Interior Department officials finally did what was expected Friday when they published a rule change that will allow national park visitors to arm themselves.
In a decision that surely will delight some and surely disgust others, the Bush administration ignored all past living directors of the National Park Service, the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the National Parks Conservation Association in deciding it would be OK for park visitors to carry weapons if they hold concealed weapons permits and the park they are in is located within a state that allows concealed carry.
“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. 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,” said Bill Wade, president of the retirees group.
The administration received almost 140,000 comments, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal to allow loaded guns in national parks.
The groups opposed to the rule change say the "final regulation is even more extreme than the administration’s original proposal, and permits concealed and loaded guns to be carried in national parks located in any states with concealed carry laws, not just those that allow guns in their state parks as originally proposed. Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded."
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006—making national parks some of the safest places in the United States. Those opposed to the rule change say the new regulation could increase the risk for impulse shootings of wildlife, and risk the safety of visitors and rangers.
Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law, and some believe that opens the door for a lawsuit to halt the rule change.
“Land management agencies have worked diligently over the years to successfully create the different sets of expectations amongst the visiting public to reflect the differing levels of resource protections for each specific area,” said John Waterman, president of the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. “National parks are different from other public lands. The visitor population expects, demands, and gets a higher degree of protection, enforcement, and restriction in a national park.
"Furthermore, while national parks are amongst the safest areas to be in, the toll on the U.S. Park Ranger is high: U.S. Park Rangers are the most assaulted federal officers in the country. This vague, wide-open regulation will only increase the danger U.S. Park Rangers face.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service said that there is no need to change the existing regulation. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
At the Association of National Park Rangers, President Scot McElveen said “American citizens have traditionally valued the professional opinions of park rangers when it comes to managing national parks. In the professional opinion of ANPR, this regulation change will have negative impacts on park wildlife. Our experience in operating parks creates disbelief that wildlife poaching rates will not increase under the new regulation. We oppose this rash regulatory change.”
Echoing these concerns, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees last month released a report revealing that more than three out of four of 1,400 current and former employees of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predict that this controversial regulation will have an adverse affect on the ability of agency employees to accomplish their mission. Furthermore, it found that 75 percent of respondents feel that there will be an increase in opportunistic or impulse wildlife killings in parks and refuges.
“With this decision, many state parks across the country will now provide a more protective environment for wildlife and visitors than national parks—once the safest place for families. Furthermore, this decision undermines the ability of national park professionals to manage the parks and runs counter to the overwhelming majority of Americans who wrote in opposition to allowing loaded firearms in our national parks,” said NPCA Associate Director for Park Uses Bryan Faehner.
Comments
I find those quotes perfect, but for a different reason than the above. Those who fear people who have concealed carry permits fit the quotes to the T. In most states you have to go through a thorough background check and training to get a permit. The ones people should be afraid(maybe catious is a better word) of are the crimanls who don't have permits. They don't get permits because they don't care about the laws, hence the name lawbreakers. If you beleive the people with permits are going to shoot up signs and wildlife, you are wrong. These are trained, safe civilians with healthy respect for the law, otherwise they wouldn't have the permit.
Wow, this is really disappointing -- and unnecessary! I guess we'll have to see whether this changes the character of the parks in the coming months and years. Thanks for the update. Love your blog and the quizzes, too!
http://traveltelegraph.blogspot.com/
Emily
Kurt said,
"Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law, and some believe that opens the door for a lawsuit to halt the rule change:
Tell me how your claim is more legally relevant than what Interior (legal staff) has concluded:
"...we have analyzed the final rule under NEPA and concluded that (i) the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under 43 C.F.R. § 46.210 since the final regulation is in the nature of a legal change to existing regulations, and (ii) no "extraordinary circumstances" exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded. !d. This decision is fully described in our decision 17
document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at http://www.doi.gov/."
I'm not surprised that the anti gun comments here are still the stereotypical, bigoted, disparaging, emotional/hysterical, illogical, personal opinions that completely ignore fact, Constitutional law (see Supreme Court Heller decision), 40 states' successful right-to-carry legislation and, essentially, have absolutely no merit or basis in truth.
Read the Interior Department documents that Lone Hiker has provided the link to above.
Kurt, you claim, "The administration received almost 140,000 comments, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal to allow loaded guns in national parks." Could you please provide data to support this?
Again, why don't any of the smug, holier-than-thou anti-gun posts express a single similar hissy fit concerning the criminals who are everywhere and who are actually committing the crimes?
