Self-Defense Doesn't Stop in National Parks
On May 20, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147, including 105 democrats. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community's anti self-defense agenda.
The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule. The NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.
“It has been an NRA priority to change the old, outdated rule, and we are pleased that Congress passed this critical legislation,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people’s right of self-defense.”
The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes. In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators. Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors. Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks – all with safe and satisfactory results.
This bill provides consistency across our nation’s federal lands and puts an end to the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Parks and Wildlife Refuges did not.
In 1982, only six states allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have some process in place for issuing licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. The NRA has long held that the regulations needed to be updated to reflect this change.
This move restores the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands and makes federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located.
“This common-sense measure, offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), gives law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves in our federal parks and refuges. We appreciate the efforts and leadership of Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) in ensuring a legislative remedy to amend out-of-date regulations and restore the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners,” concluded Cox.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Just found this web page! interesting reading
re: guns in national parks : YES, open carry , everybody should see what you have, and what you have would indicate why you have it. a .32 pocket pistol will only anger a cougar or bear, a .44 special is for protection in the deep woods. If you can't handle that you have no business going that deep, unless you desire the posibility of being a victum. (I do not own either of these weapons)
re: Concealed carry: yes! everywhere, I have no handgun that was designed for concealed carry , ie: small framed type. I have no desire to carry a firearm while going about my day.
The beauty of concealed carry is that the "BAD GUY" does not know if I am carrying a firearm or not.
A little background on my "mind set" if you want to read this far:
I love the outdoors, I love the creatures that live there, I am not a hunter. I would NEVER fire on an animal on his land unless people were indangered by his actions.
I shot my first firearm, a 22 savage semi-auto, before I was in kindergarden.
My father was a FFL dealer
I worked part time in a sports shop as a gunsmith when I was in college .
A firearm is a tool, for a specific task, just like a hammer, ax, or chainsaw.
Frankly, I am more afraid of my chainsaw than any firearm.
enough said!
Handguns and long guns should be legal in the wilderness areas of National Parks and other wild DOI units for responsible and law -abiding persons who have a legitimate need for (1) self-defense against criminals or predatory animals , (2) hunting overpopulated species, the season of the hunt and take pre-determined by impartial and objective wildlife biologists. Having said, these citizens who would bear arms in such places also would bear full responsibility for their actions, and it is reasonable to require the presentation of a hunting license, CCW, military ID, or some other license or certificate that demonstrates basic competancy and responsibility on the part of the bearer of the weapon. Also, there should be "no shooting areas" around campgrounds, roads, ranger stations and other heavily populated areas, there should be no target shooting areas in any DOI units, and poachers and other criminals using firearms in any DOI unit should be fully prosecuted, with enhanced penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime in a National Park or other DOI unit.
The only problem is, pretty much everything you said is the way it is now. For example, if I shoot someone and the bullet passes through that person and strikes someone behind them, I am responsible for that too. Being in a national park would not change that in any way. And wherever I am, and whatever I am doing, I am already responsible for having the proper license, ID, permit, etc. Again, nothing changes. Finally, it is already illegal to shoot in populated areas. For example, in the state of Tennessee, where I live, it is illegal to hunt within 100 yards of home or dwelling. You can't shoot game from the road. Basically, it's common sense. Don't shoot in the direction of something you don't intend to kill.
The feature that is new is 'Guns in National parks.' If you want this to work, and not get struck down due to the general non- shooting public becoming terrified of the few undisciplined clowns WITH NO COMMON SENSE who would be shooting in campgrounds unless a peace officer is out there to write 'em up or hook 'em up, those constraints I mentioned need to be written into the Code of Federal Regulations and enforced. As you pointed out, these are the same constraints that exist in for hunters in National Forests and BLM lands...since they work there they are a natural precedent for Guns in National Parks
"If you want this to work, and not get struck down due to the general non- shooting public becoming terrified of the few undisciplined clowns WITH NO COMMON SENSE who would be shooting in campgrounds unless a peace officer is out there to write 'em up or hook 'em up"
Can you name one place where this is a problem now with people who carry legally all the time? There don't need to be any new laws that aren't already there. And the people who carry legally every day already are obeying them. Just because they pass a boundary to a national park doesn't mean think they went back in fictional time to the days of the spaghetti western and now have to shoot at everything that moves or doesn't move. I don't know where this image is coming from, but it's not from this planet or reality.
If we allow guns in parks, we might as well allow guns to be carried on school grounds and in public restaurants. Every parent in America wants their child or children to be safe . Also, national parks are commonly visited by families with children. Parks are a place of recreation and fun, as well as safety. Park rangers are around and peace walks among the families and the hiking trails. Letting guns be loaded in National Parks would result in more homicides because people could just walk in with a gun and open fire on an innocent crowd of people. If that happens, who will be safe? No one.
Furthermore, people who bring weapons in the parks may be irresponsible with them and hurt or even kill somebody. Some people are not careful enough with guns and someone could get killed who was just innocently walking for a little exercise .
