New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks

[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.

[chumley]

I like the change. I've always thought that if I can carry on National Forest land, why not in the huge National Parks of the west. Unfortunately, if I'm reading that correctly, it wouldn't apply to NPs in Arizona since Arizona STATE parks don't allow carry either. I'd have to get out my Alan Korwin Arizona Gun Owners book again to verify though...

[chumley]

I stand corrected on how it affects Arizona. Sort of...

Since Arizona allows permitted, concealed weapons into state parks, the new law would also allow permitted, concealed weapons into the state's national parks. State gun laws already dictate what's allowed in Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service properties.

But gun laws are rarely simple. For example, concealed weapons in Arizona state parks are allowed, although they are prohibited in "approved recreation areas," such as campgrounds or picnic spots--but only if a park ranger asks for the weapon or requests that its owner vacate the area.

"Statutes for regulations in Arizona are a bit confusing. I can only imagine it's going to be confusing to visitors," Love says.

[Jeffshadows]

I like the fact that a CCL is required. It's a start...

[big_load]

I like the fact that a CCL is required. It's a start...

I hope that makes a difference. I'm not quite ready to see every sign in our National Parks shot full of holes.

[Al_HikesAZ]

I like the fact that a CCL is required. It's a start...

I hope that makes a difference. I'm not quite ready to see every sign in our National Parks shot full of holes.

Someone who has gone through the process to get their CCW is not likely to risk it with unauthorized target shooting.

[Vaporman]

I've never had my car, person, or hiking pack searched while in a National Park in any of the hundred or so times I've been in one. The only time I'd be an issue is if you discharge it and would have to explain why or if you're doing something else stupid that brings attention to you and they search your stuff. Only time I've had an issue with a gun is after leaving Organ Pipe Cactus NM, the border patrolman at the checkpoint just north of the park wanted to search my trunk and my loaded shotgun was back there. He ran the serial number and unloaded it, but he didn't do anything else.

[rally_toad]

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 (look at Harold Fish), so you can feel safe. What I've learned is you really have nothing to be worried about. And the biggest dangers in the backcountry cannot be controlled with a firearm, these are dehydration, panic, hypthermia, getting lost, etc. Too many people who carry guns do things like shoot up Snakes that present them with no danger, or shoot up Saguaros and signs.

Some places I can understand a little, i.e Organ Pipe, but what makes it neccessary to carry a firearm around Montezuma's Castle or Well, or on a 2 hour dayhike in the West end of Saguaro National Park?

[PaleoRob]

I think Harold Fish better exemplifies why people should be responsible dog owners as opposed to a firearms regulation case. If his dogs had been on a leash, none of it would have happened. I think I am pretty much a lone voice on this one though, that dogs should be leashed unless on your own private property or private property that you have been granted access to and gotten the OK to let your dog run free. Too many times I've encountered unleashed dogs in the outback, often times in areas where leash laws are supposed to be in place, and quite honestly some of these dogs have been pretty dang aggressive. Also, as I often hike with Buster, and he is on a leash, this prevents some difficulties and could cause conflict between him and the other dog(s). Am I supposed to let him run free and dish it out with the other dog, or hope the other dog doesn't come close and then try to fight where I'm then left it a really tough situation.

Some places I can understand a little, i.e Organ Pipe, but what makes it neccessary to carry a firearm around Montezuma's Castle or Well, or on a 2 hour dayhike in the West end of Saguaro National Park?

I agree. I don't see any need to hike at Wupatki packing a pistol. But if you start creating lists of where and where not you can carry down to specific trails, I think you're creating lots of potential for confusion. Make it legal for those with a CC permit and let them use their common sense as to decide when and where to carry.

[Jeffshadows]

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 (look at Harold Fish), so you can feel safe. What I've learned is you really have nothing to be worried about. And the biggest dangers in the backcountry cannot be controlled with a firearm, these are dehydration, panic, hypthermia, getting lost, etc. Too many people who carry guns do things like shoot up Snakes that present them with no danger, or shoot up Saguaros and signs.

Some places I can understand a little, i.e Organ Pipe, but what makes it neccessary to carry a firearm around Montezuma's Castle or Well, or on a 2 hour dayhike in the West end of Saguaro National Park?