Rick
Good blog! Been following this subject and glad common sense prevailed. Concealed weapons pemit holders are trained and have undergone a thorough background check. Obviously some of the writers here are just plain ignorant. I didn't say stupid, just ignorant. Remember, when seconds count ........ the ranger is just a phone call away. Oh yeah, your cell phone may not work, huh? Try prayer or Smith & Wesson.
Rick, I've been wondering where you've been lurking! I'm kinda disappointed with your comment, as I thought I did a fairly good job of sticking to the middle of the road on reporting Interior's decision.
Now, I'm not an attorney, so I can't give you 100 percent, iron-clad feedback to your questions, but there are a couple openings that I think park advocates will try to take in challenging this. One is that the rule came out less than 60 days out from the change in administrations, so the Obama administration -- if it were so inclined, and I don't know if it is, despite what Fred believes -- might simply try to quash this rule.
The outgoing Bush administration might think it doesn't need that 60-day window, as it doesn't believe there's a $100 million impact related to this decision and so 30 days notice is good enough.
What might prove more important, though, and what the park advocates might concentrate on, is suing on the grounds that Interior didn't follow NEPA in promulgating this rule. If they do, and they're successful, the rule will very likely die a slow, withering death. Until the political power shifts once again.
I think relying simply on what DOI's legal staff has concluded is a waste of time, particularly when you consider how the Justice Department has operated in recent years. And don't forget, it was a bit more than eight years ago when DOI's legal staff concluded that snowmobiles should be phased out of Yellowstone, and you know where that got us.
As for your contention that "the anti-gun comments here are still the stereotypical, bigoted, disparaging, emotional/hysterical, illogical, personal opinions," come on, read some of the pro-gun opinions. Some are off the wall. As for the Heller decision, correct me if I'm wrong (as I know you will), but didn't that opinion hold that the 2nd amendment most definitely applies to you in your home, but the federal government has the right to institute reasonable controls elsewhere in society?
If that is the correct interpretation (and I think it is), what would be your reaction if the next administration instituted such controls in the national parks? That's it's unconstitutional? That you'll pack wherever you please?
As for how the bulk of the comments came down, my information is from NPCA, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Association for National Park Rangers, and the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. But I understand if you quibble with their counts. But then, it doesn't really matter, does it? After all, a majority of the 300,000+ comments filed in the Yellowstone snowmobile matter were for phasing out snowmobiles, and Interior officials ignored those comments as well (and went against what science recommended), so it seems that under the Bush administration democracy doesn't matter when it comes to public lands management.
And really, is this a personal safety issue? As noted above, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006. 1.65, Rick.
Some perspective:
* The U.S. murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000
* In 2007 more than 41,000 died in traffic accidents in the United States
* 36,000 Americans die from the flu annually
* 112,000 die from obesity
In light of that, will concealed weapons owners refuse to drive cars? Line up for flu shots? Go on a diet? Kinda seems the safest place they could be would be a national park.
So much vitriol is spewed -- much of it anonymously, which is somewhat curious -- on this issue. Don't we have better things to invest our time, emotion, and efforts on?
Rick:
This current administration is masterful at manipulating legalese to justify it's own agenda. What a shame that you can't see through the DOI's wordy smokescreen. Or perhaps you don't mind how manipulative the Bush administration has become in it's final days because you happen to agree with this particular decision.
Again I ask, if this new rule is so necessary, why did the administration wait until late in it's own game to push it through? Because they know that the vast majority of elected officials and the general public don't want it and would not support it. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't majority opinion rule in a democracy?
If this tangential extrapolation of the Second Amendment is so necessary, why did our Commander-In-Chief and his political appointees at the DOI publish this rule change in such a cowardly way? They published it on a Friday, when most folks turn off the news, during the last month of their reign of power, when the country is now focused on the incoming administration.
Why aren't the supporters of this rule change asking the Bush administration why it waited so long to make this change???
I guess when we win the game, asking how honestly we come by our spoils sometimes shines too harsh a light on the process...
Why not let trained professionals handle "the criminals who are everywhere" and keep our personal guns at home?
I have been visiting national, state, and town parks my entire life. I have visited historic sites in small towns, and large urban parks in the largest cities in our country. And not once have I ever fallen victim to "the criminals who are everywhere".
(But I have been the victim of violent crime, right outside my own home, not in a national park... more on that later...)
