Page 2 of 2
New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 05 2008 4:15 pm
by Al_HikesAZ
New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY Friday, December 05, 2008
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.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 06 2008 10:50 pm
by chumley
Vaporman wrote:
For crazy locals - Havasupai...
This is the number one reason to carry. No, it's not bears, wolves, mountain lions, etc. It's crazy people. And singling out Havasupai is unfair. Remember a couple of years ago a couple was camping in the back of their pickup truck near Bumble Bee. Shot dead. Unless I missed something, this is still unsolved. Its just one of many similar stories and I'm not going to be an unprepared victim.
As far as the national parks ... as long as the law allows citizens to carry guns (and it still does), then I see no reason to restrict that right when I cross an imaginary line on a map.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 7:06 am
by PaleoRob
Interestingly enough, you still wouldn't be able to carry to Havasupai unless the tribe allowed it, since it is on the reservation and has a different set of rules from the Park.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 8:36 am
by Jeffshadows
nonot wrote:@Jeff Given that nearly all gun owners are brain dead sign-shooting hicks, it's not worth the words to single out those who aren't. Nice to hear you think I'm the equivalent of some immortal being though ;)
@Strand: If people are responsible CCW owners and I don't even know then they are carrying, don't see them out shooting @ signs and cactus, and don't have to worry about them hitting me when shooting at an old tin can, I don't have any issues. However, thus far in my experiences I have not met many people like this. Also, most people driving are idiots, I can no longer count the number of times I've almost been side swiped by morons who can't figure out the double and triple left turn lanes. You are also right it is more dangerous to drive than hike.
Well, you're irredeemable; back to the topic at hand... :whistle:
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 10:51 am
by Vaporman
chumley wrote:Vaporman wrote:
For crazy locals - Havasupai...
This is the number one reason to carry. No, it's not bears, wolves, mountain lions, etc. It's crazy people. And singling out Havasupai is unfair. Remember a couple of years ago a couple was camping in the back of their pickup truck near Bumble Bee. Shot dead. Unless I missed something, this is still unsolved. Its just one of many similar stories and I'm not going to be an unprepared victim.
Exactly... That's why I tend to leave it at the car and keep it with me while I'm camping, because you're most likely to run across crazies near a road than out on the trail. Yea, it's unfair to single them out, but Havasupai is unique in that you run across the crazies a good 10 miles from the road. :roll:
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 11:17 am
by chumley
chumley wrote:Vaporman wrote:
For crazy locals - Havasupai...
This is the number one reason to carry. No, it's not bears, wolves, mountain lions, etc. It's crazy people.
Case in point. From today's 12/7/08 AZCentral:
A hiker discovered the bodies of two murdered men Saturday morning in a wash in the Tucson Mountains.
The men had obvious trauma and the autopsies are expected to be completed by Sunday afternoon, said Dawn Barkman, a Pima County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman. The office hopes to have more information, including names and ages, then.
Detectives believe the bodies had been in the Paseo Feliz Park for less than 24 hours, Barkman said. The men were discovered near Camino De Oeste and Trails End Road at about 8:50 a.m.
That area of the park receives a fair amount of traffic, Barkman said, and there were about six cars in the lot at the time the hiker called 911. Detectives believe he is the only person who saw the bodies.
While it's possible that the two were killed elsewhere and dumped in the park later, I wouldn't want to be the unarmed hiker who runs into the guys dumping the bodies.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 1:55 pm
by Jeffshadows
Good point, chumley!
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 07 2008 10:44 pm
by ssk44
nonot wrote:Most gun owners I've encountered are not responsible enough, period. Most people are not responsible enough in general, and you give these idiots guns...oh, that's their right
rally_toad wrote:Why do we have to carry guns everywhere?
What makes that so important? When you go hiking you are taking inherent risks, if you dont like these risks than stay home, you shouldnt have to carry a gun and put other's in unneccessary danger
rally_toad wrote:In reality guns arent neccessary when hiking. When have any of you gun packers been in a situation where a gun actually has saved you from a bad situation??
