Home › News › County News
Senators want to OK guns in parks
New law urged to rescind ban
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsWASHINGTON — Russell Galipeau looks at the current ban on loaded guns in national parks as a perfectly sensible way to keep public lands as the safe, scenic treasures they were intended to be.
"We want people to be able to come there, be inspired, relax and learn," said Galipeau, superintendent of Channel Islands National Park. "And if there is a segment of our population that becomes intimidated because people are there with guns, then that starts to erode that sense of place and relaxation.''
Gun-rights advocates in Congress, however, are pushing to overturn the federal ban, arguing it's confusing and often results in otherwise law-abiding citizens getting charged with a crime for simply transporting or carrying a loaded weapon.
"We think it would make good public policy," Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said of lifting the ban.
Forty-seven U.S. senators, including Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter in December to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne asking him to repeal the ban, which has been in place for more than a quarter-century.
'A patchwork of gun laws'
Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is pushing legislation that would rescind the ban and allow state laws to govern whether loaded weapons should be permitted in national parks. Coburn's legislation is in the form of an amendment to a broader federal lands bill. It had been expected to come to the Senate floor next week, but its future was in doubt Friday because of a disagreement between Coburn and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
The ban, established by the Reagan administration in 1983, doesn't prohibit guns outright in national parks. It does, however, require that firearms be unloaded and stored in the trunks of cars or other places where they are not readily available. The regulation also applies to lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but not to national parks in which hunting is permitted.
Regardless, Coburn and others say the restrictions against loaded weapons are unnecessary, violate the Second Amendment, leave park visitors unable to protect themselves and put park rangers at risk of assault or other crimes.
What's more, many states allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons with permits. Those laws vary from state to state, however, and the federal ban on loaded weapons in parks just adds to the confusion, Arulanandam said.
"Right now, there is a patchwork of gun laws," he said. "Within a state, you will have laws and policies governing different lands, and I think it is prudent to have one standard policy across a state."
Harder to protect icons
Supporters of the loaded-gun ban say there would be even more confusion if Congress rescinds the federal rule.
Many federal parks straddle multiple states. Death Valley National Park, for example, sits in both Nevada and California, and the two states have dramatically different gun laws.
Nevada has no state restrictions on the sale or possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons or large-capacity ammunition magazines ranging up to 75 rounds. The state also doesn't require criminal background checks on all firearm sales.
California, on the other hand, restricts the sale of all semi-automatic assault weapons, such as semi-automatic versions of AK47s and Uzis. The state also limits magazines in excess of 10 rounds and requires universal background checks on all firearm purchases.
If the federal ban on loaded guns in parks is lifted, visitors to Death Valley would be subject to different state laws depending on where they are in the park.
Because there is no formal state line through the park, it would be hard for visitors and park rangers to know which state law applies, said Laura Loomis, deputy vice president for government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association in Washington.
Lifting the federal ban also would make it harder to protect icons like Mount Rushmore or the Golden Gate National Recreation Area against terrorism and would increase the possibility of deadly conflicts between competing park users, such as bikers and hikers, Loomis said.
'It is a poison pill'
The ban also has been an effective weapon against poaching and drug dealing in national parks, Loomis said. If it's lifted, poaching would likely increase, she said, and the number of charges that can be brought against drug dealers would be considerably reduced.
At Channel Islands, the restrictions have never been much of an issue, Galipeau said.
"We have found that in most cases, people who transport guns to parks have not had any objection to unloading guns and putting them in their trunk," he said. "They haven't seen it really as a problem.''
Galipeau said he could not recall any cases in the past year in which someone has been cited for bringing a loaded gun into the park. Occasionally, boaters who have been traveling long distances may wander into the park with loaded firearms.
"But what's different is they are in their vessels and they are not in plain view," Galipeau said.
"So a lot of times we don't know they actually have weapons on their boats. And those who decide they are going to shoot at tin cans or birds, we have law enforcement who can handle that.''
Both California senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, oppose lifting the federal ban.
"I strongly oppose Sen. Coburn's amendment, and I will do everything I can to resist it," Feinstein said. "This amendment is unnecessary, it is a poison pill, and it poses a threat to public safety. The current policy works, and that is why it is supported by parks groups and law enforcement. It would be a mistake to allow loaded guns in our national parks."