I've never been to those places, but I wouldn't carry on a day hike, either. How others feel about it is their own personal freedom of choice.

[nonot]

It's their own personal choice until their choices put others at danger

Too many times people shoot at cactus, signs, and rocks with no regard to what's beyond them or nearby.

Being in the wilderness realizing someone close by is shooting at something and having no idea if it is you or not is quite unnerving and it's happened more times than it should.

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 plz:

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.

[te_wa]

Being in the wilderness realizing someone close by is shooting at something and having no idea if it is you or not is quite unnerving

that has happened to me twice

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.

its too bad some people dont think... i'd rather
that is why i deserve every right to carry

[Jeffshadows]

It's their own personal choice until their choices put others at danger

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 plz:

Ah yes, once again the clouds have parted and a loud voice from high above has scolded us mere mortals for being lesser than he.

Who are you to say who is and is not responsible; and what makes them "idiots?" Do you honestly think that responsible gun owners are out shooting signs? Would you know the difference between a responsible gun owner and a brain-dead, sign-shooting hick if it sat in your lap? Would you even care??

[Strand]

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 plz:

Most gun owners that you encounter likely display no outward evidence that they own a gun.

You could replace the word gun in your post with "car", yet I bet you still drive on the same roads as these idiots. And I'm fairly certain that for most of us the biggest danger we face while going hiking is the drive to the trailhead - not the clean cut mid 50s couple who are both packing a concealed weapon.

While I don't carry every day, I do exercise that right when ever I see fit (so long as it is legal to do so). And you'll excuse me if your opinion about where I should or shouldn't carry because you think it's safe gives me zero confidence.

[nonot]

@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.

[rally_toad]

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.

Its a different story when your somewhere where there is known illegal activity. Im basically just sick of hearing about people shoot a Diamondback, or at cactus, or signs. This can put yourself in danger as well as other people who are around you.

This isnt about whether gun owners are responsible or not. Its whether guns should be allowed in National Parks, and to be the answer is no.

[PaleoRob]

This isnt about whether gun owners are responsible or not. Its whether guns should be allowed in National Parks, and to be the answer is no.

I think the two are related in peoples' minds. If people think that gun owners are responsible and not shooting at random stuff (snakes sitting by the trail, signs, cacti, etc.) it seems that they are more inclined to think guns in parks are a good idea. If people think that gun owners are all reckless target plinkers, blasting away at snakes sitting by the trail, signs, cacti, etc., then they are less likely to think that guns in parks are okay. I agree that we haven't really been talking about the core issue here, just the peripheral issue of responsibility. I am curious to get peoples' responses to where they think in the park system concealed weapons would be a handy asset to have. I can only think of a couple. Organ Pipe, for one that's already been mentioned.

As for one situation where someone could have used a gun (or knife, or anything really) in a dangerous wildlife situation was that lady that was assaulted by the rabid fox outside of Prescott. Would have beaten running a couple miles with a fox latched to your body.

[Strand]

nonot:

So why are you concerned about legislation that would allow someone with a valid CCW to carry concealed in a NP? I didn't see any mention that it would allow open carry or the right to carry a rifle. The fact of the matter is that these acts of destruction that outrage you (and myself) are already illegal.

I know a lot of responsible white collar gun owners who's disgust at shot up signs or fauna outweighs or equals your own. That disgust extends to abandoned vehicles, discarded appliances, 4X4s tearing up the woods, irresponsible parents, and the like.

[Vaporman]

For the most part, I agree in that you don't need a gun while hiking in AZ. I usually don't hike with one, but may keep one in the car at times. I did see two black bears this summer up on the rim while hiking, but after I whistled at them they just ran away. So I don't feel too threatened by bears here in AZ. But in other parks up north, I'd feel more of a need to carry since the bears are bigger and more plentiful. You want a list...

For bears - Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier, and many others up in the Great North...
For drug runners - Organ Pipe, Sonoran Desert NM near Gila Bend, Big Bend, and a few other places down south
For crazy locals - Havasupai...

But then again, you never know who/what you're going to run into out there... But in my 3 years of hiking AZ & the southwest quite frequently, thankfully I've yet to need one.

[nonot]

Good to know I'm not alone. Laws are irrelevant, there isn't a way for a CCW ban to be effectively enforced anyways.