Most likely, the NPS is going to proceed with the Final Ruling that was developed in December of 2008 when GW changed the CFR to allow carry into National Parks and Fish and Wildlife areas; administered by the NPS. (Surprisingly, it was rather favorable to the issue of guns in the parks.)
Many concerns were documented from non-NPS personnel during a public comment stage and addressed by the NPS. Some of these anti- gun statements were addressed quite favorably (these are all paraphrased with the NPS reply in bold… again, not the exact wording, but the meaning is accurate…basically, I am not going to be typing word-for-word from the copy of the final ruling I’m looking at):
Parks that cross state lands and the fact that states may have different laws concerning concealed carry. (It will be the responsibility of the person with the permit to follow state laws for that part of the Park that is in a particular state. That means if you are in a park such as Yellowstone that crosses a number of state lines, it will be YOUR responsibility as the permit holder to make sure your permit is legal in the state you are actually located in that part of the park. If for some reason you have crossed over to a state that does not recognize your permit and you are discovered carrying, you could be in violation of not only Federal Law, but also state law.)
No need for a visitor to carry a concealed firearm...National Parks/Wildlife areas are unlikely to have a violent crime or criminal assault. (The NPS reply was quite to the point.... Yes National Parks are less prone to criminal activity; "However, we also recognize that current statistics show an alarming increase in criminal activity on certain federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior..." (Quoted text is exactly as written in the final ruling document.)
In 2007, the NPS reported 8 murders, 43 forcible rapes, 57 robberies, 274 instances of aggravated assault.)
NPS and FWS LEOs can adequately protect individuals from harm: (Basically, 3000 full and part-time LEOs patrolling millions of acres of land with a substantial portion in the wilderness cannot guarantee a specific level of public safety on the lands.)
People with guns are more likely to shoot wildlife. (Available data from similar sources such as BLM and NFS does NOT suggest visitors misuse their legally permitted firearms for poaching or illegal shooting.)
Brandishing a firearm will not be illegal. (NPS disagrees. State laws must be followed and these include laws against brandishing a firearm. In addition, no un-authorized target shooting will be allowed.)
This will allow someone to carry a rifle (or other long gun). (NO. Again, following state laws on concealed weapons, handguns, and no long guns will be allowed.)
Environmental impact study. (Not required.)
Endangered species act. (Not required.)
Some items still need to be ironed out such as definition of a Federal Building. Probably will end up being a building used by Federal officials (welcome center for one). In some parks, it might NOT include a concessions building if it is not manned by Federal officials. Toilets, if in a Federal building would be banned. Toilets in the middle of nowhere (such as vault toilets) would not ban handguns. (AGAIN, THIS IS NOT WORKED OUT YET...)
NOTES: during the public comment stage, only one State made any comments. That was AK, which favored the idea of allowing people to carry concealed into a National Park if within a state that recognized their license, or did not require a license.
The NPS looked very carefully at BLM and NFS regulations on the carry of weapons, per state laws, onto their lands. As they researched this, they found out there was no problems with permit holders on BLM or NFS lands. In addition, it was noted that in many areas, you will cross over between NPS, BLM and NFS lands on numerous occasions while hiking, driving, etc.
Forgot to add. If a State takes it upon itself to make it illegal to carry into a NP the NPS will abide by that law. I do know that at one time, NC did not allow carry into National Forests in NC. I believe that was changed a few years ago, but not sure. (Never applied to me anyway.)
In addition, although some of the regs will be based upon NF and BLM current regs, since there will be NO shooting in the NPS, don't get the two mixed up when heading out to target practice. Here in UT, there are a number of areas, with some roads that cross over from BLM to NPS and BLM allows shooting on their lands (outside of campgrounds, wilderness study areas, main trails, etc.) and not all areas are well marked. I know of one trail that jumps into about a half mile of NPS land with NO marker.
AS A DISCLAIMER, THIS IS NOT THE NEW LAW AS IT WILL PERTAIN TO THE NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE. IT IS WHAT WAS DETERMINED AND PUBLISHED FOR THE FINAL RULING FOR THE CHANGES TO THE CFR DURING THE BUSH ERA. FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, THE DOI WITH THE NPS WILL TAKE THIS FINAL RULING AND ALTER IT OR LEAVE IT AS IS TO MATCH THE LAW THAT TAKES EFFECT IN FEBRARY (22?), 2010. I DO NOT WORK FOR THE NPS, BUT I DO WORK FOR A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THAT WILL REMAIN UNAMED HERE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. HOWEVER, I WAS AT ONE TIME, ASKED FOR INPUT ON THIS SUBJECT BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DOI-NPS.