National Parks gun ban - time to go

[EvilOmega]

You can just as easily defend yourself with a machete or knife or axe.

Ok, you get your knife and axe, and I’ll get my rifle and a pistol, we'll see how well you protect yourself.

There is a poaching problem everywhere, but wildlife officers have fun ways of dealing with that. The ban on guns is just political.

 

[sendec]

With all due respect, the historical antecedent, and some of the motivation for stationing LE and banning guns in parks, was in fact poaching. This is documented in several histories of the system and individual parks and goes back into the late 1800s IIRC. As a matter of fact, the first "rangers" in Yosemite were US cavalry troops tasked with apprehending poachers, timber thieves and illegal grazers.

It isnt just about self defense. Given the mixed use at most parks random impromptu ranges would'nt work very well, and funding and environmental issues are such that putting in controlled ranges is unrealistic.

The Rangers are'nt stupid - most of them know full well that plenty of people fly under the radar, intentionally or otherwise, but do you think they can come out and publicly state that they disagree with or wont enforce a reg? They call that insubordination.

 

[MarkDido]

I fish quite frequently at the Canaveral National Seashore in Titusville, FL

I may also fish Sebastian Inlet, the Indian and Banana Rivers, Melbourne Beach Pier and Cocoa Beach Pier on the same day.

Per FL statutes, I'm allowed to have a firearm in my vehicle as long as it is "securely encased" and in a glove compartment or center console compartment.

I also have a CCW permit for Florida.

So basically, if I want to fish all these locations on any given day, I must give up my FL statutory right AND my 2A right to self defense for the entire day if I go to CNS.

 

[Art Eatman]

sendec, I'd bet money that you'll find very few poachers in a national park campground.

If there's anything I've learned about the world of poachers, it's that they work the edges, coming into park lands or private ranches in a covert manner from adjacent lands. For a place like Yellowstone, the access is from USFS land...I don't think you'll find many Winnebagos full of blue hairs or a family dragging a travel trailer along who're thinking about banging Bambi.

I really doubt that the real problems we have with poachers in places like Yellowstone will either increase or decrease if Joe Citizen is allowed to have firearms in his possession while in a park.

LAR-15, I haven't seen many cops armed with machetes. SFAIK, cops don't attack folks; they defend themselves as necessary. And, just wandering around Texas, I'm legal with my pistol; I wouldn't be in accordance with the law if I toted a machete.

, Art

 

[benEzra]

"I hope none of you guys are poachers.

Hunting is illegal in national parks and allowing firearms will just encourage poaching."

Do you think people willing to sneak into a national park to poach even CARE if it's legal to bring a gun with them? I guess that's why all poachers in NP's currently use sharp sticks instead of firearms.

Firing a shot is a lot more conspicuous than having a defensive carbine in your vehicle or a concealed handgun on your person, anyway. Enforcing the law against poaching would be easier than trying to enforce the blanket gun ban.


"Don't like being disarmed? Don't go."

I would like to be able to take my family to visit a remote park without being disarmed, thanks.

 

[SteelyDan]

Interesting links, Smurf, and disturbing on several levels.

Just to clarify one point, I believe it's legal in a NP to have a gun in the trunk or rear of the truck if it's disassembled, locked in a case, and separate from the ammo, provided you're just "passing through" and not stopping. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Is it any wonder?

Is it any wonder we're constantly on the defensive? Look at the infighting just in this thread...

I reiterate - poachers notwithstanding - Rangers are already empowered to enforce state laws. eliminating the ban on loaded firearms would not remove the ability of the NPS to regulate hunting. I wouldn't even have a problem with some sort of hunting long arms restrictions typical of hunting seasons, but NOT for personal defense guns. The NPS ban completely infringes the 2A. Remember it's Keep and BEAR arms...

 

[patentmike]

The regs do allow you to carry if you are bringing in pack horses. I guess it's ok to defend livestock, but we need to draw the line at family.

Maybe my experience at Big Bend is a fluke, but there sure seemed to be a lot of footprints headed north from the river bank. Probably just law-abiding folks taking a shortcut.

 

[countertop]

Just wanted to point out that in an LA Times article the other day, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, discussed how much the administration is indebted to gun owners and sportsmans groups and that in the coming term there will be lots of action undertaken on their behalf.

Look for expanded wetlands and CRP programs as well as allowing carry in parks (which he doesn't say in the article cause its bad politics).

BTW - Connaughton is the top environmental official in the Executive Office of the President. Both EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt and Interior Secretary Gail Norton report to him (well, in Norton's case, coordinate with him) and it is through his office that the president ensures the officials in those agencies understand what policies are important.

I've got a little more information/analysis posted at the Countertop Chronicles. Its not much more, but I'll be explore this issue over the coming weeks.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Countertop,
The LA Times requires registration.

I still say bombard Congress with letters - in this case, it's perfectly legit to "vote early & often" Follow ups help too.

