Guns in National Parks a Deadly Decision

Yes, but only by those that are qualified to carry them as part of their job . Rangers do need guns . Some will also need to be there do their job. Secret Service, for example, should POTUS be visiting a national campground.

My US Senator voted no to allowing concealed weapons in national parks . I proposed a wager to her that if by the end of her term as Senator, there were NO incidents involving conceal weapons, that she resign and not run for re- election . If on the other hand, it is proven that there is a statistical correlation that having allowed conceal carry in the national parks made them more dangerous, I would donate $1000.00 to her favorite anti-gun organization in her name. She declined.

Just like our rights don't stop at the door of a restaurant, bank, post office. The government, in its infinite wisdom, thinks our rights are not applicable just because of a sign in front of a building.

Let me take this point by point:
[b]“Congress passed dangerous legislation…”[/b]
Where is the proof that this is dangerous legislation? There are millions of legally armed citizens in this country. If you are not in one of the few states that refuses to issue carry permits to law -abiding citizens, then you have been in line at the grocery store behind someone carrying a firearm legally. You have bumped into them while walking down the street. You have sat next to them at a red light during your commute, or while on vacation. Do they pull out their guns and fire shots in the air while screaming, “Yeeeeee haaaaaaaw”? No.
Why? Because those who choose to legally arm themselves (i.e. carry permit holders) are among the most law-abiding citizens in our nation. The crime rate among permit holders is a fraction of the crime rate among the rest of the population. This is a fact, and it is undisputed by the Brady Campaign.
[b]“These members weakened public safety and stripped Americans of their right to enjoy national parks and wilderness areas free from the threat of armed citizens...”[/b]
This is nothing but fear-mongering and paranoia. Again, people in this country arm themselves on a daily basis all around you, and it is no way affecting your safety. This idea that legal carry permit holders walk around with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to blast a hole in the first thing that moves is not only stupid, but in complete contradiction of facts and history. The thing that the anti-gun agenda leaves out of every one of the satements like the one above is that there is a distinct difference between LEGAL carriers of firearms and those that do so ILLEGALLY.
Banning the legal carry of firearms in our National and State Parks would change nothing. And that’s the problem. There are already people who carry in our parks. The problem is that they are doing so illegally. Allowing those who carry legally to do so in our parks will deter crime, not encourage it.
[b]“Our country was founded on the principal that we are a nation of laws and yet the gun lobby is seemingly advocating anarchy over our own government when it comes to the gun issue.”[/b]
I hereby challenge Ms. Slovenski to produce one notable instance where the NRA, Gun Owner of America, or another major pro-gun lobby has advocated anarchy. All we ask is that you treat the 2nd Ammendment with the same respect as the 1st, or the 4th, or the 5th. You don’t want those others trampled on, so why choose the 2nd?
[b]“It is absolutely astonishing that while Americans are swamped in credit card debt and now have better protections for their economic security, our very own personal safety is at greater risk traveling to our national parks,” [/b]
See above. There is still no basis in fact. People carry legally every day, with very few instances that warrant concern. You have much more to worry about from gang members and other thugs who will carry everywhere regardless of how many laws and statutes are enacted. You’re not preventing crime by limiting access to guns by law-abiding citizens.
[b]“Despite concerns raised by park rangers, Congress put the safety of national park visitors and wildlife at risk by allowing concealed, loaded firearms at 388 of 391 national park sites. Coburn’s amendment overturned a Reagan-era regulation that allowed unloaded and safely stowed firearms in national parks.”[/b]
There’s really not much of a difference here. Guns today are much safer than guns during Reagan’s administration. My personal carry gun has no less than 4 external safety mechanisms that ensure, even when loaded and a round is chambered, that you do not fire a round unaware, or by accident. And that doesn't include internal safety mechanisms.
[b]“Gun proponents continue to say that prohibitions against carrying guns in national parks violates their Second Amendment rights. But even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the Heller case that stripped D.C. of its handgun ban, stated conclusively: ‘Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.’”[/b]
I don’t see how a National Park can be included in the definition of “sensitive places.” National Parks are frequented by the same people who are in your neighborhood, that walk next to you on our streets. Why should there be any more restrictions in parks than in those other places.
There is ample evidence to show that gun control has the effect of encouraging and emboldening criminals. Study after study continues to show this. And study after study continues to be ignored by anti-gun lobbyists. When they produce facts to the contrary, I may be encouraged to reconsider my position.

For too long, people who have been safely and responsibly carrying firearms for personal protection in states containing national parks have been required to surrender that right at the park borders. The newly enacted Coburn amendment allows carrying on national park lands only under the same laws and restrictions as are currently in force in surrounding state lands. There is absolutely no reason or evidence to expect law -abiding gun-carrying people to suddenly become crazed killers or poachers simply because they cross an invisible, imaginary boundary line. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that the law -breaking people who currently carry illegally off of park lands will give a bit more thought before committing crimes on park lands now that potential victims have the potential of fighting back.
If the National Park Rangers truly believe that self defense is not an issue in national parks, why is every Ranger I've met armed? I know the answer to that and so do the people from Freedom States Alliance. The only Rangers who opposed the Coburn Amendment were the politically appointed management wonks in Washington, DC.
Two national parks are within an hour's drive from my front door. I regularly come into contact with Park Service rangers and speak with them on a personal, unofficial basis. And everyone of the men and women on the ground was and is in favor of the Coburn Amendment because they are the first to admit that bad things can happen to good unarmed people.