Concealed, loaded guns in national parks: What are your thoughts?

News item: Legislation to allow citizens to carry concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges passes overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. It essentially ratifies a late-Bush administration rule that was challenged this year in federal district court in Washington. (As reported earlier this week in the Times' Greenspace blog.)

Reaction: Not sure how I feel about this, but part of me, since I do not carry a gun, is against it simply because I don't like the idea of others around me being armed. I know the ruling makes the National Rifle Assn. folks happy and feeling safer now that their 2nd Amendment rights have been protected. After all, they're largely responsible for implementing the new policy,

But wouldn't it be appropriate to have places where nobody is allowed to be armed? And what better places than our national parks? What kind of world is one in which you have to be armed to feel safe?

I guess I'm being idealistic and simplistic, and if I had a loaded gun tucked away somewhere maybe I'd feel less leery of what might lie around the bend in the trail. But I do not buy into the NRA's implication that murderers, rapists and drug manufacturers are nearly as likely to confront hikers and bikers in the woods as they are pedestrians in dark alleys. Isn't that an alarmist, perhaps paranoid attitude?

Anyway, I'd like to hear from others: hikers, campers, bikers, bird-watchers, anglers, etc. How do you feel about the ruling? Good or bad, right or wrong? Please let Outposts know.

--Pete Thomas

Photo: El Capitan provides the backdrop for Yosemite National Park's valley floor. Credit: Robert Durell / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[PH55]

Pete,

I love reading your blog. Its one of my favorites on the old Google Reader. Let me respond to your opinion on the concealed gun law. So you know, I am a police officer in so cal, as well as an avid angler, hunter, day hiker, camper, and backpacker. I love the outdoors, in particular the national parks.

Here are some of my thoughts after reading your response.

1. You "[are] against it simply because I don't like the idea of others around me being armed."
- there are already laws making it illegal for criminals to possess guns and there are laws that would punish someone for being negiligent with a firearm. That being said, people who have no regard for those laws are already carrying guns in the national parks. It is only the law abiding citizens who are not.

2. "But wouldn't it be appropriate to have places where nobody is allowed to be armed?"
- Yes if everyone would abide by the law. The fact people don't is why I have a job. And we already have these places. They are called schools and churches. Which is why we see some of the worst massacres involving guns at those locations, because no one there can carry a gun and defend themselves.

3. "What kind of world is one in which you have to be armed to feel safe? "
- There is a reason we have police officers and military. There are people out there intent on committing evil and are willing to use whatever is necessary to keep themselves from being caught. The only way to be safe in their presence is to match them.

4. "But I do not buy into the NRA's implication that murderers, rapists and drug manufacturers are nearly as likely to confront hikers and bikers in the woods as they are pedestrians in dark alleys. Isn't that an alarmist, perhaps paranoid attitude?"
- I bet Joie Armstrong, the parks naturalist killed in Foresta (Yosemite) by Cary Stayner (who already raped and killed three women just outside the park near El Portal) believed it was not as likely also to have to face this. Wouldn't it have been nice for Joie and/or her family if she had potentially been carrying a gun that day and she could have saved her life.

- The book "Off the Wall: Death in Yosemite" documents numerous homicides that have taken place in the national park. This book is written by a former park superintendent.
- Also, frequently I have been in the outdoors and seen people that, based on my training and experience, I know to be involved in criminal activity. When you are in the backcountry, you have nowhere to run or hide, no 911 to call, no police to respond within 4 minutes. When your life is threatened (fortunately mine has not to this point) you need a tool for protection, not idealism.

Thank you for your excellent posts on the outdoors. I truly enjoy reading your stuff and I appreciate the time you spend in covering the outdoors.

