You are here

Interior Officials Want to Allow Concealed Carry in the National Parks

Share

Published Date

April 29, 2008

Interior Department officials on Tuesday published in the Federal Register a proposed regulation that would allow national park visitors to carry concealed weapons.

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

Anon - I totally see your point of view and understand your concerns about bears and other humans, but bear with me here...

*In many of the eastern parks, such as Congaree or Acadia, the chances of you running across any animal that will attack is slim to none, so in some park units, that argument is pretty much invalid.

*In places like Great Smokies, Yellowstone, etc where there are lots of people in small spaces, people become irritated very quickly. Last summer, I was at Cades Cove in the Smokies and watched two grown men literally fight each other over a picnic table. A ranger had to be called in, and it was later found that the instigator of the mishap was drunk. Imagine if he had a concealed gun!

As long as there are drunk rednecks in our parks stirring up trouble (and they'll always be there), I don't want guns in the parks. They would make me feel unsafe and in danger.


Mike M. , No one? I beg to differ. I was standing in line at a Longs drug Store just 2 days ago and what do I hear from the (for lack of better words) IDIOT in front of me? "Ya, its cool to be able to carry a gun, we used to go back in the hills here and shoot birds and squirrels." He then showed the clerk his permit and flashed his waist with his gun. And to top it all off he said " And sometimes a couple of Mexicans just to keep things right"!!!!!!!!!!! So Mike M. You tell me, NO ONE?! This guy was a bit older than me (43). I sure don't want this IDIOT in any National Park that I would go to! Would you? I think not, if you would not mind this, I would not want you to be in the parks either.


Anon, First drinking and carrying concealed is another no-no. If you carry , you cannot drink. Although I do not know every state law, you can be certain that law is on every state book. A CCW holder WILL lose his permit and go to jail. There are drunks everywhere, even in national parks, but you are still willing to drive a car on the road even if you know there might be drunk on the road and how many people die every day from drunk drivers?

Eric, I suppose you are going to find morons everywhere. However that fella very likely broke the law. You should have called the police for brandishing. Again there will always be exceptions to the rule. How many times do you think somebody has brought in a gun illegally into a NP and you did not know it? But you still are willing to go in aren't you?

For all of you fearful of this rule, I don't think you will ever see a gun, or even know about it. It will be a non issue.

As for myself, I hope the change the rule to allow CCW holders to carry open. Why? Because frankly when hiking, it is more comfortable to carry with a thigh holder. Will I ever take a shot at wildlife? Of course not, unless that wildlife is going to make me the main course.


I have yet to hear a good reason to carry fire arm in a NP. As for being fearful, I for one am not, I don't have a reason to carry a fire arm in the NP's. It seems the ones who feel they have to carry a fire arm are the ones who are fearful. As for how many people have carried fire arms illegaly into NP's who knows? RonC, Have you illegaly carried a fire arm into a NP? When some "responsible" Moron with a gun shoots someone or an animal because of fear, or overthe use of a picnic table or a campsite. Then what? An apology? Too late. Sorry I just don't see it, it makes no sense to me. I'm not against guns, I used to hunt, I just choose not to now. So until someone comes up with a rock solid reason for this I say its nonsense. I have been charged by a bear in Montana, and treed by a bear in Minnesota, no gun, just common sense and learning the do's and don'ts while in the backcountry, millions of people do it every day in the NP's without guns. So...


Eric,
Well it is your choice to not carry. Good for you. I desire to carry, good for me. I think I implied strongly in my earlier post that I do not carry when it is illegal. I only carry when it is lawful.

Your fear, it appears is that somebody is pull the gun and shoot over a picnic table. I suppose it could happen but then if so, it will happen illegally, will it not? For all the gun free zones we have, where are the most problems....gun free zones. Virginia tech is a gun free zone. You might also note that states that have a CCW law have seen no increase in violent crimes or decreases. That is a fact. So again I believe you are fearful of a non issue.

You say you have been charged by a bear in Montana. What would you have done if you had your eight year old daughter with you? Oh yea I guess she is slower than you.....You just have to be faster than her! Also if you got that close to a bear, I would say you are quite irresponsible, and should know better, and remember bears can climb trees better than you. You were simply lucky. You also made my point.

I do find it interesting that you wanted to know if I carry illegally. Why?


From the Brady Campaign web site:

In many states, statutory requirements are minimal and do not go much beyond the Federal Brady Law requirements for purchasing firearms – meaning that some people get CCW permits despite criminal convictions for violent or drug-related misdemeanors. Training requirements are extremely lax in many states or do not even require a licensee to prove that he or she knows how to load, fire, or store a firearm.

Bear spray is more effective than guns:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/pepper-spray-viable-alternative-guns-dete...


Hey NoGunsInParks, I carry bear spray!


Bear spray says it all! If you miss your shot buddy with a hand gun against a full charging bear...you're mince-meat! At least with bear spray you don't shoot your buddy by mistake in a panic attack.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.