Color me skeptical We've heard before that Norton was not opposed to eliminating that restriction. Anybody heard from her on the issue No.

These guys/gals are politicians, they make their living and advance their careers by telling people what they want to hear, not telling the truth.

 

[countertop]

Countertop,
The LA Times requires registration.

I still say bombard Congress with letters - in this case, it's perfectly legit to "vote early & often" Follow ups help too.

Color me skeptical We've heard before that Norton was not opposed to eliminating that restriction. Anybody heard from her on the issue No.

These guys/gals are politicians, they make their living and advance their careers by telling people what they want to hear, not telling the truth.

LA Times registration is free. Most of the article is on environmental policy, but I've excerpted the appropriate portion on my blog.

Norton favors eliminating the National Park ban. She is as much of a true believer as anyone in Washington. She is the real deal. I'm not sure how Connaughton has felt historically, but he and his senior staff have come to a much better understanding of the 2nd Amendment over the last four years and fully understand how foolish it is.

That said, your right, they are politicians. As a result, they weren't going to do anything during the first term that might jeopardize their chances for a second. Lifting the NPS gun ban fits that scenario perfectly and as they've consistently told people is best dealt with in the second term. Thats been their position, if you've asked them, for almost four years. Now, we just need to keep their feet to the fire and convince them to begin down that path. I hope the NRA picks up its efforts in this regard, cause I am limited in what I can do pushing the issue by myself. I've softened them up but have my own clients and their issues to worry about. The NRA can work this issue 24/7 and ought to be out front on it (Sorry, but GOA doesn't have the pull or access or credibility to get it done)

Yes, I agree, keep harrasing congress. Focus on James Inhofe who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the other Rs on that committee. Inhofe is another true believer and they have oversight over much of the NPS. Also contact Richard Pombo, Chairman of the House Resources Committee. Rich, a rancher from the San Joaquim valley is the biggest true believer in Congress, and perhaps the only advocate of true 5th Amendment propety rights who is more forceful and dedicated to the casuse than Sec. Norton. Plus, he is the only member of congress who wears a cowboy hat in his official picture.

I've long felt that a politician's committment to the 5th Amendments protection against takings was generally a pretty clear indication of where they stood on the 2nd Amendment and vise versa. In this case its true as both Pombo and Inhofe are rated A by the GOA.

 

[patentmike]

As for poaching, if it were illegal to fire except in self-defense (no recreational shooting in parks), the sound of gunshots would still attract attention.

 

[Smurfslayer]

"Norton favors eliminating the National Park ban. She is as much of a true believer as anyone in Washington. She is the real deal. I'm not sure how Connaughton has felt historically, but he and his senior staff have come to a much better understanding of the 2nd Amendment over the last four years and fully understand how foolish it is."

[SS] I'd like to see some proof of this. As far as I know, Norton has NEVER stated any such sentiment. And yes, I have asked. So have roughly 1,000 VCDL members, and not one of them has ever gotten a response.
When I say "Proof", for the purposes of this discussion, I mean evidence of correspondence or 1st hand account of her expressing this sentiment, verbatim.

I'm not saying Norton is antigun, I'm saying that I'm not aware of her ever taking a public progun position. Even if that is wrong, she's definitely rude for not responding to mail, calls & email...

 

[goalie]

You can just as easily defend yourself with a machete or knife or axe.

The reason guns are banned in NPs is to prevent poaching.

OK, your axe against my AK at 15 paces.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You can just as easily defend yourself with a machete or knife or axe.

The reason guns are banned in NPs is to prevent poaching.

Would you really want to attempt to defend yourself or your families against a bear , moose, cougar in a N.P with a knife, let alone a human goblin. Unless you name is Rambo or Dundee one is much better off with a firearm.

The exception for pack horses is for bear protection, which is more important than you or your families protection. We must protect the equines since they can't operate firearms or carry knives with those hooves.

 

[Art Eatman]

Sounds like a joke about pack horses and such, right?

I was on a horseback trip into mountains in northern Mexico. The Del Carmen mountains, across from and SE of Big Bend National Park. We set up camp. The evening cooled down. Cool air descends. It brought bear scent down with it. The guides spent the night chasing horses. You'd be amazed how fast a hobbled horse can "run" when it smells a bear. Only two horses got away and headed for home. The only bad part of the whole deal was that two of the wranglers had to ride double. (I'll take luck over skill, any day.)

Up close and personal? Probably need to shoot a broken-legged horse...

Art

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yep, just joking about the pack horses Art. But there is an exception for bringing a firearm into the N.P. if you have horses or other pack animals.

See this link.

http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/e-mail/weapons.htm

KS

 

[45-auto]

LAR15 said:

You can just as easily defend yourself with a machete or knife or axe.

