CE Week #5: “Feds may ease park gun ban”
Kempthorne seeks compatibility with state laws
Richard Simon and Judy Pasternak
Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2008
WASHINGTON – In a victory for gun rights advocates, the federal government is preparing to relax a decades-old ban on loaded firearms in national parks.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday his department would suggest new regulations by the end of April that could bring federal rules into line with state laws concerning guns in parks and public lands. His announcement came in a letter to 51 senators who have written to him about the issue. A near majority of the Senate, including Democrats and Republicans from Western states, has backed a drive to repeal the ban, which has been in place in some parks for 100 years.
The proposed rule change might let visitors carry loaded weapons into national parks in states with few gun restrictions, such as Montana.
Gun rights advocates, notably the National Rifle Association, have said the ban infringes on their Second Amendment right to bear arms and their ability to defend themselves from predators, human and animal.
“If you’re hiking in the backcountry and there is a problem with a criminal or an aggressive animal, there’s no 911 box where you can call police and have a 60-second response time,” said Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “Here in Montana, we are very used to being able to provide for our own personal protection.”
Kempthorne’s decision to review the ban was hailed by the NRA. “This is an important step in the right direction,” said the organization’s chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox.
On the other hand, the National Parks Conservation Association called Kempthorne’s action “alarming.” Tom Kiernan, the group’s president, said a loosening of the ban would be “a blow to the national parks and the 300 million visitors who enjoy them every year.”
His view is echoed by gun-control advocates and some rangers who say permitting firearms would be dangerous for visitors and wildlife and alter the national park experience.
“Parks have long been sanctuaries for both animals and people,” said Butch Farabee, a former acting superintendent at Montana’s Glacier National Park who is retired. “There need to be places in this country where people can feel secure without guns and know that the guy in the campground across the way does not have one.”
The federal government would not cede authority over firearms in national parks to the states, said Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino, but would like to reflect the policies of host states. In drafting proposed new rules, Paolino said, the department also would take into consideration the ban on firearms in federal buildings.
“It’s important to note this is the beginning of the process,” Paolino added.
Weapons originally were prohibited in national parks to prevent “opportunistic poaching” of wildlife, said Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of California’s Joshua Tree National Park.
A 1908 Yellowstone National Park regulation, for example, required that visitors “having firearms, traps, nets, seines or explosives” surrender them at the entrance unless they received written permission from the park superintendent.
A similar policy was in effect at most parks for decades. Then the Reagan administration in 1983 required that visitors unload and store their firearms before entering most national parks.
Supporters of the repeal effort note that state gun laws currently apply to federal land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and they see no reason why that should not be the case in national parks and wildlife refuges.
So far, half the Senate seems to agree. Nine Democrats and 41 Republicans have signed letters to Kempthorne calling on him to lift the gun ban. “We do not believe that allowing law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms – rather than forcing them to disassemble or store them in their trunks – will increase the chances that they will be tempted to violate prohibitions on discharge,” one group of senators wrote.
Advocates believe it is, foremost, an issue of ending an unconstitutional infringement on their right to bear arms. But they also contend that park visitors are “increasingly vulnerable” to crime.
“While park rangers now use bullet-proof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry law exists are denied the opportunity for self-defense,” Coburn said in “talking points” distributed by his office.
The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.
Supporters also believe that gun owners should be able to protect themselves against dangerous animals, dismissing arguments that firearms would ruin the park experience.
Officials at Glacier – which recorded 10 deaths from grizzly bear attacks between 1967 and 1998 – said the last attack was in 2005, when a bear mauled two hikers. One of the victims, Johan Otter, of Escondido, Calif., said the idea that a gun could have stopped the 400-pound bear that charged him is naive. “We only had, like, half a second between seeing the bear and the impact,” Otter said.
Organizations that represent current and retired park workers oppose a repeal, saying it not only would endanger visitors, rangers and wildlife but would change the character of the parks.
Bill Wade, executive council chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said, “How many of you would want to go out there if you knew that people were running up and down the Appalachian Trail with guns?”
NC – Proof Read
The article brought up the point that the ban of guns on national parks is an inurnment on Americans 2nd Amendment. An Amendment that is one of the most misunderstood, in the fact that courts do not completely know were the amendment applies to. We learned that the Constitution is the supreme law and that if another law goes against it, that it is stricken. So, I feel that by prohibiting individuals to carry fire arms, is going against the amendment. After reading the article I found it interesting that Johan Otter stated that a gun would not have helped with the stopping of the 400 pound bear, which was one the reason for wanting the gun ban law to be stricken. Also that there was around 116,000 offensives in the parts in 2006. Many of such as the rapes and killings that took place would subside substantially, if offenders faced more threat of being stopped by lethal force. However, it could also back fire and add to the number of killing a year if individuals feel that shooting a person trying to rob them is justified and are caring a weapon. My personal opinion on the matter is that only certified individuals should be able to carry fire arms in a peace and suppose to be safe area like national parks.
I did not realize how big of an issue it was for people to be in parks with guns. The Second Amendment does give us the right to bear arms, but is it necessary in some places? Like, national parks. I had no idea that there were “116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006.” This seems crazy to me. I thought national parks were supposed to be safe and fun places with lots of learning experiences. I am kind of torn on whether or not guns should be allowed in national parks or not. On one hand I want to say that if people go then they should be aware of the risks, but on the other hand maybe people should be allowed guns since 116,588 offenses were reported in a frickin’ national park. If we do decide to allow guns in national parks the killings could increase as well. Eleven were held in 2006. Imagine if guns were actually allowed. It could get crazy. Anyone could bring a gun into the park and that can’t ever be good. If I start to see a bunch of Joe Dirt’s with guns hiking at the park I’m taking a different trail. Of course prohibiting people to carry guns in a national park is against the second amendment, however, neither argument, for or against guns, looks like a winner, especially when it’s in a national park. That kind of blows my mind.
This article disgusts me. To think that someone would even consider allowing guns into national parks is depressing, the fact that 51 senators, both republicans and democrats are in support of such a bill is just sad. As the article stated multiple times the dynamic of the park system would not be the same if people were allowed to bring in firearms. Law abiding citizens or not the parks would not be the same.
The National Rifle Association, who is triumphing this bill, is a pushy group of Charleston Heston look-a-like redneck’s who are the cause for a lot of the violence we have today. Because of these groups we’ve learned about in class and outside at movies nights with films like “Bowling for Columbine” we have opposition to bans on automatic weapons and other harmful and useless weapons. I feel that the repeal of the ban on allowing guns into national parks would not only change the parks but it would open the door for similar repeals in other areas of society — one’s that cannot really afford to be repealed. Obviously a part of the Constitution is devoted to the freedom to bear arms but I don’t think that freedom should extend to every day citizens bringing firearms anywhere and everywhere.
In conclusion, the last person to be mauled by a bear in Glacier National Park in Montana said that there wouldn’t have been time to react, even if he were carrying a weapon at the time. No one will benefit from this repeal and I feel that many will suffer, mostly the endangered animals in the parks and visitors who are simply trying to partake in the experience.
