You are here

House Seals Deal To Allow Wide Range of Firearms into The National Park System

Share

Thanks to a brilliant tactical move, gun rights advocates are a step closer to arming themselves in national parks and national wildlife refuges across the country following a U.S. House of Representatives' vote on a credit card bill.

By attaching the gun legislation to the widely popular bill that would redefine the ground rules for credit card companies, Congress essentially made the firearms provision bulletproof. The House passed the measure, which earlier this week cleared the Senate, on a vote of 279-147 Wednesday, and sent it on to President Obama, who is expected to sign the legislation into law this weekend.

Condemnation of Congress's move came quickly from park advocacy groups.

Theresa Pierno, Executive Vice President, National Parks Conservation Association

“We are disappointed in the members of the House and Senate who allowed this amendment to pass, as well as in President Obama. By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association. This amendment had no hearing or review, and will increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures, and threats to park visitors and staff.”

“These are special protected places, where millions of American families and international visitors can view magnificent animals and majestic landscapes and experience our nation’s history, including sites where lives were lost to preserve our American ideals.

“The Reagan Administration’s regulation requiring simply requires that guns carried into these iconic places be unloaded and put away is a time-tested, limited and reasonable restriction to carry out an important and legitimate goal of protecting and respecting our national parks, monuments and battlefields. It is a tremendously sad day that it has been thrown out by political leaders from whom we expect more.”

Bill Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

“Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else.

"Legislators who voted for this amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources. Moreover, they've just contributed to diminishing the specialness of this country's National Park System. We hope the American people register their disappointment in the actions of these legislators.”

Scot McElveen, President, Association of National Park Rangers

“Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting.”

John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police

“One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards? We are disappointed that Congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of our national parks. If signed by President Obama, this will clearly be a change in his rhetoric towards taking better care of our environment and protecting federal employees."

Comments

Rangertoo asked:

"Will guns be allowed in the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and the Liberty Bell? If not, what law will stop them?"

Specifically? 18 USC § 930. It is still unlawful to carry a firearm in a federal building, with the usual exceptions (law enforcement, military, &c.). The new law overrules federal regulations, but not other federal laws. In the outdoor spaces of Independence NHP, the laws of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia will prevail, so you'll need a license to carry. The rules in New York City are especially restrictive, and I suspect that the ferries to Liberty Island are still restricted.

Jim wrote:

"Therein lies one of the misconceptions about the previous regulation. It did not prohibit anyone bringing a legally possessed firearm into a park, so there was no need to "skip visiting" any park. Visitors carrying a weapon that was legal outside the boundary of that park simply had to unload it and secure it in the trunk of the vehicle or similar secure location while they were in the park. The system worked well for years for the vast majority of park visitors, but of course that's now a moot point."

Some people carry guns in their cars, holstered, out of immediate reach, and otherwise in accordance with state laws. The regulation as it existed required that anyone who intends to do so consistently stop before entering a park, unload, and stow the gun and ammo seperately. Then, after passing through the park, to stop again and put it all back together. It's not just a matter of time and inconvenience, but also subtlety. The point is to have it if you need it, but not to go making a big production of it. A responsible gun owner doesn't want to stand in a parking lot, in a gateway community, loading, unloading, stowing, and retrieving a gun.

And then there's the matter of law enforcement discretion. The old regulation required that a gun be rendered "inoperable." That's usually interpreted as "in the trunk." But not all vehicles have trunks, some have trunks that are readily accessible from inside the cab, and not everyone enters the parks by car. (Imagine walking the Pacific Crest Trail! Personally, I wouldn't want the extra weight, but I'm happy to grant my countrymen their own discretion.) The fact is, the regulation says 'inoperable.' So to be in full compliance, in some cases we required visitors to field strip firearms, which goes back to that subtlety thing I was talking about. (Not to mention that my .38 doesn't break down that easily.)

No doubt, none of these arguments impress you. That's not the point. "The system worked well for years for the vast majority of park visitors..." Sorry Jim, but "the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." If we governed strictly by what worked best for the majority, well, I wouldn't want anything to do with that country.

Wrote Mike D,

"I just wish the pro-gun people would at least acknowledge for once that some people feel more safe with less guns around. Their argument should therefore be: "I know you feel less safe and you fear for the safety of yourself, wildlife, and other natural resources in national parks, and worry that some people are not responsible enough to carry firearms, be it legal or not, but I nonetheless feel that it's more important that I be able to carry my gun so that I can feel safe."

Sorry, Mike, but I can't make that statement, because "feeling safe" has nothing to do with it for me. What I can say is this: I know you feel less safe and you fear for the safety of yourself, wildlife, and other natural resources in national parks, and worry that some people are not responsible enough to carry firearms, be it legal or not, but I nonetheless affirm that the rule of law is paramount if we are to be a civilized people, and that the Constitution explicitly forbids the Congress to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Moreover, I believe that American citizens are free men, who should be guided by their own judgment.

