Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Retain gun ban in parks
NRA seeks another notch
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionThere's a good chance the Interior Department will soon weaken a regulation that restricts visitors from bringing loaded guns into our national parks and wildlife refugees. We'd rather it didn't.
Since 1983, a Reagan-era ban has outlawed citizens from bringing readily accessible, loaded guns onto lands overseen by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ban does not apply in national parks where hunting is allowed.
Now, after heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association, 50 senators are calling on the Interior Department to overturn the gun ban, even as park rangers praised the ban for making our national parks safer.
Despite this, the agency announced it would review the regulations and indicated a change would be in the offing by April 30. The NRA is also behind an effort in the Senate to rescind the ban — just in case the Interior Department fails to act.
It's all very reminiscent of Rep. Duncan Hunter's obsession with allowing hunting by the military to continue on Santa Rosa Island beyond a court-imposed deadline. Over the objection of the Park Service and despite the public's outrage, he persisted, finally getting a law passed in 2006. Fortunately, it was repealed last year.
Now comes this effort to end the gun ban. Again, we ask why. There's been no public outcry, no crime spree or rash of bear attacks. Why would anyone risk having stray bullets whiz through a campground filled with families?
A likely answer comes from Bryan Faehner of the National Parks Conservation Association. These restrictions, he told The Associated Press, "were reasonable then and are reasonable now. This is not about guns. It's not about parks. It's a hardball political issue injected by the NRA in an election year."
Well said. This is more about the gun lobby wanting another trophy to put atop its gun case, and less about Second Amendment rights. No one is trying to take guns away, just asking they be unloaded, put in a case and stuck in the trunk when brought onto certain public lands.
Instead of kowtowing to the gun lobby, the Interior Department should listen to current and former park rangers, law-enforcement officials and conservation groups before pulling the trigger on any changes.
Since the gun ban, this group notes, our 58 national parks, including the Channel Islands National Park, have become among the safest places to vacation. The ban has curtailed illegal hunting and poaching and reduced risks to park employees.
This will all change if the gun ban is overturned. Besides, people who want to wander the woods and trails with a loaded weapon can head to the more than 60 national monument sites, preserves and other federal lands where hunting is still permitted.
The politicians and bureaucrats need to heed that old phase, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and leave the gun ban as is. These treasures of scenic beauty should not be made less safe for the sake of another feather in the NRA's cap.
Posted by techshows on April 6, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What air-tight box have you been keeping your head in?
It is 51 senators and the NRA did not start this. It was the Virginia Citizens Defense League (Google VCDL) and the effort has been going on for almost 6 years now.
And as to the no crime wave...well then I have to ask you, how come the National Park (NP) service stopped issuing research permits unless the researcher signs a document stating they understand that there is no way the NP can protect them? How come some researchers have given up because of the drug mules destroying their equipment? I can easily send you a bunch of links to show you (I will not put them here since I do not know if your site filters them out of the posts).
And as to the Rangers opinions? They are the wrong ones to ask! They can HAVE a gun no matter what so of COURSE they do not want you to have one. Same old tripe - we are from the government and we are here to help!
All the letter and the VCDL petition for Rule Making (PRM)) does is ask the NP to make the existing state laws the laws in the park. So there are no special rules you have to follow just by crossing some non-existent line. No more and no less. Heck, National Forests have been doing this for a long time with no problems.
Concealed Carry Permit (CCP) holders are the most law abiding people in the United States. The average CCP holder is *LESS* likely to commit their first felony in any given year than the average off duty police officer. Does this mean we should take guns from the police too???
Guns are used defensively in the United States 2.5 MILLION times per year! Guns Save Lives!