Question: aren’t there other ways to protect yourself against people without getting guns involved? Can’t people carry pepper spray or even knives or something that doesn’t go hand in hand with hunting? It’s pretty obvious that if we allow guns, people are going to start hunting in those National Forests. I mean, if criminals go there to hurt people in the ’sanctuary’ then hunters are going to hunt. It’s just another example of how sadly twisted our world is. There is a part of me that sees the benefits of the having the guns, because maybe we could decrease the amount of crimes in the park, but then again, the parks were set aside for the animals more than anything else, and this would be threatening their lives. I also think that if you are going to a National Park, people should be aware of the risks involved and should be intelligent enough to know not to walk around alone or do anything to attract animals. Maybe before we consider putting guns in the hands of the civilians, we should consider upping the number of rangers. Perhaps that could solve a problem or two. We talked about the courts today, and Kautzman brought up the whole ‘texting’ law thing and related it back to an infringement upon our freedom of speech and how a case like that could receive a writ of certiorari, a formal document that calls up a case, from the Supreme Court. Seeing as how this is conflicting with the second amendment, I wonder if it will make it to the Supreme Court.
“While park rangers now use bullet-proof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry law exists are denied the opportunity for self-defense,” Coburn said in “talking points” distributed by his office.”
My red flags went up as soon as I read this. Let me say something. Since when are Park Rangers considered “special” Americans? They are “regular”, as far as I’m concerned. That kinda ticked me off. Another thing. Coburn didn’t really seem to consider what he was saying. Notice that he said Park Rangers are “enforcing the law”. Then he says that Americans are denied the right to defend themselves. Do excuse me, but what are they defending themselves from? Plants? Grass? Hot springs? Rangers are REQUIRED to enforce the law. This means things like “Please use the path and do not cross the guideline fence”, “Please do not pick the flowers” “Please do not feed the prairie dogs or any other animals” “Do not approach wild animals.” What does that have to do with other people defending themselves? For goodness sake. Could he mean defending themselves from Park Rangers? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. I’ve heard of Park Rangers confronting threats, but rarely do I hear of them having to shoot people down. To use that as an example (bullet proof vests, etc.) is a very flawed reasoning system.
I’ve been to Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier many times, including places like Mt. Rushmore, etc. I’ve never been threatened in any way except by wildfires, and there is no way a gun can help you in that situation. Park Rangers tend to be very cooperative and gentle, yet firm when need be, and they take initiative to make the parks safe and enjoyable for anyone and everyone that goes there. I have never had a bad experience with Rangers, nor have I had a dangerous experience with parks except for wildfires and getting too close to Old Faithful.
Tiara, I have to disagree with you and the article about Second Amendment problems. To me, this does not infringe on our right to bear arms. So should the second amendment be interpreted as “You have the right to walk around with a .22 in your hand all the time.”? I think there are certain situations, such as national parks, where it really is just courtesy on top of common sense that bringing a gun into a place filled with children, families, and wild (possibly endangered) animals is a very foolish thing to do. Scaring people would not help the parks at all; they would probably have numbers of attendees go down, on top of funds diminishing. I don’t know how comfortable parents would be trying to shield their children from everyone as if we were in Detroit or some other big city with the threat of gun use. The national parks are supposed to present educational and enjoyable circumstances.
For example. When I was about 11, my family and I went on a trip to Yellowstone when coming home from our annual summer camp in Montana. During this trip, my parents offered me the choice to take a “Junior Ranger” course. I would earn a badge, and be allowed into certain areas that most kids were not. I was thrilled, because I’m very into nature and I was, especially at that age, excited to be independent and take courses without my parents.
Now, take the experience and warp it. Pretend that during this time, everyone had the ability to carry guns. Do you think I would have felt safe? I felt like I was able to do anything I wanted and nothing bad would happen to me. If something did, it was animal concerned or weather/land concerned. Natural occurrences. My parents trusted me to be with the Ranger and didn’t mind that I was with other children taking this course. If everyone was running around with guns, I don’t think this course would even have been possible. I would never have been even presented with the opportunity because I know my parents would have felt it was unsafe.
This lifting of the gun ban is foolish and not very well thought through. I apologize if I sounded very nasty in this post, really I do. I just really don’t agree with the lifting at all. Like Otter said, you have like, half a second before that moose charges you or the bear attacks. There is no way you could flip out a gun, take off the safety, and nail whatever is going at you. None.
Again, I apologize for my angry tone.
I am so happy to be reading about something other than the upcoming election, and how the candidates are getting upset with each other. Also, I liked the article because it is rather interesting, I did not think this issue was as big as it really is, but for my position, I agree that you should be able to bring weapons into national parks. “11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.” This is why we should be able to have weapons in national parks. Unfortunately there are crazy people that like to be criminals and do this crazy stuff, and I think a person should be able to protect themselves no matter where they are at whether it’s a national park or an alley. “116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006.” I did not know the number was this high when it came to crimes in the National Parks; I thought they were supposed to be a happy joyful place. Now we do all know that the right to bear arms is our second amendment because we studied the constitution so thoroughly in class. So why isn’t it being followed when it comes to National Parks?
It’s nice to have some articles relating to something other than the election! I have to say that the argument for allowing guns in national parks is completely ridiculous. I hate the argument that every redneck tries to make. “We need to protect ourselves!” No one is making you go spend a weekend camping in a national park. If you feel so strongly that you need guns to protect yourself then why even go? Part of the appeal of a national park is how far from society you are and if we allow guns in them, how is anyone going to relax?
There was also a bit of information in the article that surprised me. 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006. That data would be concerning unless you compared it to the 10 deaths from bear attacks in one national park in a 31 year time span! I think it’s easy to see that animals aren’t the things we need to worry about in national parks. And also like the article said, its naïve to think a gun could have stopped a 400 pound bear. That man had no time to think about firing a gun. I think handing out firearms wouldn’t help anything. There is nothing to gain from repealing the ban and a whole lot to loose.
In this scenario, I’d say a substantive connection would be to lobbying. The NRA and other interest groups are trying their best to pressure senators to fulfill what they’d like done. There’s also a connection the constitution and our 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but personally, I think that amendment has been vastly misinterpreted over the years.
Well, this article was definitely refreshing. I found it very surprising due to the fact that Democrats actually seemed to be in favor of this. All you hear about today is the anti-gun movement, gun control. However, this article presented a different point of view, and it was nice to hear it, and see that the majority of Congress supports it. Personally I agree with the article, to ban weapons is an infringement on the people’s right to bear arms, aka the second amendment. No right should be infringed on, even if it is done with good intentions. I mean think about it, most people are not crazy psycho killers, if all of the normal citizens could carry guns they could probably shoot down the crazy way more quickly if he or she tried to harm any one of the innocent people. It doesn’t matter if you are in a national park, there are still crazy people everywhere. It scares me to think that with the ban on guns in parks a person with bad intentions could just start shooting at any given time, and no one could defend themselves. The people who we are trying to prevent from killing people with guns are the ones that do not respect the law, so why would they even respect the law of a gun free zone. It’s stupid. They will bring guns and all of the good, law abiding citizens could not protect themselves because they were following the law. Seriously, retarded.
The legislation proposing the legalization of firearms in national parks poses the difficult question of whether guns would help or hinder the campers and hikers feelings of safety. I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. First of all I don’t agree with the radical view of either side. While I can’t see guns allowing all park visitors to totally defend themselves from wildlife I also don’t see guns causing a massive spike in committed crimes. I do think that it is an important issue however. Even though a handgun certainly won’t stop a charging grizzly, a rifle may allow campers and hikers to defend themselves against mountain lion. On the other hand, if guns were allowed in national parks how many of 261 aggravated assaults that occurred in 2006 may have taken a sudden twist and added to the 11 killings. I’m not saying that guns are to be blamed for murders, but it is true that firearms make it a lot easier for one human to take another’s life.
