Interior Secretary Proposes to End Ban on National Park Carry


PDA






Winchester 73
May 1, 2008, 02:52 PM
Now there would be a few caveats:Off limits areas,no open carry,state rules,etc.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/599831.html

Thursday, May 1, 2008
Interior secretary proposes end to ban on guns in national parks
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
The Star’s Washington correspondent

WASHINGTON | Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne formally proposed Wednesday to scrap a longtime ban against bringing loaded weapons into national parks and wildlife areas.

He said this would begin a 60-day public comment period on the proposed update to the nation’s gun regulations.

Under the plan, a person could carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state where the national park or refuge is located.

“The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior,” said Kempthorne. “The proposed regulations will incorporate current state laws authorizing the possession of concealed firearms, while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection.”

The law would have limited effect in Missouri or Kansas, though it would appear to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon into the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. Guns are already allowed in the Mark Twain National Forest and the Ozark National Scenic Riverways — both in Missouri — as hunting is allowed.

Park law enforcement had expressed concern over the prospect of handguns and assault weapons.

Northland attorney and gun-rights advocate Kevin Jamison said lifting the ban would make Kansas Citians safer when they visit national parks.

“Things happen, and in the isolation of a national park, it can be important to be able to defend yourself,” he said. “People are already legally carrying inside state parks.”

Opponents note there is no data to support the idea that park visitors will be safer. National parks are among the safest places in the county, they note. The probability of becoming a victim of violent crime in a national park is about 1 in 708,000, meaning less likely than being struck by lightning.

Still, the announcement wasn’t unexpected. Under pressure from Congress, the Department of the Interior said in February that it would review the ban and make a recommendation by the end of April. As a result, many proponents of the ban feared that the administration was getting ready to lift it.

Several National Park Service employee advocacy groups and the National Parks Conservation Association said the proposed change would lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

“This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. There are no existing data that suggest any public interest to be gained by allowing visitors to parks to possess concealed handguns,” said Bill Wade, chairman of The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. “This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it.”

The department said the current regulations were adopted in 1981, but that many states have enacted new firearm policies since then. Currently, 48 states allow the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

“We strongly endorse the principle that states have the prerogative to develop appropriate policies and standards in this area, and believe that our management of parks and refuges should defer to those state laws,” said Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty.

The department said that after 60 days, it would evaluate all public comments before issuing a final rule.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=29

If you enjoyed reading about "Interior Secretary Proposes to End Ban on National Park Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Smurfslayer
May 1, 2008, 02:58 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=359861

Winchester 73
May 1, 2008, 03:03 PM
pre-existing thread:

Didn't see that.The article has a May 1 date on it and states the Secretary comments were made Wed.April 30.
Your thread is dated April 29th.That's why I didn't notice a overlap.

Coyote Blue
May 1, 2008, 11:13 PM
The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior,” said Kempthorne. “The proposed regulations will incorporate current state laws authorizing the possession of concealed firearms, while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection.”

This a big step forward.But it's still not clear if open carry would be allowed under the new proposed regulations.
Concealed carry of large handguns, which would be the choice in places like Glacier and Yellowstone,would be burdensome.
The more letters the Interior Dept. receives on this issue the better.

WayneConrad
May 1, 2008, 11:57 PM
It's clear to me that open carry would not be allowed. The only time carry is mentioned at all in the proposal is with the words "concealed," in language that makes it clear that that is the only means of carry being considered.

Winchester 73
May 2, 2008, 08:01 PM
It's clear to me that open carry would not be allowed. The only time carry is mentioned at all in the proposal is with the words "concealed," in language that makes it clear that that is the only means of carry being considered

You are correct.OC is not on the table at this time.
But this is an important first step by the Interior Dept.And assuming it becomes law(always remembering the first 3 letters of assume:uhoh:)OC is going to follow in the near future.

Grayrock
May 3, 2008, 10:10 PM
Please consider going to the website below and leaving a comment. Please also encourage other CHL holders to do the same. You can be sure that the vocal minority is doing just that, in an effort to curb your rights.





CARRYING IN NATIONAL PARKS
A change to carry rules in National Parks has been proposed that would make the carry rules in national parks the same as those in the state parks. In Texas that would allow permit holders to carry in national parks. The proposed change in National Park carry rules as well as a place to comment can be found here http://snipurl.com/parksafety . Go to the 5th heading under Document details, where it says "Add Comments". Click on the quotation bubble and follow the prompts to leave your comments. The change was put in motion by pro-gun politicians in Congress but there is strong opposition to this from within the Park Service and of course from the gun control movement.