[ICS77]

I have been to Yosemite 6 times in the last 6 years. Been to the Grand Canyon a few times. I love to visit the national parks. I haven't ever personally felt threatened, and I too have a hard time believing that murderers, rapists, etc... regularly visit national parks at the same rate that they walk around in our cities and neighborhoods. However, if someone else feels personally safer by being armed, I have no problem with that. I don't feel threatened because someone else happens to have a gun for his or her own protection. People are already legally carrying weapons outside of parks. What makes them so dangerous to you or I if they happen to enter a national park. Maybe people feel like there is absolutely no need to, but they don't have to carry a weapon. Again, if someone else feels the need or desire, it doesn't bother me any. The law doesn't allow just anyone to carry a firearm. Only those who are already licensed to carry, which requires an extensive background investigation.

Regarding the idea of having places where nobody is allowed to be armed. That's already been tried on college campuses. Having a law that prevents people from being armed does absolutely nothing to stop someone who wants to bring in a weapon and use it. It works in airports and courthouses because of the thorough screening, and the constant presence of armed law enforcement. Two things that aren't available when one is in a national park.

Knowing that someone around me could be *legally* armed gives me more comfort than a posted sign that says "no weapons allowed".

[Chris Rogers]

I'm not really sweatin' this. I doubt that it will lead to any kind of bloodbath that some are fearing. And I doubt it will do all that much to protect law abiding citizens.

A criminal who's actually motivated enough to go all the way out to a park to do something, is probably one who's good at what he does to get away with it (until actually caught). And if one attacks me and I actually manage to use my firearm to protect myself...and kill/injure him in the process...how exactly is anyone going to know that it was him that was the criminal and not me? His word vs mine.

I get the feeling that people who attack others in parks aren't just walking into plain site making their intentions known. They get the drop on somebody. At that point, good luck getting to your piece.

[Winston Smith]

I could not agree more with LEO Pete above.

I used to be in favor of gun control, less than a year ago, in fact. I didn't vote for W either time, either, nor am I a bumbling, uneducated idiot. Reading Thomas Jefferson's remarks changed my mind completely. Fortunately for us, the framers of our nation did have the foresight to realize that none of our 'unalienable rights' could be achieved without the right to bear arms.

Like Pete said, criminals don't follow rules, so making a rule that hurts the rule followers doesn't make any of us any safer.

I went from pro-gun-control to a position that everyone should have the right to be armed anywhere they go (even to those "no no" places in states that have CCW laws). As Robert Heinlein put it: "An armed society is a polite society."

~WS

[jay]

now to the officer that posed the typical argument for guns is simple.

he says that you need them bc the bad guys always have them anyway, so by letting everyone have them you in a sense balance the power, so that bad guys won't do the bad acts,, ie they will think twice about doing the bad act.

my question is this, that assumes the bad guy actually cares about the outcome doesn't it? it assumes that the bad guy, actually cares about living, if the bad guy does not you end up with the same ending, the bad guy dead and proboabbly civilians dead from the bad guy and any collateral damage from the "good citizens" misfiring or such. the so called "oops i'm sorry i didnt' mean to kill you"

the logic i see that is wrong is that you can balance the power so to speak sort of like if you give more cars to people then everyone can drive.

bu tthat also brings up another problem with more guns in "good citizen" hands that makes it more likely that accidental shootings and errant bullets from guns that would have otherwise not been there that kill others will happen too.

its only the law of averages and it will happen, sorry but the excuse of "well he didnt' mean to kill your son" is not good enough for me.

[Eric Bressler]

It's a spectacularly bad idea because, as I understand it, this isn't just about being able to carry a concealed weapon, this allows people to carry their rifles while on nature hikes with park rangers and that's just stupid.
Also, this was widely opposed by the park ranger community as unnecessary and dangerous to not just people, but to wildlife in the park. Just today in the Times there was a post about poacher getting a lifetime hunting ban and this just opens the National Parks to more of the same.

[fedup]

As far as I'm concerned, none of the arguments defending the concealed weapon ruling makes any sense. As a matter of fact, the arguments are downright moronic. Why limit concealed carry to National Parks? According to the argument, everyone should be entitiled to pack a gun anywhere, anytime. Then you need to ask why limiit the type of gun?? If the bad guys have access fo full auto small arms, the ordinary citizen should have the same access. MP5's at every Walmart. Bring back the high capacity magazines. What's next...grenades at 7-11??