What do we need guns for in AZ when hiking?? There are basically no animals that pose a predatory threat to humans down here, and no animals that will cause you any harm if you basically leave them alone.
You guys apparently don't hike where I hike. If you did, I would probably have to save your @%# from the mountain lion that has its mouth around your throat. I hike in remote backcountry areas 95% of the time and carry a 2 1/2" barrel 357 mag on ever hike I go on. I am anything but an irresponsible sign-shooting idiot. The odds of any members on this site running in to an individual that would shoot at private property or wildlife just for the sake of shooting it on any significant hike that's more than two miles from a road is slim to nun. My ability to carry a firearm and protect myself is, for the time being, a constitutional right. Has caring my gun played a significant role in saving my life in the wilderness? No, however I will say with ashurity that I have been in situations that I felt a lot better having it on my side. To say that there are no animals in the wild that pose a treat to humuns is pure foolishness. Have you ever acidently ended up between a pissed off mama black bear and her cubs? Try it once without a gun on your hip and tell me how it felt. In more cases than not, just firing the gun over its head is usually enough to ward off a confrontation but not always. Do you actually think that mountain lions are not a treat to humans? I have a friend that was almost attacked by one. Have you ever been confronted by a rabid animal? I hear the rabies shots are very pleasant. Lets forget about animals for a second. Have you ever been confronted by a recluse hermit in the middle of nowhere that has intensions to attack you and steel you blind? I can say that I have, and if it were not for the gun on my side I most likely would not be writing this forum post. The guy approached me, said nothing, looked at my gun, squinted his eyes and left. I promise you that his intentions were not good. In most situations, a gun is usually a deterrent that avoids further conflict. It is likely that I will go my whole life without having to kill an animal or a person in self defense in the wild but the difference between me and you is that if I actually have one of these situations, I will most likely live to talk about it. I will not be a statistic.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 08 2008 7:19 am
by ssk44
rally_toad wrote:Too many people who carry guns do things like shoot up Snakes that present them with no danger, or shoot up Saguaros and signs.
nonot wrote:Too many times people shoot at cactus, signs, and rocks with no regard to what's beyond them or nearby.
nonot wrote:I'll bet that this last year, guns in Arizona have killed or injured about a thousand cacti, 5 mountain lions, a dozen innocent bystanders and two million road signs.
No, I am not done yet. In regards to destruction of property and natural vegitation, I am adamantly apposed to such acts. Yes, there are bullet holes in about ever sign within our nation forest and yes, I have seen inexcusable destruction of public land by irresponsible target shooters in areas of the state. These irresponsible acts are due to zero enforcement of existing laws that are currently in place to protect us from such acts. We are in a time where nothing is enforced over time but rather wait until the problem is completely out of hand and then resort to crisis management. This crisis management results in complete closure or areas that could have been avoided by actual enforcement of laws. A pure example of this is the Aqua Fria situation at Lake Pleasant. Should I be punished for the acts of these individuals? Should my gun rights be revoked because of the despicable acts of a small, yet very visible group that refuses to adhere to state law? I have zero tolerance for individuals that vandalize structures within the city by spraying graffiti. Seeing graffiti burns me to no end. I guess we should outlaw spray paint! Wouldn't that be a great idea. Lets outlaw spray paint nationally because a small parentage of individuals are too irresponsible to have it in their possession. Lets talk about destruction of cactus for a minute. Prickly pear cactus are tore up and in some cases destroyed by Javelina throughout the state far more frequently than some idiot shooting at them. We should probably make a state wide effort to kill off all of the javelina because of how inconsiderate they are to actually tear up a cactus for there own survival. Your personal pleasure of viewing a pristine undamaged cactus is far more important than the survival of a species.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 08 2008 8:26 am
by JimmyLyding
<<Lets talk about destruction of cactus for a minute. Prickly pear cactus are tore up and in some cases destroyed by Javelina throughout the state far more frequently than some idiot shooting at them. We should probably make a state wide effort to kill off all of the javelina because of how inconsiderate they are to actually tear up a cactus for there own survival. Your personal pleasure of viewing a pristine undamaged cactus is far more important than the survival of a species.>>
That doesn't make any sense. Javelinas eat cacti in order to live. Moronic people shoot up cacti in order to feel a juvenile sensation of power. One act of necessary, and one is completely unnecessary. Furthermore prickly pear cactuses and javelina have evolved a symbiotic relationship over the eons. Don't worry about running out of prickly pear.