As to whether or not the ban on firearms in national parks infringes upon our second amendment right to bear arms, that goes back to the question we discussed earlier this year about whether or not the amendment refers to individual ownership of guns or if it pertains to the right of a state to raise a militia. The amendment itself is ambiguous, and I think needs more interpretation by the Supreme Court. Personally the more I think about it the more I would disagree with legalizing loaded weapons at least in camp grounds. Wildlife rarely attacks humans unless provoked, and unfortunately the 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults that occurred in 2006 show that humans are far more likely get into trouble with each other than wild animals. I guess it comes down to that I don’t think the chances of my needing a gun in a national park are very good, and I feel a lot safer knowing that fellow visitors don’t have access to loaded firearms.
Andrew Barnes
I know we have talked about the Constitution, and our rights as the people of America. But our second amendment right to carry firearms? Is that really the argument that the senate is listening to to lift the ban? I am absolutely abhorred. But let me back up a second: there are some cases where I believe that the ban lift might be ok, while there are other cases where I might say “forget it.” In Montana, up in the mountains, when a person is being attacked by a 400 pound bear, yes, I believe that the ban lift is a good, reasonable idea. It is indeed safer to have protection from a wild animal than to go in blindly. But this is where I think the big mistake is: the rest of the national park areas. We hear about all the gun crimes in America as it is. Now, if someone is camping and some psycho who is allowed to have a gun comes and shoots them in the park, the same principle applies to the guy who was attacked by a bear. There is no quick way to get help. At all. I mean, look at the statistics. 11 killings, 35 rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 assaults in 2006 are not at all low numbers. But put legal guns into that mix, and these numbers would go skyrocketing upwards, along with I would imagine, missing persons reports. I don’t, therefore, think that it is a very smart idea at all to lift the gun ban.
~Liz
I understand people want to protect themselves, but I don’t understand this bill. Who’s to stay the victims of those rapes or bear attacks would be the type to carry guns in the first place? National Parks are no place for guns. Besides, if the NRA’s chief lobbyist feels “This is an important step in the right direction”, then I am wary from the very start. I realize that we will never live in a gun free zone, and that hunting is a time honored tradition here in the states, but I don’t think the second amendment gives gunowner’s free range over where and when they can have guns. So, to say this is an infringment on the ‘right to bear arms’ is ridiculous, because that’s opening to flood gates to hundreds of other instances where arms are prohibited. Besides, I think America will never forget when prohibition was part of the constitution- just because it’s there doesn’t mean it should stay there. When you allow people who feel the need to be protected to have guns in the park, you are also allowing those you feel the need to be protected from to have guns in the park. The cycle continues. There’s already a fear of ‘creepers’ who commit the 35 reported rapes in national parks, I don’t want to even imagine if they were allowed weapons as well. I would feel safer with a huge can of pepper spray, a magnum flashlight, and hiking in a group.
Wow! Guns in National Parks. What a ridiculous idea. Many people just look for things to fight about. The first argument, if that’s what you want to call it, is upon an infringement on the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. This argument is so old that the Constitution seems young! Well, lets break this down. The definition of bear: to hold or carry, to carry; bring. Both of these are not truly infringed. You may carry and bring the gun to the park. You must then put it down, go on a hike or two, and then when you leave you may pick it up again. It is just like the airport, you have to take off your shoes even flip flops, and take a little trip through the security booth, and then when you leave that area, you get to put the shoes on again. The other definition that may be brought up is: to have and use; exercise. But, the catch is that this use of the word bear is without an object. Arms, or firearms are objects. Therefore, the Constitution says we have the right to carry them. There are catches though. The 2nd Amendment also says to keep and bear arms. The Constitution doesn’t specify where the guns may be brought. Also, the National Park Service Act states that the protection, management and administration of these areas must be conducted in accordance with the high public value and integrity of the National Park System unless Congress specifically provides otherwise. Basically, the parks have to have high security for the benefit of all people, animals, and the environment. The security is key, and adding guns to the already “116,588 reported offenses” is not going to help. Yes, you can bear arms to the park, but not to the bear in the park!
The second argument is for protection against dangerous animals. The problem I have with this is the testimony of one unfortunate enough to get attacked. “Officials at Glacier – which recorded 10 deaths from grizzly bear attacks between 1967 and 1998 – said the last attack was in 2005, when a bear mauled two hikers. One of the victims, Johan Otter, of Escondido, Calif., said the idea that a gun could have stopped the 400-pound bear that charged him is naive. “We only had, like, half a second between seeing the bear and the impact,” Otter said.” Animals can do unexpected things. The fact is that there are only rare occasions where animals will brutally attack. You cannot help it. It happens. When they do brutally attack, you don’t have a lot of time. Also, some animals are curious, but won’t hurt. Having guns in the park would most likely destroy the few animals that are curious enough to benignly meet people because people get scared. Out of fear, they kill. Just like animals.
The NRA always brings up the infringement of the 2nd amendment. This time they have lobbied and gained 51 senators. I’m just waiting for a NRA member to litigate on behalf of this so-called infringement. To litigate is bring an issue into a lawsuit. Not to many companies or organizations bring their issue to the courts, but this one is bound to. Maybe it’ll be a conspiracy set up in Yellowstone. A NRA member will be beaten and mugged, and then brutally attacked by a deer. His case will be that the sufferings he goes through would not have come if he had a gun to shoot the mugger or the deer. True, he would commit murder out of defense, and I’m not sure if his case would have standing. (Evidence that the person was harmed by the law.) But it sure would be interesting. All I know is that these NRA members have to get the last place that won’t allow people to carry a gun. Oh, wait, the Capitol Building, the airports, the schools, and the museums don’t allow that. Hmm. Why don’t they attack there too?
Allowing guns in national parks is an absolutely crazy idea. It may be true that there are no 911/emergency call boxes around, but the only place I have seen emergency phones is in parking garages, and on college campuses. By the time help comes, you probably will have been shot dead anyway. Emergency call boxes aren’t useful when you’re being attacked. Also, going along the lines of the article; should we allow guns at shopping malls and on college campuses too?
If I knew there were guns in national parks, I probably wouldn’t go to them. When I go to a national park I definitely would like to put all my attention on what’s in front of my eyes, rather than trying to watch my back to see if anyone’s trying to shoot me. Today, confrontations arise over the smallest little things such as someone accidentally bumping into someone, or getting in their way. I would not want to be shot in front of Old Faithful just because I stepped in front of someone’s camera.
According to the National Park Service’s FAQ page, about 272,623,980 people visited the parks in 2006. In 2006, the article says there were a total of 384 murders, rapes, robberies, kidnappings and aggravated assaults in the parks. We can ignore the other 116,000 reported offenses because they apparently are insignificant enough that the NPS didn’t say what they were. Basically, you have a .00014% chance of being attacked in a national park. Your chances of being struck by lightning in any given year? 1/700,000 or, also .00014%. I’d say we’re pretty safe with firearms being prohibited in national parks.
-Jason Wong
I have been hiking in the National Parks since I was six years, and my fifty year old dad has been hiking in the parks system since he was twelve, actually spending a few years as a backcountry park ranger in the Olympic and Grand Canyon National Parks. My family goes to the Olympic National Park to backpack at least once a year, and we feel no need whatsoever for firearms to provide security. To the contrary, I would feel much less secure with people displaying guns on the trail or in the campsite next to me. You can almost guarantee that if people bring firearms into a wilderness setting they will find reasons to use them. National Parks are a sanctuary for animals as well as people and should remain that way. If people bring guns into the backcountry you know that many will not be able to resist targets of opportunity and that it will make protection of animals from poaching that much more difficult to enforce. There are plenty of other outdoor areas people can go with their guns. If secretary Kempthorne really feels that he needs to provide more security for park guests then he should look for ways to provide additional park rangers. I could maybe understand some limited allowance for secured firearms in front-country campground settings but definitely not beyond trailheads and into the backcountry. I do not want our National Park backcountry to turn into a wild west vigilante setting. There are places that guns simply do not belong and National Parks are one of those places, and pressure from NRA extremists should not be allowed to ruin these wildlife sanctuaries for the rest of us. I am very upset at the possibility of this bill actually passing.