Sometimes, yes, that's true. However, with all due respect, there are times when it is not true. There are times when a snubby .357 is the weapon of choice. An example would be when your assailant is armed with a machete, knife or axe.

And it's hard to imagine a worse gun for poaching than a snubby .357.

 

[RealGun]

Carrying in a National Park seems perfectly logical, but you would be asking to crack the monolith that carrying a gun on any Federal property is categorically prohibited. It even still applies to the Post Office, which is not technically Federal property. We have well enough established that such a ban is not enforceable unless a post office restriction is explicitly mentioned in State law. Their little signs mean nothing otherwise.

 

[countertop]

Carrying in a National Park seems perfectly logical, but you would be asking to crack the monolith that carrying a gun on any Federal property is categorically prohibited. It even still applies to the Post Office, which is not technically Federal property. We have well enough established that such a ban is not enforceable unless a post office restriction is explicitly mentioned in State law. Their little signs mean nothing otherwise.

There's no general prohibition against carrying on federal property - look at all the people who hunt on BLM land. There are only specific prohibitions. The ban on parks is regulatory - removing it involves an entirely seperate function and process than the ban on Post Offices which is statutory and would require an act of Congress and much public debate to overturn. Plus, the ban on Post Offices arose in response to shootings by postal employees and so carries more weight with the public. The ban on carrying in parks does not have any significant connection with a violent event.

All that means is lifting the ban in the parks can be a mostly behind closed doors experience.

[SS] I'd like to see some proof of this. As far as I know, Norton has NEVER stated any such sentiment. And yes, I have asked. So have roughly 1,000 VCDL members, and not one of them has ever gotten a response.

When I say "Proof", for the purposes of this discussion, I mean evidence of correspondence or 1st hand account of her expressing this sentiment, verbatim.

I'm not going to share my conversations, verbatim, on a public discussion board beyond what I've already posted. If you don't think Norton is a true believer, then you don't know very much about her.

FWIW - while I am a member of VCDL, if I was Norton I would never respond, in a million years, to a postcard/letter writting campaign from VCDL or any other organization.

 

[Smurfslayer]

We need to turn the tables and "Get the camel's nose under the tent"...

 

[Smurfslayer]

"I'm not going to share my conversations, verbatim, on a public discussion board beyond what I've already posted. If you don't think Norton is a true believer, then you don't know very much about her."

[SS] Then it is an assertion not backed up by fact that she supports lifting the ban. Unless or until proven otherwise. It is also an assertion, not backed up by fact that I "don't know very much about her"... Since you don't know me, what I do, where I work, etc.

Not to belittle your work or anything, I'm simply trying to point out that this "pie in the sky" position that we have some sort of friend or ally heading the Interior department will not get us anywhere. If that were the case, then there would've been action just after the '02 congressional elections, a generally "safe period" particularly after GWB picked up seats.

Results matter. If Norton agrees to work with us, then we will have a factual basis to state that she is an ally.

 

[RealGun]

The ban on carrying in parks does not have any significant connection with a violent event.

Then you need to look at the reasons the ban exists. I think you will find that it is because it is Federal property. That in itself has yet another explanation.

 

[Art Eatman]

"The ban on carrying in parks does not have any significant connection with a violent event."

countertop, I can go along with the idea that the original ban derived from anti-poaching efforts. I suggest that any failure to change the terms of the ban MOST LIKELY has to do with the murders and robberies which have occurred in some National Parks.

I guess it's been 15 or 20 years, now, but I've read articles about how the Park Rangers of Yellowstone were more and more being in the position of active LEOs than "just" Smokey the Bear hat guys who answered dumb questions.

I know Big Bend National Park has had at least two or three murders in recent years. Plus, it's a known route for drug smugglers...

Art

 

[Libertyteeth]

Those of us who live in the vicinity of Glacier National Park and Yellowstone NP have another consideration besides defense against human predators. Grizzly bears are a real threat, and it grates on me that I am not allowed to (legally) carry a defensive firearm when hiking or fishing. Current management practices have increased grizzly populations, and there are now something like 600 in the Yellowstone area.

It is common practice in the wild areas surrounding the parks to carry defensive firearms, where it is entirely legal. I also carry pepper spray, and it should be considered the first line of defense in most situations. But sometimes it is ineffective against a particular bear, or maybe a strong wind is blowing in your face. And if you are in a tent, are you going to let loose with a blast inside? A bear tearing into your tent wants to eat you.

In addition, in these parks and others, there are threats from moose, black bears, cougars, and these days, maybe even wolves.

I would also point out that if you are charged with carrying a defensive firearm in a park, the feds deny you a trial by jury, because the sentence is less than six months (!) in jail. What part of "in all criminal prosecutions" don't they understand?

In truth, I look forward to the time when Yellowstone will be managed as a tri-state state park, and Glacier as a Montana state park. And I think elk and bison hunting should be used as a population management tool in Yellowstone.