Guns Allowed In National Parks

New Interior Department rules allow people to carry concealed firearms where state law allows

It's official: Gun owners can now carry concealed weapons in some national parks and wildlife refuges, provided they have a permit and the state they are visiting also allows loaded guns in parks. The ruling overturns a two-decade-old law requiring visitors to national parks to keep their weapons unloaded and inaccessible.

The National Rifle Association lobbied heavily for the rule change, and lauded the Interior Department's decision.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

But retired park service employees and other national park advocates were dismayed by the news.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades."

The rule will take effect in about 30 days, and though the Obama administration could eventually overturn it, restarting any regulatory change could take a few years.

What do you think about the rule change? Are you in favor of having concealed guns in national parks, or would you like the next president to attempt to overturn the new rule? Let us know in the comments section.

—Ted Alvarez

New regulation eases ban on guns in national parks (Seattle Times)

PRINT THIS PAGE EMAIL THIS PAGE RSS FEED

Digg Delicious Yahoo Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Google Newsvine Facebook Twitter

READERS COMMENTS

False confidence is deadly. Advice given above about calibers and models shows source inexperience. Bears, found in many national parks, are big animals, with heavy fur and body fat to deflect all but the largest fastest bullets. I am 4th generation Montanan, own homes very near Yellowstone, hike there with my four daughters and granddaughters and wife. We see bear, and grizzly (bear on steroids) regularly.
I carry either a Ruger .454 Casull or a S&W .50 S&W magnum, over a ton of impact energy. I won't draw unless I HAVE (!!!) to shoot and I will make that first shot really count. Anyone with a popgun (that would include .44 special and .357 magnum0 will just "irritate" a bear--and that is likely to be fatal.
Like teen sex, the best strategy is to avoid dangerous situations and don't have a false sense of confidence.
Posted: Mar 20, 2009 Carl

"These two calibers allow you to shoot a sub caliber round (38special and 44special respectively) and will shoot "snake shot loads".

That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. That does nothing but give ammunition to the antis. When have you ever really needed to shoot a snake? I hope they double the penalty for shooting wildlife. I approve of the rule change FWIW.

Posted: Jan 19, 2009 steve

The rule change was long over due!
Thank you VCDL, opencarry.org and every second amendment supporter that helped further our rights.

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Will

A Firearm is a tool....that's all. A tool that it is better to have and not need, then to need and not have.
Posted: Dec 20, 2008 Rob

Ha! GreyEagle, you're obviously not from Texas. A background check and a safety course won't prevent anyone from shooting a snake, or a bobcat, or whatever else they want... just because they felt "threatened." Just because you're responsible doesn't mean everyone else is... or that ANYONE else is for that matter.
Posted: Dec 13, 2008 Mike

People who have Concealed Carry Permints are required to have gun safety training, gun law/regulation training and be approved by the authorities, in my case the state police. we also have to go through FBI checks to purchase the weapon. We do not represent a threat to law abiding citizens, park staff or the wildlife.
Posted: Dec 10, 2008 GreyEagle in Maine

"Most predators can sense the reduced fear of a gun-toting human, and are more likely to avoid an encounter, anyway."

Yeah... I'm pretty sure that's based on sound science.

"These two calibers allow you to shoot a sub caliber round (38special and 44special respectively) and will shoot 'snake shot loads.'

A 38 special or a snake shot round would be worthless against a cougar or a bear, and you will NEVER be put in a situation where it is absolutely necessary to kill a snake.

It sure feels like some folks just really like guns for guns' sake - not because there is any sensible reason to carry them. If you are so afraid of a national park that you feel like you need to pack heat, maybe you should just stay home. BTW - I'm a hunter and I own a shotgun and a rifle. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-rationality.
Posted: Dec 08, 2008 Mike

This is a rules change that was way overdue. A firearm is an indespensable survival and defensive tool. If you have a question about it, ask those folks found dead from two legged predators after heading to the woods for a "Quick Hike"
Or people who have been mauled to death because the camper who last used the shelter decided to throw a half eaten hot dog under the lean to or was feeding the wildlife.
A gun is a tool which everyone who heads into the field should have with them. They even have ultralight ones for those of you who like that sort of thing: The Smith and Wesson Airweight in 357 magnum with a 3" Barrel would be the choice there. For the rest of us, go with a 4inch barrel Ruger Redhawk in the same caliber or in 44Magnum. These two calibers allow you to shoot a sub caliber round (38special and 44special respectively) and will shoot "snake shot loads".
With this weapon, you can respond to many different types of threats and take game in a survival situation. And, at the end of the day, its compact enough to be carried conveniently.
RR
http://www.woodlandsurvival.com
Posted: Dec 08, 2008 The Ridge Runner

Florida has very liberal gun laws and last time I visited it didn't look like the wild west. I'll bet the national parks don't change for the worse either.
Posted: Dec 07, 2008 David

Oh geez. Well, now NP visitors can protect themselves ... from each other. And don't give me any crap about how your gun will protect you from a predator. First of all, your chances of being killed in a national park by a predator, animal or human, is virtually nil. Second of all, a gun is next to useless against an animal that wants to harm you. Bears somehow have the ability to ignore guns, no matter how many bullets you discharge into their face, and if a mountain lion wants you dead, you won't know it until, well ... you're dead.
Posted: Dec 07, 2008 AjaPuppy

I have been camping for about 4 years now and have only had one bad incident. My wife and i and another elderly couple were camping in New Mexico when in the middle of the night, we were awaken by two pick-ups full of drunken men yelling at us and telling us to leave. We did, very fast and very scared not having cell phone reception and only a kitchen knife in my pack i felt useless and with our lives in the hands of others. I don't know what i would have done if i did have a gun with me, but it is the only time i wish i did. I have had better luck camping since then, but we don't camp as much now because of that.
Posted: Dec 07, 2008 happy camper

This is a reasonable and long overdue change. A right is a right and a person shouldn't have to depend on anyone else for permission to exercise it.
Posted: Dec 06, 2008 joephll

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. " - Oh PLEASE! This is the same crazy fear-mongering hysteria that anti-gun groups spew about concealed carry, the "gun show loophole", and "assault weapons".
Posted: Dec 06, 2008 Ben Miner

The farther away from the car and cell phone reception my family and I hike and camp in the woods, the more likely I will tote a .44 mag. I would never forgive myself if the unexpected happened to one of my loved ones, and I was unprepared -- and therefore unable -- to protect them. Most predators can sense the reduced fear of a gun-toting human, and are more likely to avoid an encounter, anyway.
Posted: Dec 06, 2008 conehead

Bout time.
Posted: Dec 06, 2008 Bulldada

I favor the rule change. We trust each other to act responsibly and lawfully in so many other ways, it is simply logical to trust each other when it comes to the permitted carrying of firearms. We will continue to enforce laws against the criminal misuse of arms, against the criminal taking or harming of wildlife, etc.

Keeping and bearing arms is not some antiquated notion of days gone by. It is mainstream and it is a reflection on individual liberties. Most of us who enjoy the backcountry share those values, and we take pride in them.
Posted: Dec 05, 2008 Carl in Chicago