I’m not going to lie, I am only writing to this because it’s FINALLY a change from the usual election business!
First off, constitutionally, parks shouldn’t be able to ban firearms within. However, I can’t say I agree with this. Although the 2nd Amendment allows the right to bear arms, I feel like there is an extent in which it can be applied. Guns are supposed to be intended for survival, whether that be hunting or protection. I feel like in a national park, there is a very small need for either of those.
In the case of hunting…it’s ILLEGAL! It’s called poaching; therefore, there is no need to have a gun to kill an animal for food. That’s just flat out breaking a law.
Next is protection. Yeah, attacks happen in the wild. Hence, “WILD”! But like Otter said in the article, it happens far too quickly to assume that a gun is going to help. I’m willing to bet that the victims of attacks even know it’s coming beforehand. If they did, I think they’d figure out a way to get out of it…
Bad things happen in parks, just as they happen outside of parks. I feel like allowing guns in the parks isn’t going to help in many cases. Maybe the number of certain crimes going on now will decrease, but with the guns we can expect the death rate (number of killings) to increase.
Allowing guns won’t bring any good, whether the Constitution supports otherwise.
So, here we are with the idea of guns and people wielding them. And what do you know, the second amendment right is brought up as well. The right to bear arms. In the society when the Constitution was written, people needed guns. A man was expected to provide for his family. And since many people lived on a frontier later on, a gun was necessary. Having a gun in a family was no nig deal. Everybody had one. People had gun sense too and knew not to kill somebody or shoot somebody. They were smart. Unlike today. Today’s society has changed way too much and unfortunately, we are a country big on revenge and we’re sue happy. Sue happy comes into play when we lose a law suit so we take matters onto our own hands. So, I don’t think that people should even have guns. Nor should they have them in a park. I may be paranoid but I fell that there are way too many crazies out there. I could just see some crazy from staking out in a state park and then killing a camper. Besides, there were, “116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.” This is really high.
A new law allowing law abiding citizens to carry or possess firearms in a National Park will affect only those people, law abiding citizens. Criminals carry illegal guns, rob banks, molest, murder, etc., anywhere they decide to perpetrate. It is safe to assume they aren’t obeying “No firearms allowed in this park” signs that are already in existence. If I were a criminal looking for an easy mark, I would certainly focus my attention on isolated park venues where I could be fairly certain my victim wouldn’t be capable of armed self-defense.
There have been many violent crimes against people in National Parks in the past several years, including multiple homicides. I’m sure that many criminals prey in these places because they know the odds of lethal resistance are much lower than other places. Law abiding people could be armed and you would never know unless their lives were threatened, BECAUSE THEY OBEY THE LAW! All this law does is level the playing field. As far as illegal hunting goes, it already occurs regularly in National Parks. Criminals find the animals fairly tame and the trophy quality very high. Again, this is happening in spite of a firearm ban…evidently poachers aren’t encumbered by the signs either. What this all points to is the fact that this law will only change one thing. People who can legally carry firearms will now have that right in national parks. Unless, you adhere to the moronic theory that guns commit crimes by themselves, you can’t logically conclude that putting them into the hands of responsible citizens, even in parks, will somehow make the parks more dangerous….except for criminals.
I thought that this was a good article. A good change from the normal articles about the presidential race, even though I like those articles also. Anyways throughout reading this article I had mixed feelings, but now having read through it all and having thought about it I don’t think that easing up on the gun ban would be a good idea. When you first read through it and reading about all the crimes committed in the national parks it seems like having guns for protection is a good idea. If you think about it though the lifting of the ban isn’t just for the “good” people, it would be for anyone and everyone. There could be some guy who looks innocent but then when he gets out in the park, him having a gun is going to make it that much easier for him to commit a crime.
Then there is the argument about protection from the animals. In my opinion this isn’t a very good argument. For the most part animals out in the national park aren’t going to be wondering around looking for someone to jump. The only times they are going to mess with you is if you bother them first, or, whether you know it or not, go to close to something they don’t want you near. If the latter of these two is the case then you will most likely have and instance like the one sited in this article where there was a split second between them seeing the bear and them being hit. That split second is definitely not enough time to pull a gun, most likely a little pistol, and try to stop a 400 pound bear. Even if you had enough time to pull that pistol on the bear, you are more likely to just piss it off than to stop him.
Anyways, we all know from our review of the constitution and the bill of rights that our right to bear arms is the second amendment. I have no problem with this amendment and people’s right to own a gun, but I think that we should keep them out of national parks.
– Matt Powles
LATE DUE TO BLOG SHUTDOWN.
Score one for the interest groups! Unfortunately it’s the NRA that’s the winner, cripes; well I guess a group that powerful would eventually have some effect in politics. Personally I’ve always felt pretty disgusted with that group since viewing “Bowling for Columbine,” I mean come on Heston, a gun rally right after Columbine? Okay I can understand their argument is somewhat reasonable, we do have that oh so special second amendment guaranteeing us gun use (in case those pesky British invade again) and there is a danger in those parks and people do need someway to protect themselves from the lions and tigers and bears oh my! Even though parks are protected by assault rifle armed security guards and there are designated areas to be in when visiting parks to keep people safe… but hey you never know right?
But lets be realistic here, this wasn’t passed for protection, hardly, this was passed for every other reason any new gun law is passed, for some good old fashioned hunting. Seriously how many rednecks are freaking out right now for the fact that they can hunt some exotic game in Yellowstone? Plus look at the number, ten bear attacks between the 1960s and now? Are you serious? That’s nothing! Freaking miniscule! Now if something like 50 people were mauled by bears every year then yeah bring a bazooka along with your family trip but ten is hardly justification for bringing firearms into a WILDLIFE SANCTUARY! Plus as the article explained if a giant grizzly bear is charging you, you wouldn’t have a lot of time to get your gun out of the holster, plus do you think handgun bullets will put those beasts down? I don’t think so.
As for the crime rates and attacks and rapes in the parks, once again, miniscule, try walking around New York city at night, hell just about any other city in this country is more crime ridden than a national park. The solution for that is not handguns but increased security and common sense. If you get raped in Yellowstone then you probably shouldn’t be by yourself! I don’t think groups of people tend to get raped, or attacked at that matter. Smokey stop worrying about the fires, stop the bullets man!
Yeah just like Cody said thank God this is another election article. It made my day. But this was a pretty interesting article. The second amendment states the right to bear arms. So often throughout history we have always listened to the constitutional rights. We can not go against with the writers wanted. Especially in a case of protection. With the death numbers and rapes, people should be able to protect themselves. There is no cell phone service to be able to get into contact with help, and even if there was, it would take to long for help to arrive. And if they are worried about the killing of animals, a large penalty should be in place. A big fine and jail time would probably scare people from harming animals. I feel that in open areas, as in streets and places other than forests, a gun ban should be in place. There is no need to carry a gun when help is near. Most likely the gun will be used for harm and not for protection.