As usual those opposed are misleading the public, claiming that if the change is implemented that gun owners will be allowed to shoot anywhere anytime within national parks. In reality the change does not alter existing rules about shooting in national parks and simply allows permit holders to carry concealed while hiking and to follow applicable state laws regarding use of deadly force.



If you support this change, please visit the government site and add a comment supporting this change.

frankie_the_yankee
May 3, 2008, 11:02 PM
“This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. There are no existing data that suggest any public interest to be gained by allowing visitors to parks to possess concealed handguns,” said Bill Wade, chairman of The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. “This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it.”

I guess this guy never heard of those two women who were murdered in Yosemite a few years back.

And given the almost zero crime rate associated with people with licenses to carry, where does he get off making the demonstrably false statement that the proposed rule changes will increase the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife? And how is it that someone can make a (false) statement like that in an interview and not be challenged by the reporter?

Ah well, I guess we all know the answer to that one.

Jacka L Ope
May 3, 2008, 11:13 PM
This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Seems to me that is what drove a ban in the first place - a "problem" that did not exist. :rolleyes:

martialartsblackbelt
February 23, 2010, 09:53 PM
and now its passed!!

NavyLCDR
February 23, 2010, 10:40 PM
and now its passed!!

What has passed?

Balrog
February 23, 2010, 11:56 PM
What has passed?

The credit card reform bill.

You can now legally carry a weapon into a National Park, if you are legal to carry under the law of the state in which the National Park is located in. This became law yesterday.

NavyLCDR
February 24, 2010, 12:59 AM
Right. I knew that. But that did not have anything at all to do with an effort by the Secretary of the Interior. Congress took power away from the Secretary of the Interior, and, I would imagine, the Secretary of the Interior had nothing to do with that.

Oro
February 24, 2010, 01:30 AM
Right. I knew that. But that did not have anything at all to do with...

He necro'd a two year old thread. Don't ask too many questions or for logic, just let it die...;)

NavyLCDR
February 24, 2010, 01:40 AM
Oh come on, Oro, you know that is just going totally against my nature! :p

Firespecialist
February 24, 2010, 01:59 AM
Opponents note there is no data to support the idea that park visitors will be safer. National parks are among the safest places in the county, they note. The probability of becoming a victim of violent crime in a national park is about 1 in 708,000, meaning less likely than being struck by lightning.

This got me thinking. May be pointless, but I like numbers...

On average, there are more than 272,000,000 visitors to national parks. I would imagine that number has increased since. Now, in 2009, there were 287 people struck by lightning. According to the article, your chances of being a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in 708,000.

Let me add this up...

287 people struck/365 days per year= .79 people struck daily

272,000,000 annual visitors/1 in 708,000 chance= 384.18 victims

384.18 annual victims/365 days per year= 1.05 victims per day.

According to that site, most people that are struck are in groups which really affects the numbers. If that is the case, then people struck daily would be significantly lower. The way I am seeing it, you are more likely to get attacked while being in a national park. Are my numbers correct? If I am wrong, I would be happy to claim that I am an idiot that should never be a statistician. :)

Sources:

http://www.struckbylightning.org/stats2009.cfm

http://www.nps.gov/faqs.htm

ants
February 24, 2010, 02:13 AM
May be pointless...I dunno. What is the point, my friend? :)

That we should carry weapons in national parks because we have a slightly greater chance of being assaulted as we do being struck by lightning?

There must be a better reason than that. Like stopping treason by bears or something...

Firespecialist
February 24, 2010, 02:21 AM
Yes, I think we should carry. Even though it is a slightly greater chance, it boils down to the chance is still there. I guess I should explain my pointless points better... :o

I'll just blame it on being up late and coming up with weird ideas. That's my story and I am sticking to it. :neener:

duns
February 24, 2010, 02:26 AM
And given the almost zero crime rate associated with people with licenses to carry ...
I don't want to derail the thread but felt I should correct you on that point. We were discussing this in another thread recently. It looks like people with licenses to carry are about 1/7th as likely to be convicted of a crime. To say the crime rate associated with people licensed to carry is "almost zero" is a gross exaggeration. We don't help our cause if we make indefensible claims.

NavyLCDR
February 24, 2010, 03:10 AM
If the chances are 1 million to 1 that my gun will save my life, I would rather carry my gun 999.999 days and not need it, rather than not carry my gun 1 day and need it.

Balrog
February 24, 2010, 08:15 AM
If the chances are 1 million to 1 that my gun will save my life, I would rather carry my gun 999.999 days and not need it, rather than not carry my gun 1 day and need it.

If i knew my chances were that slim of needing it, I would not carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Interior Secretary Proposes to End Ban on National Park Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!