Does the National Park Service have an obligation -- before the public comment period closes -- to better inform the general public about proposed changes to the existing gun regulations? While those who closely follow national park issues and gun issues more than likely are aware of the proposal to allow park visitors to arm themselves, does the general park-going public?
[url=/2008/04/interior-officials-propose-allowing-concealed-carry-national-parks]
Those changes[/url], of course, might allow holders of concealed weapons permits to carry their loaded weapons with them while admiring Old Faithful, hiking into the Grand Canyon, or strolling across the Colter Bay campground in search of a cold beer.
That question about alerting the public to the possibility that the park visitor standing next to them might soon be armed was raised this week by the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police. In a letter to Park Service Director Mary Bomar the groups asked her what "specific steps have you taken or will you take to ensure that National Park System visitors and National Park Service employees will be informed of this proposed change to a regulation that has been in place in some form for 88 years?"
"Will you provide them with the opportunity to know that they have the ability to officially comment on this proposed change?" the letter adds.
Disconcertingly, according to the groups, top Interior Department officials specifically prohibited Park Service employees from commenting on the proposed change in their official capacities. Wouldn't you hope that if such a drastic change were being made to your workplace environment that you'd be able to voice your opinions on it?
"Their professional expertise in managing parks should not be ignored in making this decision, nor should it be hidden from the public as they weigh their individual decision on whether to oppose or support the proposed change," reads the letter.
At the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters, Communications Chief David Barna says the agency went about publicizing the proposed change the same way it publicizes other proposals up for public comment.
The Interior Department "did put out a press release announcing the public comment period and articles have run in over 200 newspapers. That's the process we use for all public comment issues," said Mr. Barna.
Some no doubt would argue that a proposed change of such magnitude and with such potential wide-ranging impacts would merit more publicity during the ongoing 60-day comment period and would gain more visibility if notices explaining the proposal were inserted into park newspapers given to visitors as they enter parks and were placed on park websites.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Thanks Kurt. One thing's for sure: the lawyers and bureaucrats ALWAYS win.
The answer to the title of this post is quite simple - actually. The answer is "no", the NPS is not obligated to better promote proposed change in gun regulations. The NPS has followed the statutory procedures for public notice-and-comment by publishing the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, it is then up to the stakeholders to respond and to promote additional public interest in filing comments. It seems like the NRA has done just that, and it appears that the NPCA and blogs like the NPT are doing the same.
being that this is the election count down, does this have anything to do with a kind of holding back on promoting more public response/attention.... god forbid if the candidates have to address( make a decision) the regulations/ or a change of such !!!! hey, isnt it somewhat slanted to paint a picture of some concealed weapon gun wearing expert to happen to be at the same place at the same time as some one needing to be rescued in that same moment?! The knight in shining armor simply looking to save !!! What a visual! Stat wise there are likley quite a few folks out in those campgrounds/ hotels/dorm rooms sitting around the campfire toasted on a few cold beers that have received their share full of reprimands etc..about their state of mind ( and/ or punching out a park neighbor). Seems like the more guns anywhere is asking for a greater % of accidents/mishaps involving others/ perhaps involving kids. The regulations as they are now are fine. Go ahead and wear that concealed gun if you think you have a mission; if you happen to save the moment you likely wont be charged. If you are so fear full about being where you are while on your way to no where while your gun is packed away in your vehicle( as it currently can be) , you've likley been watching too much TV . Having an informative hand-out/ survey given out to those actually visiting/coming thru the parks is a great idea.
MRC:
With all due respect, Wake Up! The Los Angeles Times reported in a story about the possible National Park rule change, “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 ...” I think there is VERY clear reason why one should be allowed to carry a self-defense firearm in a National Park.
Remember: When seconds count, the Police are minutes away. And in a National Park, the Rangers are often many, many miles and minutes away.
You've made a good point here Doc. I believe that most of those who oppose this rule change are those who are mis-informed or totally UN-INFORMED about guns and gun issues. How else could you cause someone to be so afraid of their next-door neighbor who has completed a background check, received the training, and borne the expense of acquiring a CCW permit?
They don't know anything about this proposed rule-change simply because they don't try to keep up with current events and other important news. The section of the L.A. Times you mentioned was probably used to line the bird cage while they were reading the Entertainment news.
C'mon, Fred, you're using a pretty broad brush with your characterizations and accusations. More than a few folks know what's going on.
By the way, did you know that Utah has the most liberal concealed carry provisions in the nation?
Source: the Salt Lake Weekly.
Did you also know that a licensed concealed weapons instructor here in Utah quit his job after shooting himself in the foot while teaching a class? Or that your odds of being killed by lightning are greater than those of being murdered in a national park? Does that last tidbit cause you to avoid going outside?
At the end of the day, you're more likely to die in a car accident, from cancer, from poor health and exercise habits, illegal drug use, and illicit sex than from roaming a park unarmed.
Let's try to keep some perspective here.
A Utah permit is not terribly difficult to get. I have one in my wallet. Only cost me $200. I had to attend an all-day class. I waited 5 months for my permit to come in the mail; background checks take time. It is NOT valid in California. Check this website: http://carryconcealed.net/legal/reciprocity.php
"At the end of the day, you're more likely to die in a car accident, from cancer, from poor health and exercise habits, illegal drug use, and illicit sex than from roaming a park unarmed.
Let's try to keep some perspective here."
The perspective we should keep is that of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The Second Amendment, as with all the amendments, does not allow for probability and statistics. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government. Period. In short, the right to carry firearms has nothing to do with the likelihood that one might need to use that firearm. Faulty reasoning, based on probability and statistics and not the law, ignores the fundamental reason why the founders penned the second amendment: protection from tyranny. The likelihood of needing to use arms to overthrow a tyrannical government might be small. But take away the right to bear arms (as was done in Nazi Germany for Jewish people), and the likelihood of needing to overthrow a tyrannical government might increase. Odds mean nothing when it comes to Constitutional Rights. I may never need to invoke the 5th Amendment's protection from self-incrimination, but god bless America, I'm glad it's there for me just in case. Just like the 2nd Amendment.
Thank you.