The best way to curb people destroying natural resources out of carelessness, maliciousness, etc. is to hammer the people who get caught. It is highly unlikely that some idiot who spray paints a rock will get caught, but the very few people who get caught should have the book thrown at them and then some.
As for the hikers in the Tucson Mountains who came across the dead bodies, it would not have mattered if they had firearms. I'm willing to bet that those bodies were left by Mexican narcotraficantes, a little sidearm isn't going to mean much to 6 seriously bad dudes carrying AK-47s.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 08 2008 8:33 am
by Jeffshadows
JamesLyding wrote:As for the hikers in the Tucson Mountains who came across the dead bodies, it would not have mattered if they had firearms. I'm willing to bet that those bodies were left by Mexican narcotraficantes, a little sidearm isn't going to mean much to 6 seriously bad dudes carrying AK-47s.
Well, I, for one, would never willingly engage anyone who had me so overwhelmingly outgunned; but it might be nice to return fire long enough to break contact and get out alive if they stumbled upon you. I wouldn't carry a gun in the Tucson mountains, anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.
As to the nonsense about sign and cactus shooting. Here's the bottom line: Report it, confront the people, or deal with seeing it. We have a responsibility as stewards of the land to confront bad behavior. The FS and NPS are too understaffed to handle it, especially in many of the remote areas where some of us tread. If you're not comfortable approaching the person, take down as much information as you can about them and file a report. I can't even count the times where I was on a popular trail and someone chucked a wrapper, two groups ahead of me ignored it, and I picked it up and ran after him/her, handed it to him/her, and stated loudly: "You dropped this." Apathy is going to be our downfall.
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Dec 08 2008 9:00 am
by ssk44
Jeff MacE wrote:Here's the bottom line: Report it, confront the people, or deal with seeing it. We have a responsibility as stewards of the land to confront bad behavior.
Amen! We are the last and only line of defense....
Re: New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks
Posted: Mar 19 2009 5:24 pm
by Al_HikesAZ
I'm adding this update so no one gets in trouble.
Court decision blocks guns in national parks
Associated Press 03/19/098
Rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration is overturned
A judge on Thursday blocked a federal rule allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in U.S. national parks and wildlife refuges.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturns a rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration.
The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, and allowed visitors to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge was located allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns in parks had been severely restricted.
The Obama administration had said it was reviewing the Bush rule but had defended it in court.
A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to comment Thursday, citing the ongoing court case.
Restrictions adopted during Reagan years
The Bush administration issued the gun rule in December in response to letters from half the Senate asking officials to lift the restrictions on guns in parks, which were adopted by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s.
The rule went further than a draft proposal issued a year ago and would have allowed concealed weapons even in parks located in states that prohibit the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of two groups that sued to block the rule, called the judge's ruling a victory for the people.
"We're happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed," he said.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which also brought suit, said he was extremely pleased.
"We're especially glad to hear that the court is agreeing with the park rangers and the public who are concerned that there will be negative impacts from the (now-overturned) regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public."
NRA backed the Bush rule change
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the Bush rule change, saying law-abiding citizens had the right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations were inconsistent and unclear, the NRA said.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations protested the Bush rule change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.