[mack]

I'm going to go out on a very short limb here to predict that with passage of this rule, we'll see some poor child (or adult) shot with a legally-carried handgun by accident before we'll EVER have some would-felon shot, or even deterred, in the act.

[Jeremy]

@ jay

Yes, that makes the assumption that those who are criminals care about the outcome. The assumption is that they want to keep on living. Since an armed civilian means that there's a chance of death at committing a crime, it is a deterrant just as nuclear war is it's own deterrant.

The vast majority of criminals actually care about remaining alive and free, if they didn't, they wouldn't try to hide their activities. Assuming that an armed citizen would be a horrible shot and/or accidentally kill someone easily is assuming that that armed citizen had no regard for learning firearm use before carrying a firearm. That is a ridiculous assumption since law-abiding citizens generally care about following the law, and about the lives of others around them.

Your post reeks of unrestrained fear.

[John]

Regrettably, I have to agree with Mack. A few years ago, I was hiking in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and was nearly shot by another hiker who mistook me for a bear. This law is not going to protect hikers and campers, but rather put them in danger of terrible accidents.

[Ian Chan]

I believe you need to have a CCW permit in order to carry concealed in national parks. The new law merely extends the ability of legal CCW holders to carry in a new area of the state.
For Californians, it still means almost no one can carry concealed in national parks.

[hosemonkey]

Anyone who believes that criminals are less active in the National or State parks are just not in touch with reality. Why do you think that it is now necessary for Park Rangers to carry firearms? Because good ol' Rocky Ranger was being assaulted and killed by your good ol' Average Joe Camper? No! Because the scum that ordinarily occupy your urban streets have now moved their nefarious activities to the National and State Parks. Assaults, drug trafficing, marijuana cultivation, robbery, rape and murder now are nearly as common in the Park systems as they are in our cities. Law-abiding folks very seldom break gun laws, criminals do not care about gun laws. Do we have checkpoints at the entrances to our parks? Do we search ALL vehicles for contraband when entering Parks? NO! If not, then you have gangbangers, felons and other scum right next to you, likely armed, enjoying the great outdoors. Not a perfect world, people. Criminal scum like to go camping too.

[xh]

Having encountered a sick animal while working as a counselor at a residence camp my opinion on this matter is very well defined. My campers (girls between 11 and 14 years old) and I were very lucky and very grateful that the ranger was able to shoot and kill the rabid coyote before it bit anyone.

The dangers of the park itself are reason enough to carry a gun. If I were in a national park with no instant radio contact with an armed ranger instead of on staff at a summer camp and had the same encounter, it most likely would have ended very differently. I am eternally thankful that no one was bitten.

Personal protection isn't just about criminals infesting our parks and forests. It's about the dangers of the forests themselves. Why shouldn't someone already able to protect themselves from urban dangers be allowed to carry the same protection for rural ones? Why should urban fears dictate rural law? Isn't that what most gun control ends up being about anyway? This really isn't any different.

[Kenarmy]

We will see innocent prople shot and killed "accidently," as well as supposedly "protected" wildlife killed, long before any crimes are deterred. Just because you know how to use a weapon, doesn't mean you have to be armed at all times. Having a weapon in your home may be logical, since any one trying to get in (without your express permission) may be presumed to have criminal intent. Can the same be presumed for someone passing by your camp site? A criminal is not going to face you down in shoot out. They will sneak up behind you. Will the law permit you to point your weapon at everyone going past your campsite? Are prople going to guard their camp site as we do in the military - rotating guard duty? "Take 5 steps forward, lay your ID card on the ground, and take 5 steps back?" This is not just madness, it's useless.

[Mike Maheras]

So now I have to be less concerned with spooking a bear and more concerned about the implications of spooking a fellow camper while trekking to the bathroom at night.