Some people see National Parks as a get-away from the real world. Let nature's beauty take you for a trip. Some people see the parks as a safe haven from the crimes outside, from all the hate and hurt. But all that will change with the introduction of guns into parks. Nothing will be safe: not families, wildlife that is endangered or threatened--because certain people could care less about that--anything.
How can you protect the wildlife? Park rangers will not always be in the right place at the right time to catch a person who commits a simple crime . Now how can they preform with the added tasks of weaponry on civilians? What if endangered species are shot or killed? How could federal laws be properly administrated with legal gun concealment in national parks?
National landmarks could be destroyed. For example, if people can carry weapons in national parks then someone could carry one to Mount Rushmore and shoot at the busts of the presidents carved in the mountain side. Permanent damage to the national landmark.
If National Parks want more defense, then hire more park rangers to administrate law and order in the parks.
"If we allow guns in parks, we might as well allow guns to be carried on school grounds and in public restaurants."
That is one of the few things you said that I agree with. Since no shooting sprees (mass shootings - 3 or more victimes) have ever taken place outside of "gun free zones" I can think of no good reason to NOT allow guns in those places. Do you think it's a coincidence that "gun free zones" are the chosen targets of spree shooters? Or do you think it's more likely they chose those places because they knew their targets would be unarmed?
"Every parent in America wants their child or children to be safe ."
Including gun owning parents.
"Parks are a place of recreation and fun, as well as safety."
Relative safety, yes. Absolutely safety, no. See my earlier post here http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/let-the-numbers-convince-you for numbers of crimes in national parks .
"Letting guns be loaded in National Parks would result in more homicides because people could just walk in with a gun and open fire on an innocent crowd of people. If that happens, who will be safe? No one."
Please provide some sort of study/stat/article that shows that to be true. The fact is, that argument is used everywhere that the discussion of lifting gun bans takes place, but it NEVER happens. When Kennesaw, GA passed its resolution requiring all eligible citizens to keep a firearm in the home, cries of horror went up about how the blood would be running through the streets. And despite the fear, there hasn't been a homicide for 20 years in that town.
"But all that will change with the introduction of guns into parks."
How exactly will that change? If you happen to be standing next to me at the store, you are standing next to someone who is armed. And yet I have somehow managed to never even draw my gun outside of a shooting range. Since lawful CCW holders aren't going around shooting their guns into the air like some cheesy spaghetti western outside of parks, what is it about entering a park that will magically transform them? Is it something in the air? Perhaps it's global warming ? Maybe you can enlighten us.
"Nothing will be safe: not families, wildlife that is endangered or threatened--because certain people could care less about that--anything."
Riiiiiiight! Because the mere act of purchasing a gun turns you into an unstable maniac hell bent on putting a hole in everything you see. That's a well known fact. At least to the Brady Bunch, VPC, FSA, and Blumberg. But to everyone that actually knows anything about gun owners, the well known fact is that CCW holders are well trained, law -abiding citizens who carry for the sole purpose of self defense, not blasting every available spotted owl in sight.
"Park rangers will not always be in the right place at the right time to catch a person who commits a simple crime . Now how can they preform with the added tasks of weaponry on civilians?"
So parks are safe, but park rangers can't be there to prevent crime that doesn't happen? And if it was legal to carry a lawful firearm into parks, what would be the added burden on park rangers? If the gun is there legally, what is the park ranger trying to prevent exactly?
"What if endangered species are shot or killed?"
They are now, and guns are illegal in parks. So I'm not sure where that argument is going.
"How could federal laws be properly administrated with legal gun concealment in national parks?"
The same way they are everywhere else guns are permitted. As long as they aren't used in the commission of a crime, there is nothing to administer. It's like asking how law enforcement is going to handle all the people that are obeying the speed limit.
"National landmarks could be destroyed. For example, if people can carry weapons in national parks then someone could carry one to Mount Rushmore and shoot at the busts of the presidents carved in the mountain side. Permanent damage to the national landmark."
I don't know where you come up with this! I hate to break it to you, but anyone intent on doing stupid stuff like that, is already doing it. You're not enabling or disabling vandalism by allowing those already legally licensed to carry to do so in national parks. All the what-ifs in the world won't change how criminals behave. But the possibility of meeting a person with a gun who can stop them sure might.
"If National Parks want more defense, then hire more park rangers to administrate law and order in the parks."
Until they can supply me with an armed park ranger to escort me everywhere I go, then I am still a potential victim. Until then, I am the one who is responsible for my safety.
...in many of them (Denali, St. Elias, Glacier, Yellowstone,) there are real carnivores in those places, animals that occaisionally really kill and consume someone, just like they have done throughout time. In CA and the southwest, there are already criminals there growing dope, doing auto burglaries and assaulting people. That's why it's better for a good citizen to discretly have a gun and not need it, then it is for him/her to suddenly need a gun and not have it.
Our national park rangers now are trained in law -enforcement tactics
and procedures as they now must deal with armed idiots and outright
badguys [dope-growers, smugglers, thieves]...To allow everyone to car-
ry loaded firearms in the national parks will not improve the 'ambience'
as the impaired or evil gun-toters threaten everyone else...Persons with firearms permits and hunting licenses [in those few locations where hunting is allowed] shud be able to keep locked, unloaded arms in
vehicles for proper usage only...