Dear Emily,
There is a reason that the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment. Even though I’m not a big fan of the scheming ways of the NRA, I have to say, I’m glad guns are legal and I think they should be legal to carry into parks. First of all, with the wildlife there are incidences of possibly lethal animals coming in contact with families. To protect yourself is a basic human skill; in a perfect world everyone would be responsible enough to not shoot each other. I have been in wildlife situations, camping, where a gun was needed to ward off a possibly dangerous animal (a cougar). Not only that but in some of today’s neighborhoods you’d have to be stupid not to have some kind of device to protect yourself your home and your family. As long as you are a responsible gun user then guns should not be a problem, I think you should have to register if you bring a gun onto a National Park.
Although guns cause more violence in today’s society, it would be like showing up to a war with no armor, ammo, or weapons to not be able to protect yourself from the evils already going on in society. Not everyone is responsible.
I disagree with Cody Castor. Yes where there are wild animals and mass amounts of people there will be rapes, robberies and animal attacks (not necessarily the animals doing the first two, but hey it could happen right). The only thing is, that if you are basing your gun ban removal on the fact that some crimes and injuries happen in a national park, well if you ask me that’s not really an excuse. That’s just the world, if we were to go by this for everything people would be allowed to carry guns into bars, clubs, restaurants and gas stations. National parks don’t need some crazy gun-happy Americans shooting at our wildlife. We all know that now there will be many cases where some Red Neck (excuse me for my bias) will shoot and kill an elk or bear in a national park and claim that it was self defense. There is absolutely no reason we need to be carrying guns in national parks. It’s the wild, you should know that there are going to be wild animals and you should prepare, not with fire arms but with knowledge on how to avoid attacks. There are park rangers who do just fine roaming about the parks, why can’t we? America is just to trigger happy if you ask me. But I must thank Mr. Kautzman for putting an article on here that is finally not about the election. I mean sure, the election is great and all, but we really want to here about the gun-crazed Americans who assume everyone’s out to get us.
I disagree with just about everyone who posted on this article because they think that guns should most definitely remain banned from national parks. National parks are criminals’ playgrounds. They can reap and pillage to their hearts’ content in these isolated areas where the Man cannot keep them down. A recent study even proved that criminals now outnumber bears in our national parks. If these criminals had the knowledge that parkgoers could have weapons, they would be a lot more hesitant to strike. Even if they could have guns themselves, they would probably find somewhere else to do their evil, because the ease that they had previously enjoyed would be gone.
Also, hunters would not hunt in the parks if guns were allowed, contrary to what McKena said. Hunters tend to be pretty smart about where and when they can hunt and typically respect those boundaries that have been set before them. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and some idiots hunt in national parks, but they would do so with or without a restriction on guns. It is also easy to say that one wouldn’t have time to react when being bum rushed by a raging bear, but it is equally easy to underestimate one’s quickness. Some simple practice with one’s quickness with a gun could easily put that thought to rest. I’m sure Billy the Kid would be able to shoot down a bear or a cougar. No doubt about it.
In conclusion, I don’t see what all of the hubbub is about. It’s not like national parks are going to become barbaric wastelands patrolled by gun-wielding vigilantes who want nothing less than bear meat and chaos. Anyone who doesn’t think guns should be allowed in national parks should try staring a fresh-out-of-hibernation grizzly in the eye without the comfort of a firearm at their side.
To Megan Vertullo:
I believe you, along with a good portion of the American population, are misinterpreting our founders’ intentions when writing the Second Amendment. The Constitution specifically states “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.” The right to bear arms was written in the context of state militias, which today would be the National Guard. Many people think this amendment gives them the exclusive privilege to carry guns whenever and wherever they want. In actuality, the people do not have this choice and should not. Instead, this amendment gives the federal and state governments the right to regulate private possession of firearms.
Your logic regarding the need for guns for protection in national parks is distorted. You are correct; there are people everywhere who could harm you. However, these people, with or without a gun, could still harm you. I mean, they could knock you over the head with the red-hot frying pan you use to cook bacon at your campsite! Honestly, if there is a ban on firearms, what is the likelihood of a crazed killer going on a shooting spree in a national park? So why would you need a gun to protect yourself against such a person? That defeats the purpose of the ban.
All of this is only secondary to the ban’s original purpose: to stop poaching. Guns were not banned from Yellowstone in 1907 to protect people; they were banned to protect wildlife. For example (how sad is this), poachers would use guns to slaughter hundreds of buffalo in Yellowstone, then lace the carcasses with strychnine, which ended up killing hundreds of wolves who scavenged on the buffalo meat. That’s just sick. Lifting the ban on firearms in national parks is, in my opinion, simply privileging hunters, argued under a cover of self-protection. The number of crimes that occur in national parks is minute compared to the number of crimes that occur daily nationwide; if you want to argue against crime, let’s try focusing on the number of gun-related incidents that occur in America’s inner cities annually. And trust me, it takes more than one bullet to take down a 400-lb grizzly bear. Before you have time to aim a second time, half-your face will be gone since you’ve only managed to aggravate the bear with the first shot (if you were lucky enough to hit it). Besides, as Jordan stated, if you’re being attacked by a grizzly bear, or any other wild animal for that matter, there is probably a good reason…
To Cody:
Ok two wrongs do not make a right. That’s what was always pounded into my head. Yes there were a lot of criminal acts and such in these national parks but come on its not like they don’t happen else where in the country. Just because there was a murder 20 miles from the high school, does that mean that we should all start carrying guns and weapons to protect ourselves for crazy people like that? No. Crime happens, it’s inevitable. Plus just think of the crime that would happen if the people who performed these deeds were actually allowed to carry guns. I bet half of those rapes would have ended in murder. Yes guns protect us, but crime happens anywhere. Also for the point of protecting ourselves against the animals there: These places are supposed to be sanctuaries for the animals that live in them. I know there are some smart gunsman out there who wouldn’t just shoot at everything they think it harmful, but I know there would be some trigger happy or nervous people out there who would see something and just start shooting (animal or human mistaken for an animal). The last people who got attacked by a bear in a national park (which was three years ago!) said that “We only had, like, half a second between seeing the bear and the impact,” Even after being attack he still thought that a gun wouldn’t have helped him (not to mention the amount of power you’d have to have in a gun to actually hurt or kill or stop a bear or cougar…they have tough skin…). Anyways I don’t think that we need guns in our national parks. I know this might be violating the second amendment but I just don’t think it’s necessary.
Emily, I have to disagree with you. This article did NOT disgust me; I actually found it quite interesting.
Some of my fondest childhood memories are of going to different national parks with my church or my family and friends. One of these was called Natural Bridge Park in Douglas, Wyoming. At least once a year in the summer, our church would get together and have the evening service at Natural Bridge. We’d have a short service and then all of us kids would go play while the adults talked. My family and I would also visit the park more frequently in the summer, usually with our friends.
When I read this article, I was surprised. The fact that there could be 116,588 reported offenses in national parks seemed unreal. I remember national parks as being safe places to hang out with my friends and family. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. I don’t remember there being armed guards or anything around Natural Bridge; I just remember the silence and solitude of the park. There were no police. No electric fences. No guards. We had to trust the other people in the park not to try anything criminal.
To be fair, I also don’t remember my dad bringing guns to Natural Bridge–partly because it was Wyoming and the most dangerous man I knew was the alcoholic across the street, and the local law enforcement had already taken his driver’s license away. He was grouchy, but not dangerous; crazy, but not a killer. He never went to Natural Bridge anyway.
But let’s say for a moment that there had been a serial killer on the loose in Wyoming. Where would he likely go? Well, what is the most unguarded, unregulated place in town? Natural Bridge Park, of course. With no police, people would need to protect themselves. Guns would be necessary.
