Guns In Nat'l Parks: Not So Fast

Groups file suit to prevent rule change allowing loaded guns in national parks

This week should've been a day of celebration for Second Amendment fans: The Bush administration's ruling to allow loaded guns in national parks was scheduled to take effect on Friday. Now that rule change is under threat, as The National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees filed suit this week in Washington, D.C. in an effort to block the regulation change.

In the suit, both groups claimed the Department of the Interior "adopted the gun rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law... The new regulation is an affront to the National Parks' missions and purposes and a threat to the National Parks' resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside."

National Parks Conservation Association President Tom Kiernan added, "In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing Administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so."

The NRA-backed rule enjoyed plenty of controversy: During the public comment period, 73 percent of the 140,000 respondents opposed the rule change. A recent survey of BACKPACKER readers in June chimed in with similar results: 74 percent opposed allowing guns in national parks.

Do you still think guns shouldn't be allowed in national parks? Let us know in the comments section below.

—Ted Alvarez

Lawsuit filed to keep guns out of national parks (Cleveland Plain Dealer)

PRINT THIS PAGE EMAIL THIS PAGE RSS FEED

Digg Delicious Yahoo Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Google Newsvine Facebook Twitter

READERS COMMENTS

There hasn't been a problem with them in national forests. Why are we so worried about allowing them in national parks? It's not like anyone searched potential criminals for guns in parks before...
Posted: Jan 12, 2009 Greg

I have spent most of my life in the back country either hunting, camping, hiking, or working. 99% of that time I had a firearm of some type with me but I never have had to use it to protect myself but I will still carry it. I also have never ever carried a first-aid kit with me and I freely admit its a bad idea not to (will soon be getting one). The real issue is safety. Me not having a first aid kit because I never needed one is no better than someone not carrying a gun because you never needed one. Both of us are relying on someone else (SAR, Fish and Game, Police, etc.) to bail us out of any situations we weren't prepared for.
Posted: Jan 10, 2009 jasoninsitka

"I have spent months in our National Parks back country and never felt the need for a gun to protect myself from humans or animals. I have spent almost two years total cumulative time backpacking, and never been threatened either.I've walked through National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness Areas,Bureau of Land Management Lands, State Parks, State Forests, Municipal Parks, Cities, Private Lands(with owner permission) and never felt the need to have a weapon.

What are you afraid of?
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 cheflovesbeer"

Ah, good old Condition White. Completely oblivious to potential dangers. I hope that you continue to lead your charmed life. And should you ever be subject to an assault, I really hope you survive...not only for your own sake but also so that you can convert others who live in Condition White.
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 Jim In Houston

I have spent months in our National Parks back country and never felt the need for a gun to protect myself from humans or animals. I have spent almost two years total cumulative time backpacking, and never been threatened either.I've walked through National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness Areas,Bureau of Land Management Lands, State Parks, State Forests, Municipal Parks, Cities, Private Lands(with owner permission) and never felt the need to have a weapon.

What are you afraid of?
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 cheflovesbeer

Hey Ted maybe you should reference Backpackers most recent poll in Nov. 2008 page 67 where it says "Guns in national parks? 53% YES/47%NO" Maybe this would explain the surprisingly (for you) pro-gun comments on this blog.
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 Trena

I think it should be illegal for criminals to carry firearms. Oh wait it already is. Laws are for the law abiding. They won't be taking the criminals guns away they will be taking your guns away.
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 Jason

Wow, lots of comments about shooting bears - too bad they can't carry guns too.
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 4bears

Let's say that you're hiking in the national park you like best, and you meet two people on the trail. The first one says hello, waves and goes on by. The second one asks you for a light for his cigarette, then produces a gun. Then he ties you up and drags you off the trail, rapes you and cuts your throat.
The first hiker was a concealed carry permit holder and was also carrying a gun, but you never saw it. He got his permit only because he had no criminal record. If he had a history of felony crimes like assault, he couldn't have a concealed carry permit. He obeys the law and doesn't attack innocent people. If he had been there, he could ver well have stopped your attacker from murdering you.
The second guy had a history of violent assault, was out on parole and got his gun illegally. He doesn't care about the law and he doesn't hesitate to assault and murder innocent people.
We know that people with concealed carry permits commit far fewer violent crimes than the rest of the population. So worrying about them having firearms in the national parks is senseless, baseless paranoia. Just having a gun doesn't make you dangerous, it's who you are.
The national parks are dangerous places, and letting honest people carry legal firearms doesn't make them more dangerous, it makes them safer. People who take the time to discover the facts will know this - Charles Riggs, Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed - "Because the right to protect yourself shouldn't stop at your front door"
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 Charles in Kentucky

Nobody has yet been able to provide a convincing reason for why criminals should be the only ones who carry guns in National Parks.
Posted: Jan 09, 2009 TFred

What are the anti-gunners afraid of? That the parks will turn into the wild west like the consealed carry states did! Oh, that's right that never happened did it?
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 D Shaner

"Unwarranted haste?" Public comment was taken on this regulation, the same as every other. The gun-haters actually had one of their alpha gun-haters extend the comment period twice, just so they could send in their negative form letters. It still didn't work -- the comments were over 70% in favor of this change (contrary to this article). Maybe you guys ought to check facts independently instead of just gullibly reprinting Brady press releases.

So what is this lawsuit? The typical whining. Every time they lose, they simply demand a do-over, and another do-over, and another do-over, until they finally get their way. Not this time.
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Henry Bowman

Hey, Dave. Your stereotypes and prejudices are showing. Do CHL holders engage in such behavior outside of parks? What make you think they would do so inside of parks?

As for what type of handgun to use on a bear, that subject is well addressed in the gun community. Yes, they have to be pretty powerful but they can be concealed.
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Jim In Houston

Gosh, you mean I'm NOT supposed to carry in National Parks? Well, I do anyways.
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 John Bates Thayer

I doubt anyone will notice if a some of us can carry legally in the National Parks. Possibly the Parks will have more visitors. As others have pointed out, legal concealed carry has been taking place on Forest Service and BLM lands for years. So, what's the big difference with the Parks?
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Striker

I understand that some responders want to use their hand guns to shoot attacking bears. Have you seen a bear? You better have a big gun, and those hard to conceal. Why not carry a rifle? That will stop a bear, maybe.

Would'nt it be great if everybody in a park had a gun? If somebody was playing their music too loud, you could just shoot him, or his boom box, and get a good night sleep. That would be awesome.
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Dave

The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.
So, tell me again how well the current rules are working.
I do not carry a jack and a spare because I'm looking for a flat tire. I do not carry a fire extinguisher because I am looking to catch on fire. I do not carry a firearm because I am looking to be attacked. I just believe life is simpler when you plan ahead for all those annoying possibilities.
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Uncle Lar

Perhaps those filing the lawsuits are looking for a nice out of the way place to commit crimes against unarmed victims. That supposition is no more far-fetched than the idea that a lawful gun owner would commit crimes. You have to wonder about people who prefer those weaker than themselves to be helpless. What is their real intent?
Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Bob

"Do you still think guns shouldn't be allowed in national parks? Let us know in the comments section below."
Absolutely.
My personal brief period of anti-gun idiocy was terminated when a 19 year old female acquaintance of mine was killed by a bear in a national park several decades ago. Human predators are no less of a problem and growing worse.
Legally armed citizens are the best hope in potentially deadly attack situations, animal or human.

Posted: Jan 08, 2009 Indiana Phil