Now comes the straw-man argument that, since I believe gun rights should not be infringed, I must think that kindergarteners should be allowed to go armed in class. Of course not, so stow it. I do believe that gun laws, like restrictions on freedom of speech, should be kept to the barest minimum possible. That's exactly what the Coburn amendment did--eliminated an unnecessary restriction on a constitutional right.

Wrote Frank C:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams

Nice quote. Very nice. Thanks, Frank.


I think many would respond that free countries remain free in part to it's citizens having the liberty to arm themselves. Where did this country get this mindset? The Revolutionary War would be a good starting point.


Dan P -

Thanks for your comments.

I will beg to differ on a key point. You state,

The old regulation required that a gun be rendered "inoperable."

The version of 36 CFR 2.4 that I'm referring to does not impose that requirement on those traveling by vehicle. It reads,

... unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.

That "or" is an important distinction that did not impose an onerous burden on most people who were visiting a park. Yes, the reg was an inconvenience for those with CCL who were just passing through a park, and a problem for those who might be hiking. I agree that was a valid concern. That's all moot at this point.

If I'm in error, please correct me.


Why is that everyone has to carry a weapon? If we are a country of peace then it shouldn't matter if you can't carry your weapon in the National Park System.


18 USC § 930 has been officially interpreted to mean only administrative facilities. In other words, the NPS has been directed that visitor facilities, historic buildings, and the like, are not covered by this law and guns cannot be excluded.


Another example of gutless Democrats. We have two parties in this country: Republicans and Republicrats! Obama should veto this bill and insist on a "clean" copy. Sneaking laws though in this manner is just plain wrong. No debate on the merits of an amendment...just sneak it onto a bill that is popular and needs to be passed. We need a law that requires amendments to bills to be related to the original bill; and we need a line item veto. Perhaps Obama could play a "Bush" and sign the bill with a note saying that he is not going to implement that amendment. Now is when we find out if Obama has any guts to stand up for his principals or if he is indeed just another politician running for reelection from the moment he was sworn in.


What I'm not seeing mentioned here is that this law, as written, is infinitly worse than the Bush version. This law could allow not only concealed weapons but openly carried including shotguns and semi-automatic weapons......just what we want in our National Parks.


So there is no misunderstanding of which side I am on- for over thirty years I have carried and used a weapon in defense of my country, my comrade-in-arms, my family, and myself. My time is mine now but I see no reason to change at this point in my life. Generally I like this site, finding it to be both useful and insightful. I have been watching this issue for some time, even before the Bush administration directive. I rarely write in to any site but I have been following the ongoing rhetoric here … I have just been busy. I have visited my representative twice for a face to face as well as having written my senators and other representatives many times regarding this issue over the passed two years. I also provided to them supporting documentation to my opinions and concerns as regards this issue. I find that to be a much more productive use of my time when I choose to support or fight an issue. In summary:
1) The current rule regarding firearms was instituted by regulation in 1983. (i.e. the Reagan Administration). I was unable to find an EIS prepared before this rule change went into effect!
2) The Clinton Administration issued a directive to NPs to bring their rules in line with state laws where parks were located. And chided NPS on occasion for dragging their feet. Bush administration- ditto.
3) This issue was discussed at length in Congress during 2007-2008 session. Both the House of Representatives, H.R. 5434, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5434: , and the Senate, S3499, http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_3499.html , both of which had the support to pass and become law. Undoubtedly, this bill would have been signed by Bush. However, the suggestion was made that this could be better done by executive order saving the expense and time of passing a bill into law. These bills were shelved in favor of that executive order. NOTE: These bills are the exact amendment attached to the “so called” credit card bill! More extensive than the executive order relating to CCW. Oh well! Start a pissing match…
4) The NPCA and the Brady Campaign brought suit in federal court over a “procedural issue” and the judge made her ruling specifically not addressing the actual issue of firearms but the procedural issue only. In short, her decision has more meaning than the executive and legislative branches, and DOI combined. That might explain some of the reaction in the Congress.
5) 2009, both the House and the Senate have exercised their authority as elected representatives of the people to make laws. Effectively overriding two minor organizations and a no longer relevant appointed official, whatever her name was!

With the exception of the NPCA, The Brady Campaign, and a federal judge everyone else involved here represent as a minimum, the people of a congressional district, a state, or a nation. That’s a lot of people represented there. As far as I can find The Brady Campaign has never been concerned with the welfare of the national parks before. I can only guess what their true involvement is about. While I find my Congressman, Senator, and President to be asses on occasion… it’s still a pretty damned good system we have.

I find much of your postings to be either misleading or misinformed. Whether this is due to lack of research on your part or to some other agenda on your part I can not say, but it has been prevalent from your earliest postings on this issue. Just a cautionary note- “Don’t drink the Koolaid”.