[Rich]

Millions of licensed citizens carry concealed weapons on a daily basis without incident. It's paranoid to think that these people are going to suddenly become careless idiots or criminals once they cross park boundaries. This law allows concealed carry, not machine gun fire on hiking trails. The carefully holstered pistol of a law-abiding citizen will not harm anyone. I carry almost always and have never even considered having to remove it from it's holster. A pistol in a holster is about as harmless as a paperweight. I don't think anyone wants to turn national parks into shooting ranges. They just want to give people the same right to defend themselves in parks that they have everywhere else they go.

[Jess]

"Assualts, drug trafficking, marijuana cultivation, robbery, rape and murder are now nearly as common in the Park systems as they are in our cities.."

HAHAHAHAHA I nominate that guy for funniest comment of 09. Not very smart, but funny nonetheless. The cannabis cultivation MIGHT be nearly as common, but the rest are just redundant.

I say let the cowards carry their guns. Must suck to live in fear like that.

[Dreadnought]

Simply put:
1. Firearm on hand - options
2. No firearm - no options

[Reflecting_Pool]

Gun Violence is something every single American needs to get used to, because it is only going to continue to escalate. Americans on the whole WANT gun violence -- even in their National Parks. In the U.S. you have "the tail wagging the dog." You have the very lowest intelligence level in the country (like the mindless NRA) dictating the laws and you have the second lowest intelligence in the country (elected officials from both parties) dancing obediently at the end of the NRA nutcakes' marionette strings. It's the "Perfect Storm" for a reign of terror like we've been seeing over the past few years. Unlike the U.S., sane, honest societies are able to connect the dots -- guns -- hotheads -- explosive violence and tragedy. But in the U.S. the lowest intelligence quotient that's running the show has no "dot-connecting" cerebral capacity. Hence, even its Vice President, Cheney, has become part of the gun-toting mindless mayhem. America is racing toward Samalia-type anarchy much faster than it is moving toward sanity and enlightened wisdom. And the most ignorant morons in this society are leading the charge.

[Astounded]

The bs coming from those who love this idea is astounding. I guess the cop at the start spends all his time arresting people in the outdoors because he KNOWS they are bad guys, never met them just knows!!

[Craig]

You don't have to go very far to see why you would need to carry a handgun in the back country. Drive up to Angeles National Forest on any weekend and see how many gang bangers, and biker gangs, are enjoying the outdoors as well. I'll bet they don't have concealed carry permits along with the firearms tucked into their waist bands. You may also want that when you go day hiking and stumble upon a mafia pot garden. Ask any ranger up there if they feel safe and not outgunned on the job. You are all completely naive to think that our forests and parks are safe places of haven. Why can't we have strict background checks and take firearms training courses like the police do and be able to carry a gun for protection? A guy with a GED and an AA degree can become a police officer in a few weeks and carry a gun. Does that make him any better than the rest of us if we had the same training?

[John]

Here is a headline for you... in fact you can run it daily

"Millions of guns didn't harm anyone today"

Media is so keyed in on the small bad events that occur, and choose to simple ignore the millions of safe responsible gun owners, or the events where carrying a gun saved a life.

Gun control is a death sentence to freedom, check your history books. It is also a fact that areas law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, have drastically lower violent crime rates.

It is only in areas that totally disarm their citizens where crime really flourishes.

The opportunity to carrying a gun in a National Park is a wonderful thing. We trust people with cars, and numerous other items that could be just as lethal as a gun, everyday… and no one blinks. The only thing scary about a gun is someone too ignorant to understand them. Just like someone who dosent know how to drive behind the wheel of a car....

Educate yourself and protect yourself.