As for poachers….well, that’s a risk you run. But trust me, I grew up in Wyoming and there were a LOT of hunters there. Hunters usually just get their deer/elk/moose and go home. It is highly unlikely that a poacher would go on a moose killing spree.
I thought this was America! Now I understand where both view points are coming from but I have to side with having guns at national parks. And I think it is because of the 116,588 offenses in national parks. I’m pretty sure that guy is going to think twice about raping that girl if he realizes she could have a gun. And I agree that if someone wanted to bring a gun to a national park, there is nothing much stopping that. No killer is going to see that sign and say “darn” and walk away. It’s almost as big as a joke as that 5 mph sign in the school’s parking lot. Last national park I was at I didn’t get searched for any concealed weapons.
Now one of two things can happen: everyone will realize that they all have guns and leave each other alone, or national parks will become one constant shootout. At least with the shootout people are able to defend themselves. It worked for the cowboys so why shouldn’t it work for us now? This law shouldn’t be about protecting themselves from animals, but I kind of see it as a temporary fix until tents come with locks.
Response to Corbin:
You mentioned that it is naïve that a gun would have stopped a 400 pound bear, but how else are you supposed to protect yourself from a huge grizzly bear? Maybe a gun would not have killed the bear, but at least it would have at least wounded the bear. “No one is making you go spend a weekend camping in a national park.” Yeah no one is making you go spend a weekend in a national park, but people want to go to a national park to get away from society; however, it is not safe to go in the park unprepared. Lifting the gun ban would be a good idea because people need protection. Of course the lifting the gun ban will not be perfect because every law will create new problems, but at least people can have protection from wildlife and crazy people. You also mentioned that the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted over the years, but imagine this ban being brought to the Supreme Court. How do you think they will rule the gun ban? Most likely unconstitutional because of the 2nd amendment stating “the right to bare arms.” People have the right to carry a gun around in order to protect themselves. While lifting the ban will not solve all the problems, it will at least give people protection and decrease the 116,558 reported offenses.
I have been hiking in the National Parks since I was six, and my fifty year old dad has been hiking in the parks system since he was twelve, actually spending a few years as a backcountry park ranger in the Olympic and Grand Canyon National Parks. My family goes to the Olympic National Park to backpack at least once a year, and we feel no need whatsoever for firearms to provide security. To the contrary, I would feel much less secure with people displaying guns on the trail or in the campsite next to me. You can almost guarantee that if people bring firearms into a wilderness setting they will find reasons to use them. National Parks are a sanctuary for animals as well as people and should remain that way. If people bring guns into the backcountry you know that many will not be able to resist targets of opportunity and that it will make protection of animals from poaching that much more difficult to enforce. There are plenty of other outdoor areas people can go with their guns. If secretary Kempthorne really feels that he needs to provide more security for park guests then he should look for ways to provide additional park rangers. I could maybe understand some limited allowance for secured firearms in front-country campground settings but definitely not beyond trailheads and into the backcountry. I do not want our National Park backcountry to turn into a wild west vigilante setting. There are places that guns simply do not belong and National Parks are one of those places, and pressure from NRA extremists should not be allowed to ruin these wildlife sanctuaries for the rest of us. I am very upset at the possibility of this bill actually passing.
After reading this article I was rather surprised at a couple things in this article. First of all I was unaware that so many senators and other people feel that they have the right to carry firearms into a national park. I didn’t think that it was much of an issue honestly. However, after pondering the issue for a little while I guess I can understand why so many people would want guns in national parks. The number of criminal incidents reported in 2006 was rather high, but then again thats throughout every park for the entire year so its not as high as it really may seem. Yes, i guess protecting yourself with your gun is a very comforting feeling to some people. Somebody tries to steal your wallet and then you turn and blow their face off with your .45 magnum. I don’t know it just seems like you could use a tazer or some bear mace if you are getting assaulted or what not. Anyways, that issue aside the idea of stopping a charging bear from less than 25 yards away with a simple handgun is pretty much a joke unless you are Billy the Kid like brian said. The average parkgoer would not have that kind of nerve or accuracy under that kind of pressure to stop a 400 pound animal that could run faster than them. Anyways I think that issue should be on the back burner of the list of things that Congress should be championing right now.
Well this article is very interesting. It seems as though many of our senators and people who have already received the bill are agreeing with it, which is very surprising. As I read both Cody and Jerek’s articles, it seemed as though they were also in agreement with the thought that people need firearms in forests for protection from not only aggressive animals, but possible human predators staking out for them. Although the idea of protection sounds great, especially with no cell phone reception, or emergency phones nearby to make contact with the authorities, it just doesn’t seem like the best idea. I know the government, and state officials do what they can to make sure those who have authorized firearms are those who know how to handle them, and how not to abuse the privilege. I think this may just be a matter of people using their heads while they are in national parks. If you see a bear, don’t go up and touch it. I’m not saying people do that, but I’m sure attacks that have occurred could’ve been avoided. As much as some of us students feel rather strongly about this, the legislative perspective looks a little different. Seeing as how the parks are national, this would have to go through the Congress, and be passed by the President, which very well could happen. I guess we will wait longer to see how this furthers as it reaches more officials, and we get their opinion.
Reply to Jackie:
First the people are not taking the guns into the parks for protection against animals but from other people. With all the crimes that have taking place, it is a good idea for people to be able to protect themselves if another assaults them. I mean if you go down to Long Beach or Compton, the chances of someone you see on the street carrying a gun are pretty good. And they are not using this gun to go kill someone or rob a store. They use it for protection. You never know what will happen so you have to be prepared. If something happen, to that person walking to the street he/she would be protected. Thats the point of being able to have the guns. To protect yourself from the bad in a place where help is no where to be found. And if they even had some type of help there is no chance that it would be able to get to the person who needs help before they are hurt or killed. It is a good idea just to have people be able to protect themselves in a place where they are the only ones who can protect themselves.
RE: Jarek and others
In response to Jarek’s statement, I don’t think a fine is going to scare the people who are poaching illegally because obviously they don’t think they are going to get caught doing an already illegal activity. I do in some way agree with the second amendment statement. Everyone is bashing the second amendment saying how ridiculous they are for using that as an excuse. Personally I think you all are idiots for saying that. I’m pretty sure if someone took away a right you felt strongly about you would certainly make sure your voice was heard. If we are going to ignore one amendment what’s stopping anyone from ignoring any other? These gun baring citizens main reasons for having guns in these parks is fear of a wilderness attack. Statistically that is bull. Comparing the amount of dangerous attacks made by humans of 116,588 to the bear attacks of 10 the things they must fear are humans. Frankly if these people are so scared for their lives why put them in that situation unless they were looking to “protect” themselves. From the animals prospective you are the intruder in their home and they are just protecting themselves. All in all parks should be able to use whatever rules they see fit for the protection of wildlife. However, the second amendment right shouldn’t be ridiculed. You may own a gun, just can’t take it everywhere you go.
-Caitlin Barschig
First off I must say that people take the right to bear arms way too seriously. That was just a fail safe in the first place in case we were ever attacked again and we would need guns. Crazy republicans need to lay off carrying their guns everywhere they go. Save it for hunting. My first response to this article was to say no to carry guns in state park. My reasoning was most just because there is a lot of land were nobody is around and it would be extremely easy for someone to get murdered. But then I thought that if some crazy guy was going to kill someone he would be able to bring a gun in regardless so that point was irrelevant. So in order for me to side with the ideas of being allowed to carry guns in state parks I don’t thing that anyone should be allowed to fire a gun unless they are in life threatening danger. But then on the other side of things a 9mm isn’t really much when your talking about stopping a bear of bull. The gun would prove useless and you wouldn’t even have time to react. So the gun is basically useless a crazy deer tries to maul you who is assisted by a really fast and fierce rabbit. So I’m really on the fence on this one. I guess I kind of agree and disagree with everybody.
