Guns in National Parks: What you need to know
Travel news — By Chris on February 22, 2010 at 9:08 am
Today, a change in the federal law allows people to carry handguns, rifles and other firearms into national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon – provided that state’s law OKs it.
If this sounds like a radical change, that’s because it is. Visitors have been prohibited from carrying firearms into national parks, except a few in Alaska and a handful that allow hunting. The release from the National Park Service doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the change, which was passed by Congress last year.
“For nearly 100 years, the mission of the National Park Service has been to protect and preserve the parks and to help all visitors enjoy them,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said in a press release. “We will administer this law as we do all others – fairly and consistently.” Park websites are being updated with links to state firearms laws so people can plan accordingly, the release also said.
A Los Angeles Times article today says that “weapons won’t be allowed in buildings where federal employees work, such as the Statue of Liberty and park visitors centers. But restaurants, hotels and gift shops will be subject to the new gun law. Yosemite’s historic Ahwahnee hotel, for example, must allow visitors who are legally entitled to carry weapons to bring them into the building.” Previously, people who traveled into parks with guns in their car were supposed to leave them unloaded and disassembled in their trunk, the story says.
The article goes on to note that the law is going to create all kinds of regulatory problems, particularly as many national parks (and national wildlife refuges – you can now bring guns there too) span state lines. For example, the Appalachian Trail goes through 14 states – all with different gun laws. For the record, it’s still illegal to shoot a gun in a national park (which then begs the question of why you’d want to bring one with you in the first place).
So how did this legislation get passed – especially in a year when a bad economy, plus Ken Burns’ lyrical miniseries on National Parks, sparked record attendance at some national parks, particularly among cost-conscious families? A May 2009 Washington Post blog post from Ed O’Keefe reveals that the provisions were slipped into the credit card holder bill of rights, as a sop to Oklahoma Republication Senator Tom Coburn. Apparently Coburn has long argued that the national park ban made it hard for gun owners to travel between state and federal lands. President Obama signed the bill.
As you might imagine, Second Amendment types are enthused about the changes. The LA Times story says that gun rights advocates were planning to hold armed cookouts in Gettysburg, Valley Forge and other parks today. “Now it’s a big sea of gun freedom,” says Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which advocates legally carrying holstered handguns in public, in the article.
Great, armed cookouts. That’s exactly what I’d want my family exposed to, the next time I visit a historic site. I’m of the opinion that national parks are supposed to be safe havens, where you don’t have to worry about people carrying weapons. Rangers don’t carry guns, after all. I’m afraid that this change in the law exposes them to risk, should they encounter some belligerent yahoo who has had too much to drink at a campsite. Not to mention the dangers posed to wildlife from possible poachers.
It seems to me that state laws allowed gun owners plenty of places to bring their firearms. Many federal lands allow hunting, after all. Why we have to open up our national parks – protected lands meant to inspire us with their natural beauty and serenity - to people toting guns is beyond me. I don’t want to look over at the person next to me on the rim of the Grand Canyon and see a gun in a holster. It changes the experience in a negative way for the majority of the visitors.
At least that’s my view. What do you think? Does this change in the law bother you? Or are you fine with it?
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
RSS Feed
12 Comments
Oh yeah, now I feel safer
Honestly, I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal. You very likely pass people all the time who have concealed weapons. Unless you start running into gun battles at the mall, why should you expect it to happen in a park?
I saw whisperings of this going around last week and I can’t believe this is now legal. Sick and wrong. I love my national parks, but I am NOT happy about this legislation.
Currently, no federal policy exists prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons within National Forest lands, and thus states are free to establish individual policies regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on such properties. Additionally, states are always free to establish individual policies regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons within state parks. If concerns expressed by those opposed to the removal of the referenced restriction within National Parks are rational, then those opponents should be able to demonstrate that individuals who legally carry concealed deadly weapons within National Forests and within state parks where that practice is not prohibited have engaged in a statistically meaningful number of negligent or otherwise criminal shootings when in such locations. Thus far, however, no opponent has made any attempt to reference such data, even though I have requested such information from multiple individual opponents.
