Concealed, loaded weapons not allowed in national parks after all

Some will cheer the news, while others might view it as an infringement on their rights as U.S. citizens to arm and protect themselves, even in national parks and refuges.

How do you feel about a temporary injunction issued late Thursday by a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., restoring rules that ban loaded, concealed firearms in our national parks?

The Bush administration, reversing a longstanding rule, issued the rule in December to allow concealed weapons in national parks for those with permits. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Parks Conservation Assn. sued Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kennedy granted the injunction.

She agreed that the Bush administration failed to follow federal environmental laws and also stated, "Brady has submitted declarations from several of its members indicating that they are now concerned for their personal safety in parks and refuges and cannot fully enjoy their visits to certain national parks or wildlife refuges because they feel less safe."

Said Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke, in a news release: "We are gratified that the court struck down the Bush Administration's parting gift to the gun lobby. Concealed weapons have no place in our national parks,which have always been safe places to enjoy our nation's magnificent natural and historical treasures."

The Bush rule went into effect Jan. 9, but the court's ruling reinstates the prior rule requiring that weapons in national parks be unloaded and safely secured. The government has until April 20 to state its "intended course of action" regarding the rule.

Don't expect much of a fight on this issue from the Obama administration.

-- Pete Thomas

Silhouetted wolf roams Yellowstone National Park. Credit: Joel Sartore/National Geographic

Comments

[Common Sense Guy]

I wonder if the Brady folks are afraid to go to the grocery store? Or the gas station? Or any other public place that doesn't have a posted no-firearms rule and metal detectors / searches to enforce it?

They should.

Whether they realize it or not, they probably encounter armed, law-abiding people every day. And though they may be utterly thankless and ungrateful for it, they are actually SAFER because of it.

[Alex]

This is an example of why I say people misunderstand the use of our Armed Forces. Our popular culture believes "The troops are fighting to protect our rights and freedoms"- we have all heard it many times. This is a marketing strategy- an urban legend. If we want to have our concealed carry permit honored on National Parks lands- should we tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

[Jason, a vegan libertarian]

"...now concerned for their personal safety in parks and refuges and cannot fully enjoy their visits ... because they feel less safe."

Statements like this are just so frustrating. It's difficult to put into words how hypocritical it is. Oh, wait, I guess that was pretty easy. If people feeling less safe is the basis for taking away a right that makes other people feel more safe, this is just going to lead some painful decisions.

[lightingengineer]

The number of law abiding citizens who have qualified for concealed carry licenses in this country is now six times the number of peace officers. By sheer numbers we have a far greater chance of intervening than peace officers do. Most often we have the same background requirements, the same sense of duty, and in many cases we have as much experience in weapons training as peace officers. Yet many or our elected representatives confuse us with the sources of violence and are fearful of allowing us to be able to offer the possibility of intervention in violent crimes. For too many years now, the dangerous fantasy of gun free zones has resulted in too may tragedies and it is a sorry fact that those who prevent concealed carry within a locality or within a State now have some culpability in these tragedies. Our national incarceration rate has just reached 1%. With the failure of our borders, urban schools, and urban families, life is becoming more dangerous. Concealed carry licensees should be allowed to carry concealed handguns on their persons into national parks. They will not endanger their concealed carry privileges by displaying or shooting their guns except in a life-threatening emergency. You will never be able to spot them but you will be able to take some comfort in knowing that they increase the odds of innocent people surviving a deranged shooting spree. Hopefully, you now have a better understanding of the sense of duty shared by the concealed carry community.

[Red]

Criminals carry concealed weapons into national parks, and everywhere else for that matter. The law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry in the parks also.

[Scott]

"I wonder if the Brady folks are afraid to go to the grocery store? Or the gas station? Or any other public place that doesn't have a posted no-firearms rule and metal detectors / searches to enforce it?"

At the same time, I have to wonder about folks who are afraid to even go on vacation without a gun in their pocket at all times. I lived in a national park for many years and somehow managed to work and play without ever wishing I'd had a gun.

[Alex]

Scott,

Wishing or not wishing you had a gun is something no-one here is trying to take away from you. The new ruling creates a "one size fits all" government mandate that does not allow for personal responsibility.

Since the 1980's, most states have quietly authorized the concealed carry of handguns. The often predicted worst case scenarios never came to pass. Why should National Parks be any different than most counties in America?

Concealed carry allows the legal use (not abuse) of handguns.

We are working hard to spread freedom across the globe- maybe we should take some of the filters off of freedom here at home.

http://tinyurl.com/c4tgct

[NetAdminGuy]

legal gun owners, those that have taken the time, the effort and the expense, to prove they are responicible citizens have been slapped in the face, while someone that cannot pass the requirements, who do not care about laws anyway, are given the green light to prey on park visitors.

[Rod]

The Brady Bunch is patently naive when it comes to firearms regulations. They will not be happy until the Second Amendment has been repealed, or until they have succussfully imposed so many regulations upon the possession and use of firearms that the right to bear arms is illussory. Those who have obtained conceal carry permits have passed background checks and are knowledgable about the safe and appropriate use of firearms. The public bacame LESS safe in National Parks as a result of the ruling from the DC Circuit. Is anyone surprised that a Judge named Kennedy sitting in DC is anti-gun?

