National Park Gun-Free Zones To End Soon?
By Greg L | 9 May 2008 | Crime | 9 Comments
Second Amendment activists have been trying for years to have the Department of the Interior rescind rules that prohibit the possession of a firearm in national parks. How the federal government ever thought that they had the constitutional authority to do this in the first place, outside of their established power to regulate hunting on federal lands, is somewhat of a mystery. So for years, when you’ve gone into a national park where predators of not only the four legged kind, but also of the two legged variety occasionally attack a hiker or camper, your only means of self-defense has been a whistle. After years of pressure, fifty one Senators finally directed the DOI to propose a new rule.
The request for a rules change seems pretty modest, and falls far short of what could be reasonably asked for. The Virginia Citizens Defense League describes the request as follows:
The Petition for Rule Making (PRM) submitted by VCDL requested DOI regulations be modified to “permit citizens to carry operational handguns for personal protection in National Parks, consistent with the laws of the state in which the park is located”.
Essentially what this means is that state laws regarding the possession of defensive firearms would apply to national parks within state boundaries. If you have a concealed carry permit in Virginia, you could carry your defensive firearm in concealed fashion in national parks located in Virginia, as well as within those states that recognize Virginia permits, such as West Virginia. Additionally, anyone with a concealed carry permit issued in another state that is recognized in Virginia could carry concealed in a national park within Virginia. Open carry by any person who could legitimately possess a handgun would be permitted in Virginia as well. There are some instances where I think a responsible person should be permitted to carry a rifle or shotgun also, since bringing down a charging Grizzly out west is a pretty tall order for most people to do with a handgun that would typically be carried as a defensive firearm. But given the current makeup of the U.S. Senate, actually trying to make national park rules conform to something like the United States Constitution is probably a little more than Second Amendment advocates could reasonably hope for.
The DOI has finally issued their proposed rule, and it is available for public comment on their website. There are some technical improvements that need to be made in order to make this rule change conform to the request made by VCDL and the fifty-one U.S. Senators, but this is a significant step in the right direction, particularly given this recent story about one of those two-legged predators that have endangered visitors to the Appalachian Trail recently:
A Giles County man paroled from prison after serving 14 years for killing two hikers on the Appalachian Trail in 1981 now is suspected of shooting two campers just off the trail in Giles on Tuesday.
Creating huge gun-free zones, whether they be in our community or our parks is an invitation for the worst predators to run rampant without fear. This rule change is long overdue, and every day we continue to regard national parks as a gun-free zone we endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.
Here is the commentary that VCDL is providing, which I would urge readers to make use of when commenting on this proposed rule:
The proposed rule falls far short of what Senator Crapo’s letter to DOI on December 14th, 2007 requested. The letter, signed by 51 Senators, asked that National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges assimilate the host state’s gun laws.
The rule also falls far short of the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s Petition for Rule Making sent to DOI and dated January 19, 2008. Like Senator Crapo’s letter, the Petition, representing over one million gun owners, requested that the gun laws for the host state be assimilated.
The proposed rule needs to assimilate state law in a similar manner as National Forests do for the lawful carry of weapons for self-defense. That would make the rules for such carriage of self-defense weapons in National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests the same and consistent with the laws of the state surrounding the parks and refuges.
Please change the wording of the rules as follows, which would make the regulation of carry commensurate with standards of the host state, while removing the nebulous and confusing wording about “similar lands.” Existing poaching laws will serve to deter poaching in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges, just as they do on state land:
“A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.”
And for National Wildlife Refuges:
“A person may possess, carry, and transport loaded, and operable firearms or other weapons within a national wildlife refuge area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport loaded and operable firearms or other weapons in the state in which the federal wildlife refuge, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.”
If we can get this rule fixed, this will definitely improve the safety and security of visitors to national parks and other federal recreational lands.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
9 Comments
Leave a Reply
Views: 579
Loading ...
What would happen in a park like Yellowstone that covers three states: Montana, Wyoming and a small sliver of Idaho? Surely all three don’t have the same gun laws?
Related…
There is/was(?) a bill afoot to force each state to recognize the conceal carry laws of every other state.
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/04/15/news/041508dcgunrecip.txt
The words “snowball’s chance in hell” comes to mind, but I’ll keep an eye out for it.
My hope is that DOI will listen to the majority of the US Senate and to VCDL and make a change consistant with the gun laws of the state the park is in.
The current regulations, since 1984, only require you to keep your gun unloaded and in the trunk - so it can’t help you unless your attacked in your trunk. The oposistion is trying to say poaching and other crime is somehow going to escalate because the same law abiding citizens can now take them out of their trunk and keep them on their person.
When it comes down to it my personal opinion is that the only “permit” you should really need is the Constitution. The second amendment is only to underscore it for those who did not get it the first time.
the following information from:
http://www.fleoa.org/Legislative/LegDocs/LawEnforcementOfficersSafetyAct/ConcealedCarry.htm
1. Wyoming offers Concealed Carry Weapons licenses to residents and recognizes CCW Licenses issued by Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Utah, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
6 . Idaho issues licenses and recognizes CCW Licenses from 39 other states
11. Montana issues licenses and has limited reciprocity with CCW permits issued by Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The federal government, by code and law, are the most restrictive area(s) regulating firearms for civilians. While politicians on the right clamor for less gun control, they do not support those same rights on federal property, which, by the Constitution, are “the people’s” property. Can you imagine crossing the 14th Street Bridge and walking down Constitution Avenue with your firearm? Apparently as one walked across the bridge and was “legal” in Virginia, become a dire criminal element on the other side of the Potomac. Must be the water or the air - or the politicians who criminalize all of us for doing nothing different (or wrong) from one side of the river to the other. Same goes for the Parks, Post Offices and other Federal buildings.
I am aware of some folks who are upset with guns and even conceal permit holders but the Amendments apply across the board. The Second Amendment should apply to Federal property and territory as well.
For those that may be interested; locally offered classes will allow qualified Virginia residents to acquire both Virginia and Utah ccw’s, which allows them to carry handguns concealed in 32 or more states currently.
Here is a link to a good current pdf list.
http://www.nraila.org/recmap/Recguide.pdf
Hopefully this new law change will make honest people of those of us who have for years been visiting park lands carrying concealed already.
Citizen 12 said on 10 May 2008 at 1:33 am,
Thank you for the information. It doesn’t appear that there would be a problem. There are several other issues that arise from that park covering three states. Bizarre facts and things.
OOppps that was TO Citizen 12’s response at 1:33 am
I’m a PA resident and every time I encounter a bear or some AT-through-hiker muttering to himself I am reminded of this ridiculous bullsh*t. If I can carry a gun into the supermarket for self-defense, why can’t I carry one into the woods where my wife and I are in potentially greater danger?