Posted by mmshoot on April 6, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with with techshow. I wonder if you know if the VCDL has a relationship with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union.} It is true that true American's have the right to protect themselves and the people and things they love from any harm and I think that right is guarenteed to US citizens in the Second Ammendment to the Constitution. However, I think registration and certification of guns, particularly hand guns as they are so easy to conceal, should be strictly enforced by all the authority certain legislators allow in their respective areas. In fact, I think the "Brady Bill" and it's subsequent additions and ammendments to same should be toughened further. For example, follow the example of the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) who require routine registration and qualification in order to legally operate a motor vehicle in public areas. In the case of weapons, there should be routine proof of proficiency of there use required in order to get the so-called "license to carry." This would allow them to monitor individuals suspected of various kinds of crime and allow them to seek warrants for registered owners. I know the DMV is a bad example as many Americans, including me, have been frustrated by arcane bureaucratic BS they give us. But, at least in California, they are getting better. Unfortunately, it will require the cooperation of many in order to keep this country safe in the midst of all the chaos around the world at this time. This includes legislators, the judicial systems, and the executive authorities all to take a proper role in the process. This includes allowcating the MONEY and authority to law enforcement where necessary without too much PORK and Special Interest support necessary to get it done. Remember this when you vote next: "Common Sense" if often not all that common." Make sense?
Posted by Tom_Johnston on April 6, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The editorial has it right. This is really about being able to push legislators in an election year. Folks can keep their guns in a National Park, just kept unloaded and secured.
A real ban would be that you check your weapons at the Park gate, pick them up when you leave. I'd prefer that frankly.
Posted by JusAnAmerican on April 6, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The government and other law abiding citizens have nothing to fear if honest God fearing people carry guns to defend themselves. Thanks to a nation with declining values and a huge population of illegal aliens; our national parks are now visited regularly by derelicts, thieves and murderers.
Posted by lthrnek on April 6, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Take a ride up to Reyes Creek Campground for a weekday afternoon of trout fishing some time and, with no cell phone service there, see how lonely and vulnerable you feel. My little .38 caliber pistol probably won't kill a mountain lion or black bear but it'll be very handy in scaring him away if he chooses to attack. I don't know about you but I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. . .
Posted by thegreatpumpkin on April 6, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
techshows is exactly right. Drug cultivators don't care about the additional charge of carrying a firearm on the grounds of a national park. They arm themselves with illegal weapons (often assualt or automatic style weapons) and pitbulls or the like to guard their marijuana grow operations or portable meth labs. God help you if you stuble into one while hiking.
As an active duty police officer, I feel it's in your (the average citizen) best interest to be able to defend yourself and your family. You are not obligated to carry a firearm, but if you choose to complete the background check and semi-annaul training then you should be able to do so everywhere, the same as I can.
Posted by cslaurie on April 6, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd rather be caught with it than without it.
Posted by vwhunter on April 6, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gun laws and gun bans only affect law abiding citizens. We always see the misleading statistics of places with gun bans. They neglect to show us the overall homocide and assault statistics which in most cases indicate higher violent crime rates without guns.
The NRA supports the our forefathers reasoning that armed citizens are free citizens. The 2nd Ammendment is an ultimate protection against out of control government.
Posted by Common_Sense on April 6, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow...I am pleasantly surprised to see that more of the readers that I would have imagined actually think on their own and don't buy into this PC demonization of guns. Tech is correct and once again, the VC STAR is way off base...something I am not surprised about unfortunately...
Posted by CollectiveMediocrity on April 6, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Again, we ask why. There's been no public outcry, no crime spree or rash of bear attacks. Why would anyone risk having stray bullets whiz through a campground filled with families?"
I suppose that, since serious wilderness injuries are rare as well, people in the backcountry should leave their first aid kits behind as well. After all, it is statistically unlikely that anything bad will happen... Three key safety principles for enjoying the wilderness: be prepared, be smart, and observe the buddy rule. Mostly the outdoors is a wonderful and peaceful place. Should things go wrong, however, it takes time for emergency responders to get there. (Assuming you manage to reach someone - cell service can be spotty in areas.) Whether to treat or defend against injury, that is time we may not have. Fairly recently, tragic details of the brutal murder of a Georgia hiker a national forest have been in the news, serving as a somber reminder that predators are out there. Whether firearms as means of defense are part of being prepared is a point on which reasonable people can disagree. I think streamlining the policy in national parks so it is consistent with equivalent state policy is entirely reasonable.