[Myistcat]

The hardest life to lead is an honest life. Lets see guns in National Parks. well I guess next time a bear comes into camp I guess I can just shoot it. What the hey right just because I didn't keep a clean campsite doesn't give that bear the right to come into my camp and eat my food... Oh hey those campers over there are playing their music too loud and are drinking too much I won't bother to call the ranger I think I'll just brandish my gun and if they don't shut up I'll shoot em.. yep that's the ticket. Why is that camper looking at our campsite why I think they are talking about us well I'll just whip out my gun and then we'll see what they're staring at?? Most of us won't do any of these things, but some of us will and its those people that scare me. When guns weren't allowed a person would at least think twice about whipping out their "illegal" weapon in full view at a National Park, not anymore. We've finally done it, we've urbanized the National Parks. What a shame.

[Doug Pennington]

As an advocate against guns in national parks, I'd like to offer a few items:

1. Yes, it is "appropriate to have places where nobody is allowed to be armed." Excepting trained law enforcement, places like schools, churches, government buildings and yes, national park lands, should be gun free.

In fact, keeping guns out of places like schools and national parks helps account for their extremely low rate of violent crime, compared to the rest of the country.

2. According to the FBI, America suffered over 1.4 million violent crimes and had a nationwide violent crime rate of 466.9 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2007.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

3. Yet the FBI reports that national parks accounted for exactly 389 of those 1.4 million violent crimes committed nationwide.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_11_fa.html

The National Association of Park Rangers reports the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors – or almost 300 times less than the rest of America.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090517_16_A15_WASHIN962085&allcom=1

4. Using 2007 FBI figures, college and university campuses had a violent crime rate of 41.8 per 100,000 enrolled students – or about 10 times less than the rest of America.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/documents/07tbl09.xls

5. There is nothing magical about getting a concealed weapon permit. Some states (like Georgia) require no firearm training at all to get one. What's more, merely having a concealed weapon permit guarantees nothing abut the lawful status or mental fitness of the permit-holder to own and fire their weapon. To offer just a few examples:

* The Alabama mass shooter this past March had a concealed carry permit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690314709013801.html

* The Pittsburgh triple cop-killer last month apparently had a concealed carry permit:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09097/961071-53.stm

* A man threatening to copy the Virginia Tech shootings also had a concealed carry permit:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXmwMKrKuFIfZQTRXeNEE8w5k--QD97RJNA00

* There are many, many more examples here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/barack-obama-i-am-not-in_b_170033.html

6. The previous gun rule – issued by President Ronald Reagan – actually did allow firearms in National Parks, but they had to be either disassembled, or locked and unloaded in the trunk of your car.

The new law allows not just the carrying of loaded and concealed (or even openly carried) handguns, but also the open carrying of loaded shotguns and rifles – apparently even military-style assault rifles like semi-automatic AK-47's. There is no justification for this.

7. The Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police was diametrically opposed to this bill. As their President said:

"We are disappointed that Congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of our national parks."

http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2009/guns_in_parks_statement.html

To be clear, this isn't about the Second Amendment. It's about public safety, wildlife preservation and the right of the vast majority of people who want a few places left that are safe and gun-free – where they can take their families and enjoy nature, in peace.

Unfortunately, Congress ignored this, and allowed itself to be railroaded by the National Rifle Association into passing a stupid, and possibly dangerous, bill.

Doug Pennington
BradyCampaign.org

[stevex]

How much money do these gun advocates want to bet that gun incidents will go up in National Parks as a result of this insane proposal?The focus should be about reducing violence not increasing gun rights everywhere.
It is not only criminals that murder.There is a very large percentage of murderers in jail right now who never had a prior criminal record to the murder they comitted.Thanks to a heated domestic situation and their rights to easy access to guns,a moment of anger and stupidity results in a loss of life and added taxpayer cost burden to incarcerate the gun user/murderer.
I would like to know what are the stats for law abiding gun owners who are involved in gun incidents in which they were charged with a crime for unjustified use/violence/murder etc...I am sure that there is only a tiny percentage of justified use vs unjustified use by 'law abiding' gun owners.
Guns are not a deterent,the criminals just dont ask you for your money anymore they shoot you first,then ask questions.
A place without guns is a much safer place:Canada,France,England,Germany.
Can we learn from them please?