www.jjsjigs.com
WASHINGTON – People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.
An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.
The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.
Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.
The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.
The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.
The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.
Sounder 'Til I Die!
Sounds like a bad idea to me. That's part of the beauty of the national parks. The only people who should be allowed to carry firearms in the park are the park officials. I can't see why the Department of the Interior would allow it after having the current ruling for so long.
-Ethan
"The trail has individuality. After one or two trips, a man becomes intimate with it. He longs to return to it and enter upon it." - E.B. Webster
Join CCA!
there is still a shooting ban then i assume? i dont want to hike for 5 days to hear some idiot shooting off 3 clips at a tree in the valley ;/
"Chasing Riseforms"
Bush is dismantling as much as possible before he leaves..... A hole...
With all due respect your reasoning makes no sense to me. What is the reason that only park officials should have the means of self defense? You do realize that concealed carry has been allowed in national forests for many years and the crime rate in nat'l forests is vastly lower than in nat'l parks. There are admins in the dept of interior that attribute that to the right to carry.Originally Posted by Ethan G.
Why should a lawfully permitted person be dis-armed and potentially denied the right of self defense just because they're in a park?
Not Quite A Luddite, But Can See One From Here
Those "admins" are the ones using faulty reasoning. I'd suggest that the nature of the National Parks is such that the population that travels to and uses the parks is probably a more law-abiding group than the general population. To suggest that there is a link between concealed carry rights and a lower crime rate in the NP's is like saying that there's less crime at the opera because there are NO guns allowed.
FWIW, I do background investigations for the feds and have had a few National Park Service employees as subjects, and one such case led me to interview a retired ranger who'd spent well over forty years in the NPS. In describing the subject as being somewhat overbearing, a touch arrogant, and fairly easy to rile up, he made the observation that "putting guns in the hands of park rangers was the worst thing DOI ever did." He went on to explain that having a gun, in his opinion, emboldened some of the younger "hotheads" in the NPS and also had in essence done away with the need for rangers to reason with the public and gain cooperation, rather than to mandate it under the threat of force.
Just trying to illustrate that these issues are a lot more complex than what the interest groups can fit on a bumper sticker. In my opinion, if it's true that the parks have allowed concealed carry for years, then there doesn't seem to be any reason to change it. At the same time, any right should be subject to REASONABLE regulation.
That word REASONABLE is the one that hangs us up.
Whereas today a luddite would reject new technology because it is new, the (original) Luddites were acting from a sense of self-preservation rather than merely fear of change.
I agree; I always wanted to shoot trout in Yellowstone just like I could in the Wind River Range. And living here just outside Mt. Rainier NP, I've always been chagrined, that unlike in the neighboring National Forest, none of the road signs or rest rooms are shot up, there are no abandoned, burnt out, shot-up cars and pickups (all over the GP NF and the nearby DNR lands), and when I go hiking or skiing I can't hear anybody shooting (repeatedly, all day long, unlike anywhere in the GP, or DNR, or unincorporated east Pierce County). Why I even haven't had the pleasure or seeing poached or wounded deer and elk in the Park, like I have in the RCW "no shooting zone" in my high-density housing subdivision--the game warden says he can't enforce no shooting/no trespassing violations and the sheriff's deputy told my neighbor-- when someone shot a deer in her driveway right in line with her looking out the window--well all you people out there have guns don't you? Well, not in the National Park we didn't, now we will! Hip, hip, hooray!!!!
p.s., just got back from the Queets (no noticeable bullet holes on signs on the lower or upper river valley, but dropped by the Wynoochee, whoooeee! talk about some good shooting through the timber company's signs!! Now, that's American! No wussy gun prohibition. Also found an elk rumen in the river, just below Bob's bridge, seems like the day before some citizen shot one 3 miles upstream and floated it down the river (being submerged chest-deep himself at times) before he got to the bridge and dressed it out in the water, of course.
I agree, its seems to be a very bad idea. that rule kept criminals and violent unstable people from bringing guns into our parks, where i used to feel safe, but now those people can come on in armed, because i know they never did before.
Problem is that there are usually a lot more people concentrated in national parks that plain don't have any common sense. Been in the back country of many national parks and always felt safer than returning to the front country. Been to Glacier many times and seen/heard people doing the stupidest things imaginable. Put guns into the mix, and it will be insane.
Can we say that more people have been injured or killed by say bears than accidental deaths or injuries related to hand guns? I bet not.
Dumb idea.
Joe
Man this is expensive!
Gearhead,
You can't be serious with this post. Do you really think criminals are sweating that rule now?
Post's like this make me want to move east of the mountains......
What's the phrase used in the South Park episode when they took the boys hunting?
You can ignore hunting rules....just yell "look out its going to attack us!" Blammm
They're criminals they'll bring them in anyway...
Last edited by spanishfly; 12-06-2008 at 10:13 AM.
New to the board
Touche' spanish fly. Those of us who can legally carry should be able to do so. I think a shooting ban is a good idea so as to prevent shot up shitters and road signs etc. I don't ever want to wax a bear or cougar, but I have almost been pounced by them,and having my gun in hand helped me feel a little better about surviving the situations. And as for banjo players....bring it! All of us have a right to self defense. What difference does some imaginary boundry make?
Amen to that. And criminals aren't likely to have concealed weapons permits, either. The key operative is "law-abiding" citizens.
www.jjsjigs.com
Look out, it's coming right for us. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat! Oh look, I found a piece of it's hoof! Let's mount it!What's the phrase used in the South Park episode when they took the boys hunting?
You can ignore hunting rules....just yell "look out its going to attack us!" Blammm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
