Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interior Secretary Proposes to End Ban on National Park Carry

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Winchester 73, May 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    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
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  2. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
  3. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    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.
     
  4. Coyote Blue

    Coyote Blue member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Boca Grande ,Florida
    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.
     
  5. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    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.
     
  6. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    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.
     
  7. Grayrock

    Grayrock Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,401
    Location:
    The great state of TEXAS
    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.
     
  8. frankie_the_yankee

    frankie_the_yankee Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Smithville, TX
    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.
     
  9. Jacka L Ope

    Jacka L Ope Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Washington State
    Seems to me that is what drove a ban in the first place - a "problem" that did not exist. :rolleyes:
     
  10. martialartsblackbelt

    martialartsblackbelt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    Boulder Co
    and now its passed!!
     
  11. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    What has passed?
     
  12. Balrog

    Balrog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,980
    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.
     
  13. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
  14. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    He necro'd a two year old thread. Don't ask too many questions or for logic, just let it die...;)
     
  15. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    Oh come on, Oro, you know that is just going totally against my nature! :p
     
  16. Firespecialist

    Firespecialist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    44
    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
     
  17. ants

    ants Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,503
    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...
     
  18. Firespecialist

    Firespecialist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    44
    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... :eek:

    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:
     
  19. duns

    duns Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    814
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
  20. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
  21. Balrog

    Balrog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,980
    If i knew my chances were that slim of needing it, I would not carry.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page