Attaching this amendment to the credit card bill was a convenience, not brilliant ploy and far from bullet proof. Your reporting of the vote on the credit card bill is correct, but it is way off base on the amendment. The House used a very rarely used option to split the votes on the credit card bill and the firearms amendment.

House roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/index.asp
#276: Firearms Amendment , 361 For – 64 Against. Passed before the credit card bill! And the numbers!
#277: Credit Card Bill : 279 For – 147 Against. Lucky, the credit card bill had enough support to pass too!

For Ms. Pierno, there has been significant ongoing discussion for some time. Congress did not just allow this to pass. It was most intentional.

For Mr. Waterman, what do guns and credit cards have in common- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. SEE THE VOTES!

For Mr. McElveen, once upon a time Congress endorsed slavery, prohibition, and not allowing the vote for women among other issues. Shall we consider more recent Congressional actions of the issues fundamental reversals of previous Congressional intents and therefore not worth pursuing!

As for Mr. Wade! So many different venues to address it’s difficult to know where to start. So, just 3 real pet peeves.

1) “The Survey” preformed by the Coalition and presented as expert testimony and cited by your repeatedly. Did you actually read this?
My Congressman summed it up best when he told me “Don’t worry, the survey methodology is so obviously poor and most of the expert references are known and generally accepted as being flawed. This crap won’t be seriously considered.” It’s hard to be proud of politician, but damn! Sometimes you just have to live with the embarrassment.

2) Next up, “The Coalition… over 20,000 accumulated man years of experience” (some of it in law enforcement, no doubt as much as 27 or 28 per cent or so).
Last count I saw had the NRA membership of active and retired LE personnel at over 2,000,000 (yes million!) accumulated man years of actual “LE” experience in their ranks. Maybe experience does count!

3) And finally, we all know the quote “…. lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
The national parks and crime statistics… after researching this I find at best the quoted statistics are downright misleading. The use of smoke and mirrors by consummate bureaucrats. I researched several years, the latest being 2007, but for this post I will use 1996 as my example. Mr. Wade should be familiar with it, since he retired in 1997.

Only 3 urban parks are policed by U.S. Park Police, others are served by the U.S. Park Rangers. In 1996 NPS reported 5,992 offenses, http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/crime_in_nat_parks.html. Eliminating property crimes such as larceny, vehicle theft, etc. and focusing on crimes against persons such as murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, etc. there were only 509 offenses with almost 4 million visitors! An enviable record, except that these reported crimes were handled exclusively by NPS. In other words “crimes turned over to local, regional, state, or federal authorities were reported by the authority handling the case” such as the county sheriff, state police, DEA, BAFTE, FBI, etc. Not NPS! How convenient for NPS statistics, read the fine print and notes in the statistics.

There is no way I know of to correlate the number and types of crimes committed in the national parks that are turned over and recorded by county, state, or national crime statistics so we will never know how many rapes or assaulted actually took place in the national parks. It would not be unreasonably to assume that the majority of these crimes were handled and reported by the U.S. Park Police and occurred most likely in the 3 urban parks patrolled by the Park Police. Using the visitor statistics for only those 3 parks changes the apparent crime rate very drastically.
Perhaps Mr. Wade knows of some secret record, not generally shared with the public, where all these records are tallied at NPS? Informational backround reports and a formal report done by NPS in 1996/1997 and issued to congress gives rise to the following. There were over 11,000 narcotic related offenses in national parks “…involving gangs, organized crime, and drug dealers…” resulting in the arrest by “…Park Police…”, “…Park Rangers, and other investigators…” ( I like that… “other investigators”) of more than 2,805 people and the seizure of over 310 weapons “including machine guns, automatic pistols, shotguns,…” ( note: weapons not obtainable at the basic local gun shop or gun show!) and the confiscation of drugs in excess of $100,000,000. And yet, not even an honorable mention in the NPS stats! Handled and reported mostly by DEA and BATFE. If I can divide correctly just having NPS report this item alone would increase their violent crime rate by a factor about 21. Of course, given today’s budget a $100 million dollars probably isn’t worth a drug dealer killing or assaulting anyone over. Then again… I could be wrong!

Bottom line here. These organizations have done themselves a serious disservice by so obviously having an agenda counter to the mainstream (remember that vote!), basing their “facts” on shaded statistics, half truths, and innuendo geared towards playing to emotions. Anything these groups, or any other for that matter, has to say to you… look into their facts for yourself or pay the price for you own laziness and stupidity. I will be highly suspect of anything these people have to say in the future. They will now need to go above and beyond to convince me to assist them with anything again.

These groups set themselves, a judge, and a “procedural flaw” up against Congress and a point of law. The outcome is what it is. You just can not blow that much smoke up even a Senators butt!

A parting shoot so to speak- “Guns in the Park? Do We Need Them?” Would you consider changing that headline? Allow me to paraphrase – “ NPS, Above The Laws of the Land? Or Not!


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.