Why have a gun if its unloaded and locked up?How good is it for self-defense?Thats like having a car with no engine.
Hi Countryboy: By unloaded and locked up I'm aluding to sensible firearm
safety: If you are in a camper or motorhome, keep your firearm in a se-
cure toolbox, closet, cabinet or under your matress...Keep a magazine of
ammo somewhere nearby but known only to you or another adult companion.
In this manner, there is no accidental or kid's-curiosity gunfire. If
you need to respond to an emergency, you can do so but nobody else is
able to shoot your firearm...Packing heat around a campsite or having a
loaded piece laying around can attract trouble...Enjoy the park: If you
aren't comfortable with people there, move to another campsite or inform
one of the rangers of your observations/concerns...Aaron..
If its concealed it is on you.How much safer can a gun be?No one can find it there.A camper or motorhome is easy to get into and now a bad guy has your gun.
Hi Countryboy: I agree that if one is carrying concealed, one's weapon
is at hand but when I'm relaxing in parksites I usually have just a T-
shirt and shorts [unless it is cold or bugs are hungry]...I'm not much
of a shot with a handgun so an M-1 or M-94* carbine wud be hard to hide.
I guess I'd have to sling it over my shoulder or back?..Actually, if
the vibes in camp were bad, or a gang of bears approached, making bear-
signs, I'd depart pronto...I might pick a campsite close to where the
rangers' HQ/dispatch point was...The thugs and bears will probably stay
away from that 'hood'?..*=Guess I'd have to keep the .30-30 ammo in a
small plastic soap dish or cigarette box as the magazine is permanently
attached to the Winchester?..Aaron..
You can carry IWB (in waist band) or in pocket. Not all handguns hold 15 rounds of .40 caliber. And as for being a good shot with a handgun, I'm guessing you didn't start out as a good shot with a rifle either. A lot practice goes a little way. Or is it the other way around?
Hi LargerHead: I took ur advice and looked at 'pocket-pieces' I cud use
and which wud fit in my shorts side pockets. The 2 reasons I originally
preferred either an M1 or M94 carbine were: 1. I can hit something far-
ther away than with a handgun. 2. I have more chances to keep it/him
from getting closer--10/15/30 chances!.. My 3 handgun choices are: 1.
Walther PP/PPK German police mini-pistol [9mm/.380ACP or 7.65mm/.320ACP]
7-8 rounds, each...2. Walther P38/P1/P4 German WW II Army replacement of
'08 Lugar Parabellum and post-war Bundeswehr/Landespolizei [9mm/.380ACP]
pistol from '57-late 90s...3. S&W 'Lady Smith compact, 5-shot [.38/9mm/
.357Mag] FBI/policewomans' piece [easy to conceal/draw...Following ur
advice, I wud practice both 'stand-n-extended arm' [match-position] and
'crouch-n-point' [FBI/cop-position]. If I had two pistols [one in each
pocket, I cud 'trick-shoot' by firing one, then transferring to the ot-
her for 10/13/16 shots--bound to git it/him at least once or twice?.. I
wud keep my trusty carbine nearby, too for 10/15/30 more shots..Aaron..
However, if, God forbid, you should ever be put in the position to make the decision between an attacker's life or your own, you should really reconsider using a rifle. There are 2 reasons: First, up close a rifle can be as much a liability as an asset. It leaves you somewhat fewer choices and limits mobility (i.e. peeking around corners). Second, and way more importantly, if you shoot someone over approximately 21 feet away, you're probably going to jail for a very long time.
Most gunfights/shootings take place well within 21 feet and it is generally considered the outside limit where a reasonable person might have a fear for their life that justifies using deadly force.
Finally, more important than your choice of guns is your choice of ammo. Look at the terminal ballistics of your chosen self defense round and make sure it penetrates 12-18 inches and no more in ballistic gel. As one firearms instructor said, "Regardless of the caliber, most people just aren't that impressed with being shot by handgun." That's why ammunition choice becomes so important.
Whatever sidearm you choose, practice with it. Learn tactical shooting (for example, move laterally when you draw). And never forget the fundamentals.
-Robert
Hi Robert: Thank you for tips...My 'rifles' are only about 4' long from
buttplate to muzzle. They are just long enuf to be more accurate but
short enuf to not get in the way. Rounds for M1 are .30Long; M94 .3030
or .32Special [can drop a deer]...Some other carbines are Brit. Enfield
MK-5 [shortened SMLE MK-4 long rifle .308Rifle] and Marlin/Ruger/Etc.
for 9mm, .32Spcl, .357Mag, .44Mag [like Clint?]. All of these are under
5' so easy to grab, aim-n-fire...I will practice lateral movement when
drawing, especially if a tree or other cover is there. Still want to
keep it/him away from me [and down] If I see it/he is charging with a
gun or chainsaw/machette/axe/etc. I don't want it/him to get too close!
Aaron..