Sam Harris, the well-known advocate of atheism, has provided one:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
Advocates for more gun restrictions will have to answer or dispel some of Harris's arguments, I think. That's not an ideological position, but one grounded in practical reality, as people living in East Oakland, inner-city Detroit, or near a San Francisco housing project can explain more articulately than I can.
Nice post @ 2:04, imtbke.
Thanks, justinh.