[Shavager]

The most important thing anyone values is his or her life or the lives of their loved ones. Nothing is more important than protecting those lives. No govt. entity, local-state-or Federal can guarantee your protection. We have an absolute right as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court, to a second amendment freedom and this ruling is an example of govt. interferring with that right and our ability to protect ourselves. This is but one step of the Barack Obumbler administration's crusade against freedom in the U.S.. Obumbler and the Demo-Nazi Party are stealing our money and freedom with legislative fiat. Obumbler, Pelosi, Reid are Stooges for leftwing radical George Soros, with Obumbler acting as a PIED PIPER OF SOCIALISM leading those who are ignorant of politics right down to the slaughter of socialist enslavement like the sheeple they are. Join THE 912 PROJECT.COM and demand responsibility from Congress!!

[Crash Burn]

These gun nuts crack me up. They completely freak out every time their might be any restrictions. Assuming some of these nuts are as they claim law abiding citizens, what are you going to do with your loaded gun in a national park since you are not legally allowed to fire it? I know there are so many gangbangers doing drive by's in Yellowstone that you are probably surely going to die if you go into the wilderness, but have a little guts. Going into a national park is about going into nature inherent with all its risks. You still can't get enough courage to go to a national park without a gun despite the fact that EVERY national park is 10X safer than any area in urban America and yet thousands of grandmothers can gather up the courage to live here without any gun? I beginning to think this may have to do with cowardice than anything else. You can’t live with your gun unloaded locked in your trunk? I’m going to say it, you are a coward.

[Mark]

Crash Burn, please don't crack up, it is the last thing the gun owners want to see. But your question deserves an answer.

"what are you going to do with your loaded gun in a national park since you are not legally allowed to fire it?"

We are going to fire it if needed to save our lives or the lives of the loved ones, in which case we are legally allowed to do so.

Your denunciation of self-defense as cowardice on the other hand is not worth an answer.

[Rich]

Outlaws gravitate to remote places...ask a game warden or park ranger. Every hear of murdering pukes like Claude Dallas? Ever been way, way out in the boodocks and had a truck pull near your your camp, stop, and just sit there awhile, shining its headlights on you and your family before backing away and slowly driving off to who knows where?

If you're in that campsite, hours from help if you had the means to request it, what would you rather have--the "safe" feeling that nobody was supposed to have a weapon, or one of your own?

[Dan Wild]

Soldiers of King George III went to Lexington & Concord to disarm the People. War resulted, and the United States was born.
Hitler moved to disarm the population and killed and enslaved many. War resulted etc.
Walter Paul Helmke, Jr. (born 1948) is a U.S. politician, and president of the Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is quite active in his efforts to disarm American Citizens one step at a time. War will result.

[Adrian]

You NRA guys just don't get this. By forcing this rule on the National Park Service you will make it MUCH harder for them to do a big part of their job, which is preventing poaching. No-one in the National Park Service wants this (and the majority of the visitors don't, either). Talk about political dogma overriding common sense.

Also - why are you all so paranoid that you think you need 'personal protection' in what are statistically the safest places in America? In New York I can see the point, but in a National Park? Give me a break!

[Jon Empey]

So, what kind of person feels more safe where the only people carrying weapons are those who are knowingly breaking the law, and less safe where persons who have gone to considerable trouble and expense to follow the law are not?

I don't think I would need a firearm to ruin the 'Brady Campaign's people's day - in my experience, there is a large selection of very fine rocks in national parks. A nice variety of of long, strong sticks.

Maybe if we organize a campaign of 'sticks and stones', the 'Brady' loons will learn the value of a ready handgun?

[cr]

I'm a liberal, but I have to side with the "gun nuts" on this one.

What is the problem with law abiding citizens carrying openly or concealed fire arms? I have a CWP in South Carolina and sometimes I carry my weapon, and sometime I don't. But the crucial point here is that IF I want to carry it, I should be allowed to do so ... no matter where I'm traveling. I should be allowed to decide when it is necessary to arm myself. I am a law abiding citizen and I respect all law abiding citizens. It is those among us that don't follow the law that we need to worry about ... and you better believe that a law breaker is not going to concern themselves with respecting a gun ban. They will carry and use it at their will. Those are not the odds I like to face.

What the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act fails to address is the fact that John Hinckley, Jr. did NOT have a carry permit for his weapon, yet it didn't stop him from using it illegally.

The "gun nuts" have got a point on this one. That is probably why the ACLU occasionally comes to their defense.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[John Donkey]

I have never been in a situation where I wanted to have a gun or needed to have a gun on my person, just the same way I have never "needed" to have an airbag in my steering wheel and have never "needed" to have my fire-extinguisher in my kitchen. The only problem is, were a situation to arise where I actually DID need a gun or airbag or fire extinguisher, I would not have the time to run to the gun, automotive or hardware store, respectively, to obtain one.

People may be worried that some wacko is going to go nuts with a 9mm on some squirrel or little kid, and rightfully so, but the only problem is someone willing to murder a person or use a firearm in a negligent manner is also not likely to respect gun laws, as was tragically demonstrated at Virginia Tech in 2007.

Finally my carry piece of choice is a .32 auto, which would only be useful against a bear as a noise maker to scare them away, however I do not carry to defend against bears or other wildlife because bears usually are using the seclusion of the national park to cook meth and bears usually will not rob you at gunpoint nor will they murder you to make sure you don't tell the cops whats happening. Sadly not all the two legged predators in national parks are as civilized as the bears, which is why I prefer to be armed. Its a much better plan than crapping my pants and hoping that bad guy is a poor marksman as I run away.