Well since I am apparently still playing the Devil’s advocate here (I was the first one to post support of the relaxing of the hand gun ban…), it is nice to see that I am no longer alone in my thoughts. Brian brought up some good arguments, including that a recent study found that criminals now outnumber bears in national parks” and that permitting hand guns will cause illegal hunting to increase. To these, let me reiterate some things I said earlier: first, guns do not commit crimes, people do. And second, illegal hunting already occurs regularly… it’s safe to say that poachers, like criminals, aren’t exactly yielding to the “no firearms allowed” sign. If criminals knew that potential victims were possibly carrying a gun, they would have to be more hesitant to strike. Again, all this new law would do is to level the playing field. We aren’t going to see crime and poaching rates skyrocket because firearms are all the sudden permitted in parks. The second amendment may be a little “outdated,” but it’s still a part of our Constitution. Our national parks aren’t going to be commencing ground for WWIII, and chaos will not ensue. And as for the NRA bashing, all ya alls don’t be so quick to stereotype. My father is a former member, and he looks more like Tom Selleck, not Charleton Heston ;-D
I’m going to have to disagree with Brynna on this one. I think that there is 100% right for the park rangers to Carrie guns because there are what we would like to call WILD ANIMALS that could totally eat them, not just that but if they are law enforcement then why shouldn’t they? And there definitely needs to be some sort of change because the statistics that were given were unreal and uncalled for. But how can you expect a park ranger to go out and feel safe in the wilderness if he is around all of the wild animals, and not just that but sometimes I’m sure there are some crazies in the woods and they have to be able to protect themselves from them too. I just think that if there is some way for there to be rules or some type of something that would make it so that they really only can make sure that they are not just shooting people to shoot people and that there is are real necessity to have them carry guns, like if they are going out on their own or in to really deep woods were there really is a danger then more then should.
I disagree with you Cody. I don’t see the point of having guns in National Parks. I find it quite absurd. I don’t see why people think that a gun is going to make them safer. As Corbin said, “Part of the appeal of a national park is how far from society you are and if we allow guns in them, how is anyone going to relax?” The point is to break away from the everyday routine and enjoy yourself. Yes, there have been 116,558 reported offenses in National Parks – but if everyone starts bringing a gun because it’s going to protect them, no one is going to be able to enjoy themselves because everyone around them has a gun. And the argument of the second amendment right is ridiculous. As Andrew said, it’s one of those ambiguous cases where, do we have the right to bear arms or does the state have the right to raise a militia. I don’t feel that having a gun would make National Parks any safer, if anything, it would increase the crime right. National Parks would no longer be the safe haven because everyone feels the need to keep watch all the time. It’s disgusting to think that we have come to the point where people are more worried about their safety around other National Park ‘visitors’ than the wild animals that dwell in the woods.
Although Chelsea makes a good point about the fact that if a criminal wants to commit a crime, he or she will, no matter what the rules are, I still don’t think it is a good idea to “level the playing field.” Guns are bad…I do not like them Sam I am! They are not safe, and they make me feel uncomfortable. The fact that there are a couple guns in my house is absolutely no consolation to me at all. I don’t see the need for them. I think that it is more likely that one of those guns will go off accidentally while it is being cleaned or what not than it is that one of my family members will have to use one for self defense. It is just like Butch Farabee said, “‘There need to be places in this country where people can feel secure without guns and know that the guy in the campground across the way does not have one.’” This quote basically sums up how I feel about the idea of the gun ban in national parks being lifted. Like Nate said, having a puny little gun is not going to do much of anything against a charging 400-pound animal. There is no reason for anyone to have a gun in a national park. And, I disagree with what Chelsea believes; I think that if everyone and anyone who wanted to were allowed to carry firearms, there would definitely be more crime, and it would happen a heck of a lot more often.
Kaitlin, I agree that there are many rednecks that are out there going to national parks just itching to tag a black bear. That’s not realistically the case; yes you might run into the occasional redneck that is on vacation with his family that is just waiting for a reason to shoot an animal that comes after him. In reality, all hunters and people that carry guns are like that. I would know because I hunt and my entire family hunts. Ok, there is no way in hell that congress should or even would be able to employ enough park rangers to patrol all of the backcountry to make sure that people are safe from animals. Animals are wild, and it’s not just black bears. Cougars are probably even more dangerous than the black bear. The most dangerous of all is a cow moose with a calf. There is no way that a can of bear mace or anything besides a handgun will protect a person hiking in the back country. I say that if you want to bring a handgun with you, go ahead. You already have to fill out a tone of paper work to get a gun and to make sure you aren’t crazy. It should be the hiker’s choice if they want to carry a gun into a national park for protection.
Response to Vanessa’s response to Emily:
It’s completely irrelevant for you to bring up needing some form of defense in a dangerous neighborhood, that is not what the legislation is about. But, getting back on topic, your argument of needing firearms to ward off potentially dangerous animals does not hold up. My father and grandfathers are all experienced woodsmen and have educated and regaled my little brother and I with stories of wilderness survival for the greater part of our lives. An educated woodsman has no need for a gun in national parks. For example, you brought up a run in with a cougar. These animals do not normally prey on humans and it has been proven that they fear animals that are bigger and louder than them. Throwing rocks, yelling, and putting a smaller person on your shoulders to make you appear larger will ward off a cougar. Noise and traveling in a group will most often ward off bears unless you stumble upon their cubs or meal. If park rangers were to educate visitors about these different survival techniques, advise them against hiking alone, encourage them to make some noise while hiking, and warn them about common places in the park where predatory animals have been spotted, guns would not be needed.
I agree with Jason’s statement that firearms have no place in our national parks. We use these parks as a place to enjoy wildlife, nature, and quiet. The additional of loaded firearms by firearm carrying people does not seem like a wise move in our country. As Jason pointed out, the chances of crime or animal attack in national parks is still very low.
No doubt, Dirk Kempthorne has been lobbied by his local Idahoans. Kempthorne served as the mayor of Boise, and both the Governor and a U.S. Senator of Idaho. Idaho is home to several national parks, including part of Yellowstone National Park and is known as a state that strongly encourages the exercise of the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms. There are many hunters in Idaho, which probably plays a role in Kempthorne’s stance on arms in the national parks.
Hikers and campers assume certain risks when they visit national parks. No one plans to be attacked by a bear or cougar while in the wilderness of these parks, but they realize it is a risk they could face while there. Generally, these people who enjoy the wild, do not carry weapons with them. As mentioned in the article, Johan Otter, who was attacked by a grizzly bear had no warning and no possible chance to draw a weapon on the bear if he’d had one. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely he could have done enough damage to the bear to stop him.
Keeping the national parks restful environments is critical to their legacy. As with Jason, I disagree with the move to allow loaded weapons in our national parks.
response to Brian:
Hunters aren’t always that smart. When my family lived on 25 acres in Chatteroy, we were constantly kicking hunters off are property. They always came back too. It was super annoying.