It's interesting that the only "criminals" I have ever been aware of are visitors who have chosen to ignore established resource protection and safety rules because they felt their "personal rights" were in some way being violated if they couldn't walk wherever they wanted to walk, or do whatever they wanted to do, regardless of the fact that they implicitly agreed to said regulations when they entered the parks' boundaries.
I've seen visitors ignore posted warnings and go off trail into environmentally fragile areas. I've seen campers bring alcohol into campgrounds that do not allow it. I've seen other violations of established rules and regulations...
and EVERY time I've seen those people questioned by rangers or law enforcement they become argumentative and self-righteous about their actions. Could you just imagine if one of those people had a loaded gun? I shudder to think about the possibilities if the visitor with the loaded gun is having a bad week, suffering some stress, had a little too much to drink... and decides his gun is the best way to resolve the situation between himself and the ranger. I go to parks to get away from that level of human possibility...
Rather than waiting for the day you feel it necessary to defend yourself with your loaded firearm, why not become a law enforcement professional yourself and handle the folks "who are actually committing the crimes" in a lawful and professional manner?
And if you are unhappy with the current level of trained law enforcement within our National Parks, then I would suggest you lobby your elected officials to increase the budget of what has become the most woefully underfunded Federal agency.
A larger law enforcement budget that pays trained professionals to handle the marauding swarms of criminals that have apparently overrun our National Parks seems like a good way to handle the perceived safety problem. I trust law enforcement. Why don't you?
Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? As I mentioned earlier I have. It occurred on the street right outside my own home. Before the crime I never once expected police to be everywhere every moment of the day to protect me, and after the crime I've never once felt that a loaded handgun would have made the situation any different.
Most acts of violence, whether they be random or pre-meditated, are over in seconds, barely enough time to think about defending oneself. Having a loaded gun at the ready wouldn't really be more effective in defending oneself in that split-second of happening than using a fist, or the rocks underfoot on the trail, or a tree branch, or just running away. So I ask you: is carrying a loaded gun about self-defense, the perception of personal safety, or an unconscious hope that someday one might get to righteously use the loaded weapon he so proudly carries?
Most folks in favor of this rule change seem to only want to discuss the personal rights aspect of the issue. Fine. (I understand the argument: I personally feel that every citizen should exercise their right to vote lest it be taken away from us.)
For the record, just because I don't believe personal weapons are necessary when visiting a National Park does not mean I am against our legal right to own a gun. But our right to own a gun does not logically imply we have the right to take it wherever we want to, whenever we want to. ANY other belief to the contrary starts us down the slippery slope of anarchy. Is that what we're after here?
If not being allowed to carry a loaded weapon on my person at all times means I will not fully enjoy my time spent in a National Park because I just can't stop thinking about how my personal rights are being violated, perhaps I should examine why I feel the need to take a loaded weapon into the parks in the first place.
While we figure this out for ourselves, let's keep our guns at home where they belong.
Slant numbers and use big words to confuse, but if your life comes down to being accousted on the trail or in your camp by a two or four footed animal(s), it doesn't make any difference, there is not ranger. Period! Bottom line!!! They are there to take a report and in my case the next day. I understand that. Incidentally, no need to shoot any wildlife unless they are rabid! It happens. About 8 times a year and rarely results in human death because someone has a gun. These aren't all nat'l park incidents. I read a lot and don't record everything.
Lot of crime in nat'l parks though. Don't won't the publc to know of course. I go to our nat'l parks to get away, but not to be victimized. Never mind the people that have no idea wha is going on around them. I'm a medical professional and carry a 22 pound first aid bag. My radio & pistol pouch is much lighter. I migh save your life!!!
The inalienable right to defend one's self is inherent to All Living Things humans included.
Would you outlaw a kittens claws until it has demonstrated it's restraint in their use ?
Would you outlaw the thorns on an Acacia tree until it reaches the age of maturity ?
How far will you let your fear of " fill in the blank " run your life ?
Why do you think your fears give you the right to try to run everyone's life ?
The fact that We the People LET our elected officials violate the "Law of the Land" without consequences is how we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation we are in today.
Those who suggest that removing all of the [unconstitutional BTW] gun laws would result in a general blood bath are simply publicly stating that they Do Not Trust Any Other Human Being.
We don't need outside terrorists we have our own trying to foist their fears off on all of the population.
"Remove guns and we will all be safe." Hooey.
Do you actually think it is a coincidence that nearly all of the mass shootings we have had have happened in "Gun Free Zones" ?
Do you not realize that "professional criminals" do not follow any laws let alone the illegal "gun laws" ?
I would like to see Open Carry become as common place as shoes in restaurants.