Posted by sslocal on February 9, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A whole bunch of hyperbole in this article. All the Brady Campaign buzz words are here as well. What they fail to realize is that criminals don't follow laws. So if a poacher wanted to take an animal out of season he would simply do it without regard to any laws in place. This would apply to the standard criminal as well. To defend you or your family in a NP would invite arrest.
Not to mention that due to the efforts of environmentalists the predatory animal population is up. I, for one, would like to be able to defend myself against a hungry mountain lion or bear without the worry of a park ranger arresting me after the fact for having a loaded gun.
Of course our senators would prefer to see us all unarmed. But that is a different subject.
Posted by smithjc on February 9, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Nevada has no state restrictions.... The state also doesn't require criminal background checks on all firearm sales."
of course "the state" doesn't require a criminal background check. that's a federal requirement. nevada uses "nics" just like everyone else.
all the ban in parks does is to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals and other animals.
Posted by nick2fot on February 9, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When and where hunting is permitted in National Parks, guns (or bows) are also permitted. What is the rationale for allowing guns where hunting is forbidden? If you are afraid of being attacked by wild animals, stay away from them - just as you should stay out of airplanes if you are afraid of flying. Only poachers and law enforcement officers need guns where hunting is illegal. Many Americans want a place to take their families to see wilderness where we don't have to worry about being the victims of "friendly fire."
Posted by sslocal on February 9, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Staying away from wild animals, both 2 and 4 legged ones, does not always work. I have ran into many folks packing a pistol in the back country. It would seem to make sense to do so. You can't stop a preditor with harsh words or by "avoiding" it.
Your complaint about being the victim of friendly fire is, as I stated before, hyperbole. It wasn't a problem before the law was in place and it won't be should they get rid of it.
Many of the gun control freaks predicted that there would be blood running in the streets when states started to pass CCW laws. It did not happen. In fact, crime dropped in the states that passed it. Criminals hate for us to be armed. They would much rather we be helpless victims.
Lets get rid of this law and restore that little piece of freedom stolen away from us those many years ago.
Posted by lawson_wayne on February 9, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed". Author Unknown
Posted by jeff93024 on February 9, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The National Forests are full of pinheads who shoot at everything they see -- signs, animals, buildings, trash cans, monuments, trees, benches, gates, and just about anything else they can aim it. Anyone who spends any time at all out there knows that this is true. Why would we want to let these clowns do the same thing in our National Parks?
Posted by lthrnek on February 9, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are "Pinheads" driving on our highways too. Wanna take their cars away??? C'mon Pal. . . when I'm up in the back country I'll have my .38 closeby and don't tell me you can't kill a grizzly with a .38. If you put it in his mouth and pull the trigger, he'll lose interest in eating you for sure.
Posted by jeff93024 on February 9, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"There are "Pinheads" driving on our highways too. Wanna take their cars away???"
You bet. Any other knee-jerk questions?
But, maybe your're right. Maybe I'll start carrying a gun when I go hiking, too. Maybe I'll run into someone shooting something they shouldn't be shooting. Maybe there'll be one less pinhead in the world by the time I get back to my car.
Sounds fair, doesn't it?
Posted by sslocal on February 9, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No jeff, it sounds stupid.
You don't carry a gun in the woods just so you can shoot stuff. You carry it in case you run into something you clould not normally handle without it.
Remember, it is better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it and not have it.
Posted by jeff93024 on February 9, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"You don't carry a gun in the woods just so you can shoot stuff."
My point exactly. But, that's what goes on most of the time. (If you don't know that, then you must not be spending very much time in Los Padres.) "Shooting stuff" is exactly why most people take firearms onto public lands. I can think of 3 local shooting areas that have been closed down -- two by the Forest Service and one by CalTrans -- because of trash, vandalism, and unsafe shooting practices, like people shooting across roadways and/or down into canyons from the side of the road.
I've been hiking for 45 years without *having* to carry a firearm. Every bear, mountain lion, coyote and bobcat I've ever seen was in the process of running away from me before I ever saw them. I've never killed a rattlesnake because the way I figure it I'm in their back yard -- they're not in mine. If you're afraid to go in the woods without a gun, maybe you don't belong in the woods. If you're going to wet yourself at the idea of encountering a predator, then don't leave your house in the morning -- there are a lot more predators in your town, wherever your town is, than there are in the hills behind us.
As for the idea of using a handgun to take out a grizzly bear, that's something you don't need to worry about in California. However, if you do decide to go after grizzlies with a sidearm, be sure to file off the front sight.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions 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.