It’s interesting. This post also went up on Consumer Traveler, where I contribute occasionally. There, the overwhelming responses were pro-firearm. No wonder we didn’t hear much about this change when it was slipped into the credit card legislation last May.
I stand by what I wrote. I still think that there are certain places where firearms are not appropriate. For years, the Park Service required those visitors who did have guns in their car to stash them in the trunk, unloaded and disassembled. This, to me, is the best solution.
It’s disgusting. There is no place for guns in a national park.
And the Second Amendment argument is a furphy. There is no need for a well regulated militia protecting the free state inside a national park. The whole amendment is the amendment, not just the last bit.
Caitlin,
If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of being a violent crime victim within a National Park and a lawful gun owner tries to come to your rescue, would you rather be seriously injured or killed by the criminal or saved by the lawful gun owner?
Do you not believe that people should have the right to protect themselves while in a National Park? If not, why? Would it be better for them to be killed or raped, then to be able to stop the violence against them?
If just one or two of the 37 women that were raped in National Parks in 2008 were able to prevent themselves from being raped because they were legally carrying a gun, would you support those women, or would you rather they had been raped?
I respect your decision not to carry a gun for your own protection, but what makes you think that others that wish to protect their own lives from crime should not be allowed to do so?
Remember, this law change has nothing to do with criminals, they carry guns and use them regardless of the law. This change is about letting those that wish to provide for their own protection to do so.
Bill –
Actually, this law has nothing to do with letting people who wish to protect themselves bring in guns. It was passed because an Oklahoma senator said it was too much of a hassle to remember what to do with his firearm when driving through National Park lands. To which I respond: keep the damn thing in your trunk, disassembled and unloaded. (btw, it’s still going to be a hassle for gun owners, as every state has different gun regulations).
I have yet to see any stories or statistics focusing on a serious uptick of violent crime in a national park. And honestly, I don’t want random people with guns “coming to my rescue,” even if they have the correct permitting. Park authorities, yes. The type of folks who are celebrating the passage of this law at an armed cookout in Gettysburg? No.
Chris,
Actually, those of us in the pro self-defense, pro gun rights groups have been lobbying through state and national pro gun groups for years trying to get this passed. We have tried many different approaches, and this latest attempt was the only successful method. So, I would say you are wrong when you say “this has nothing to do with letting people who wish to protect themselves bring in guns.” It has everything to do with that. If it were not for me and the millions of other gun owners from around the country that lobbied to change this law, it would have never happened.
I also noticed that you did not answer my questions about the women being raped. Why not? Would you rather a woman be raped or would you rather she stop herself from being raped by using a gun? It’s a simple question.
There has not been an uptick in violent crime in national parks, but that is no reason to prevent people from legally protecting themselves within parks. In 2008 there were, I think, 6 murders in national parks and 37 rapes, as well as hundreds of other violent crimes. If only a few of these crimes could have been prevented by legally carried firearms it will be worth the change.
Do you realize, depending on which state you live in, you are continuously surrounded by regular, law abiding citizens that are legally carrying firearms for self-defense? In the 40 states that issue concealed carry permits to those that quality (training, no criminal record, no history of mental problems) an average of around 3% of citizens have concealed carry permits. That means that for every 33 people you see in public, one of them has a permit to carry and may very well be carrying a concealed pistol. This is true almost anywhere in public, including city streets and sidewalks, the mall, movie theaters, grocery stores, etc.
Considering that you are already surrounded by lawful citizens carrying concealed handguns, are you continually in fear when you go out in public? If not, then why such the concern about National Parks? Do you think that these otherwise lawful citizens that carry arms are going to flip out once they cross the arbitrary boundary of a National Park entrance?
Your assertion is factually incorrect. In fact, there are multiple possible places for firearms within National Parks. As an example, were I to travel to a National Park, I would likely carry with me a holster, which would constitute a place for a firearm.
I do not understand your reference to a “well regulated militia”. That there exists no such place for one within a National Park does not constitute justification for infringement upon the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
I am curious; have you an actual rational objection to allowing states to regulate the carrying of firearms within National Parks within state borders, as is already the case with National Forests?
Chris,
Sorry, it was Caitlin that I asked about the rapes, not you. I apologize for my mistake.