Wow, first of all I never said, thank God this is another election article. That is inaccurate information. Also, I don’t understand why I have to be the goose when it comes to these blogs? I guess Con dog and Nate just have nothing better to write about, so have to pick on the one smart kid in the class, I mean come on guys grow up. I wish I could have found a better response to one of my articles so I could gladly argue it. So Jarek does make some good points in his article. His best point was that the right to bear arms is the second amendment. I know that is really obvious but think about it. Would the writers of the amendments approve of not having guns in parks? No they wrote that amendment for specific reasons, so why are we holding guns back from entering parks. I do not agree with him when he says there should be a large fine for killing an animal. What if it is self protection? Will they still be charged? If not charged anyone who kills an animal will say it is self protection. Unfortunately that is the main problem it sounds like, and I can’t think of a good way to allow guns in parks and not have animals killed.
To Amanda Nicol:
You have brought up many great points. First I would like to start with the founder’s intent. They did include a right to bear arms for militias at that time. Let me ask you what do militias do? They protect. The founders of the Constitution wanted the American people to be able to rebel against their government if the time ever came where the people would need to. Their biggest fear was a government that was too powerful. I believe they included this so that the people could rebel. Think about it. If the people wanted to rebel, but had no guns because only the armed forces held them how could they protect themselves from the government? If the government was that corrupt it could use this against the people. The Constitution was founded for the people by the people.
My second point. When I said that the people needed guns for protection I was trying to get at this point. The people only need protection from the law violating citizens. The law abiding citizen cannot protect him or herself because they were following the law. The law abiding citizens are sitting ducks for criminals. While this is somewhat unlikely, it is still a factor and I would rather be careful, we’re talking about human lives.
Lastly, I do agree with what you have to say about the purpose of the ban in the first place. The animals need to be protected and that was the intent of this law in the first place. I would never want to see them hurt. It is truly sad how people abuse their right and harm wildlife. I would also like to comment saying, I never thought that having firearms would protect a person from the animals. I agree with you and Jordan. Its ridiculous to think that one shot would stop a grizzly bear, and usually if a person is in that situation they provoked it (stupid people). If there is a way to continue to stop poaching and allow citizen’s their rights I am all for it. Maybe just banning specific guns. I’m not sure, but doesn’t poaching require some pretty specified guns? You can’t do that with a hand gun that’s for sure. So maybe just allowing handguns? I don’t know, but that could be a step in the right direction, protecting the animals.
RE: Jarek to Jackie
I understand the point of bringing a gun with you into a national park would be to protect yourself against attacks by other people, I get that there might be a lot of criminal activity in national parks, I mean those nature lovers can get a little crazy when they get around those big trees. But honestly can we put this into a little perspective? Every where we go there will be the chance of someone coming and robbing you or attacking you. Even the local Chucky Cheese isn’t safe. But what are we supposed to do? Carry our 9 mm to Wal-Mart when we have to pick up a gallon of milk at 11 p.m.? It’s just ridiculous. I can understand the need to protect yourself, so bring a thing of mace or a taser, not a gun. Because I can guarantee that some one will misfire and end up hurting someone else, or an animal. I mean come on, I can see it now. People will bring hunting rifles for their own “protection” and end up shooting precious wildlife just because they can. My personal opinion is that I think there are other ways to protect ourselves in national parks then fire arms. The world isn’t safe, but that doesn’t mean we have to be trigger happy.
Retort to Danielle’s response:
Your response doesn’t make a substantial argument that guns should be able to come into national parks. Your stories about Wyoming and staying at a campground with your church not only further proved my point that guns shouldn’t be allowed but struck down any hope you had of proving that guns should be allowed. While there are a lot of violent acts carried out in parks (obviously I can’t deny that) I don’t think being able to bring firearms in would help the situation any. Obviously law enforcement would be counting on gun carriers to be responsible and legal with their firearms but you run the risk of someone doing some irrational. A lot of hunting accidents occur when a hunter mistakes another hunter (usually one wearing camouflages) for an animal and shooting it, if guns were allowed into parks this would only increase. Also, I think theft would pick up if guns were brought in, being in a tent isn’t really keeping your possessions safe and robbing someone at gunpoint in their tent would really be no contest. If a serial killer and escaped he could go to a national park (such as with Joseph Duncan) of course but what would happen from there? Would a park goer shoot him because for some odd reason he was all over the media already? Would having a gun turn campers into vigilantes going out of their way to right moral wrongs.
I just think it’s a horrible idea. Protect our parks, children don’t need to worry about being shot running around playing if they’re mistaken for a cougar.
Dear Ms. Melissa Natwick,
Sweet… congratulations that was an amazing argument. But I have to assert my opinion that this gun ban wouldn’t do any good. Firstly, a hand gun can’t stop a man eating, 400 pound freakin’ grizzly bear! I’d like to see how you do if a bear is charging you, attempting to bite your face of. I doubt you’d be able to wound it enough to get away. If you ask me, the whole “protection from animals” argument is bull. If you read the article you would have seen that in a thirty year span, Glacier Park only reported 10 grizzly attacks. That’s miniscule and frankly, if you piss off a bear you deserve to get mauled, you just shouldn’t piss bears off. And you quoted my saying “No one is making you spend a weekend in a national park” and I think that’s pretty self explanatory. If you are interested in communing with nature join a hippie commune. No one has to go to a national park to get away from society, the can just hang in the woods behind their house. No big. And I think the biggest flaw in your opinion is how you think this will protect people. Allowing guns will only prevent someone from “escaping” from society. How are you going relax when you’re wondering the guy across from your camp site has a fire-arm. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think they would declare the ban unconstitutional, but I think that’s stupid too. There is no reason for us to lift the ban, those hundred thousand attacks or whatever are sad, but that life dude.
Cody and those who say we need guns:
So tell me, why have there been 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults? How many of those 116,588 reported offenses involved guns? I’m going to say a fair amount. Why have there been this many offenses in national parks? Maybe because it is really easy for the crazies to get a gun into a national park which makes the parks the ideal place to commit their crime. Why do we need guns in national parks when most of the time, hunting is prohibited? If no one brings a gun into a national park, there would be far less offenses and the paranoid people wouldn’t have an excuse to bring a gun in to the park. If the crazies can’t bring a gun into the parks and the paranoids can’t bring a gun into a park, we would have less confrontations and thus, even less offenses. I’m not one to fight fire with fire so why not just extinguish the source? I can understand why people would want a gun for like their house or for recreational hunting. That is one thing. But when you’re in a park and it’s a lot easier to control guns than say a city, than ban guns in a parks.
Response to Megan Vertullo’s Response:
I appreciate that you clarified some of your points from your first post; we agree on everything except the interpretation of the Second Amendment. As we both understand, the primary intent of establishing a right to bear arms was in relation to state militias at the time of the Bill of Right’s inscription. This was most definitely a safeguard against a tyrannical government, or in your words, to allow the people to rebel if needed. However, times have changed. State militias composed of local townsmen and farmers have become the National Guard, a systematic and highly organized recruiting organization. Essentially, the people, as a collective unit, do still have guns to rebel, so is there a viable need for every individual to own one? Where is the practicality of that? This is not the 18th century; the social and political environment in our country has changed dramatically. The chances of the United States government suppressing the people, resulting in the need for rebellion, are very slim. Nevertheless, I do not believe this means that the Second Amendment is entirely outdated. It just needs to be kept within the founders’ original intention, which today means the National Guard. I do not believe that lifting gun bans, whether in National Parks or anywhere for that matter, acts as a deterrent against crime or is in accordance with the Second Amendment. In fact, I think widespread firearms ownership will only increase crime under the guise of such frequently manipulated alibis as “self-protection” and “it’s my right.”