Posted by onapproach on April 6, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is that the author doesn't know anything about firearms or law-abiding citizens who carry them.
Posted by mmshoot on April 6, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There does remain A single problem, onapproach. I saw no by-line on any author presently attending this particular forum. Did you? I can only wish that someday I might know who/which author you are talking about.
Posted by sslocal on April 7, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those that object - Would yo put up with a ban on newspapers in parks? How about radios or even books? The thing about rights is that you cannot pick and choose which to uphold. It's an all or nothing proposition.
Posted by phillybill on April 7, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are many reasons to carry a weapon in a national park. The animals have all of their teeth and claws. They have not been vaccinated for rabies. Criminals do not pay attention to the laws that should rein them in. (They are called "criminals." Look it up.) Legal carriers of firearms are statistically less likely to commit any crime that the public at large let alone a gun crime. You unknowingly rub elbows with concealed handgun carriers every day outside the parks with no problem. So what is the problem? If you are ever walking by yourself, with your spouse or child/grandchild and are faced with any kind of predator, two legged or four, you will gladly accept the help of a legally armed civilian. The person who saves your bacon is doing so out of a sense of duty to his/her fellow man, on his own dime and at some personal and legal risk. Be sure to say thank you. Then arm yourself so you can do for yourself.
Posted by allcheck on April 7, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am tired of all the license, registration and “proper training” nonsense. This sort of talk is usually accompanied with the driver’s license and automobile registration example. Well I have some news for you uninformed individuals; a driver’s license is a privilege. The right to keep and bear arms is a right. The Constitution does not grant rights, it only recognizes inalienable rights.
What kind of training did you receive to use your freedom of speech, religion, etc.? Did you have to register your pen or computer?
It is time for the people that think this way to take a basic course on the Constitution? This training should be a requirement for each and every citizen of the US.
Posted by BeaHappi on April 7, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well the bad guys are carrying their guns anywhere they want, ban or no ban.
It's not the law-biding citizens, who go through training and the background checks who scare me. They have probably saved many lives by having their legal firearms with them.
Put the attention where the attention needs to be - on getting firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. What is being done about that? Not enough judging by the murder and injury statistics.
Posted by BeaHappi on April 7, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, I don't own a gun and never have and most likely never will.
But I have no problem with gun owners who do the right things to ensure safety. Like making sure they're locked up and out of the way of children.
Posted by xyzz on April 7, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Now comes this effort to end the gun ban. Again, we ask why. There's been no public outcry, no crime spree or rash of bear attacks"
But there is a public outcry! Literally millions of law-abiding Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) License holders ARE shouting for a change. Most states allow CCW with a state issued license, and millions of folks are now carrying RESPONSIBLY and LEGALLY in National Forests, State Parks, Wal-Marts, shopping centers, grocery stores, and thousand of other LEGAL places in this country. Why is it somehow dangerous to CCW in a National Park, but not in a National Forest?
"Why would anyone risk having stray bullets whiz through a campground filled with families?"
Are there stray bullets wizzing through Wal-Marts, grocery stores and National Forests now? Please show me documentation of illegal shootings and "stray bullets" by folks with CCW Licenses! Statistically, there are ZERO problems with people with CCW Licenses. CCW licensees, statistically are the most law-abiding folks in the country.
This issue is NOT about hunting, poaching, or whizzing bullets It is about allowing people who already have a valid, state issued CCW licenses to carry in National Parks under the same state rules where the Park is located, just as they CAN NOW carry legally in a National Forest!
Posted by Face on April 8, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do this, and the only people in parks with guns will be criminals.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.