Guns Now Allowed in National Parks

[Excursionista]

I just heard about this - guns are now allowed in national parks. It is still illegal, I think, to use a firearm, but you can possess one. The responsibility of knowing state-specific gun laws falls on the owner. How I missed this story, I don't know (has this been a topic on this site before?). It's easy to find on the web, but here's one link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/guns-natio ... id=9910171

Even though I'm a firearms advocate and support hunting, I'm outraged by this law and how it was passed (pork-barrel). In my opinion, there is no need for a firearm in a national park, and the presence of firearms makes national parks less safe, not more. My ire is further fueled by comments made by gun advocates: The NRA stated ""We think it's reasonable for those with a concealed carry permit to be able to defend themselves and their families should the need arise," and on another news article I read, someone claimed that it would make understanding gun laws "easier" by allowing them in parks. Both arguments are disingenious.

I'm interested in what others think about this. If you respond, please keep your comments civil, family-friendly, and hiking oriented. I love that this site isn't a forum for hotbed political debate, so please respect the difference between political commentary, and commenting on political processes that affect hikers.

As for myself, I'm angry enough that I have to hold my tongue.

[RBar]

I am a firearms instructor and I have been following this closely. I do not like the pork-barrel method by which this was passed either, but I am glad that it was passed.

It is now legal to posses a firearm in a national park if the part of the national park that you are in is in a state that allows firearms in state parks. Almost every state does allow firearms in state parks, some require that you have a concealed carry permit.

For Oregon, the only difference is that you can now carry into Crater Lake National Park. Before this law, you could still carry everywhere else that you would go hiking in Oregon - although some municipalities (such as Portland) require that you have a concealed carry permit.

It is legal to use a firearm to defend yourself or another innocent person from what a reasonable person would consider to be a deadly attack. You still can not legally use a firearm to hunt in a national park, go target shooting, etc.

I think that the presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding people does make the park more safe for those people. The presence of firearms in the hands of criminals makes it less safe - but the criminals already carried them where they were not allowed.

I am sure we all agree that the backcountry is not a place to go unprepared. Being injured from a fall or getting lost and being overcome by the weather is much more likely than needing to defend yourself from another person. I would always grab extra rain gear, more water, or a backup compass before a firearms for hiking. However, we do have people raped, seriously injured, or killed every year when they were unable to defend themselves and they were miles from the nearest road. A firearm, with training, is still a good tool for a 120 pound female hiker to defend herself against a 180 pound male assailant.

When hiking, if you are willing to accept the extra weight of the firearm for the extra options it provides, then I think that is a decision you should be able to make for yourself.

[Lurch]

I gotta agree with RBar there. It's ridiculous and confusing to have different sets of laws within one state (not that confusing but most people don't know). Oregon is an open carry (for the most part) and 'shall issue' state. There are more guns out there carried by law abiding citizens than most people realize, and I don't have a problem with it, I don't think it make us any less safe.

[dalylab]

Our National Parks are sanctuaries, I don't see the need to bring a gun into such sacred places.

The NRA will say they have been pushing for this change on the grounds of safety and protection, but they are also pressing to get laws revoked that ban guns in churches. So the argument about safety doesn't really hold water.

[RBar]

Our National Parks are sanctuaries, I don't see the need to bring a gun into such sacred places.

The NRA will say they have been pushing for this change on the grounds of safety and protection, but they are also pressing to get laws revoked that ban guns in churches. So the argument about safety doesn't really hold water.

People have been raped and murdered in National Parks and churches. Calling them "sanctuaries" does not prevent bad things from happening there.

Every person has a need and a right to protect themselves from someone who would do them harm.

Many groups are pressing to get laws revoked that ban guns in churches because they do not make anyone safer and prevent good people from stopping a criminal on a rampage.

Research the shooting at New Life Church that was stopped by an armed citizen:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/ ... _new_1.php
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14 ... etail.html

[dalylab]

Research the shooting at New Life Church that was stopped by an armed citizen!

Actually, the gunman was shot by a New Life Church security guard, not some random armed citizen.

Hired to protect. Kind of like a Park Ranger.

[RBar]

Research the shooting at New Life Church that was stopped by an armed citizen!

Actually, the gunman was shot by a New Life Church security guard, not some random armed citizen.

Hired to protect. Kind of like a Park Ranger.

That is incorrect - she was in no way like a Park Ranger. She was an armed citizen - she was unpaid and not issued a weapon. She was a volunteer carrying her own weapon.

[Excursionista]

Let's bring this back to hiking. My feeling - my belief - is that our national parks should be sanctuaries for that within us that needs silence, needs space, needs solitude, needs solace. Our most pristine and beautiful wild areas should be sanctuaries away from societal pressures. You can call me an idealist; I'll accept that. Yet, I truly believe that our national parks deserve to be as free from man's influence as possible.

Crowds at Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and other parks are detrimental to those qualities I spoke of above. Reducing that impact is another argument entirely - but it remains that crowds of people in easily accessible national parks negatively impact on the landscape, and introduce the very threat that gun advocates wish to protect us from.

Murder, rape, assault, theft, crime in general – these are aspects of our society we cannot escape. They follow us to our national parks because we visit our national parks en masse and bring our problems with us.

In other words, no crowds, no need for protection. Advocates for firearms in national parks are treating the symptom, not the cause, and the treatment increases the risks.

We will never, ever, ever be completely safe from harm from other people, even in wilderness areas. To believe that is folly. In fact, to properly enjoy the best of the wilderness the national parks offer us, we must willingly and preparedly put ourselves in inherently risky, self-reliant situations (such as driving to the park, possible confrontations with animals, and the risk of injury).

In my life, in my world, I do not need a firearm to be self-reliant, or to defend myself against a risk that is so miniscule it barely needs mention.

If you truly feel the need to have access to a firearm in a national park, you have erected a barrier between yourself and everything valuable the park has to offer. And most likely, you aren’t in the park proper, but in the most public and most “touristy” and least pure sections of the park.

Guns do not belong in our national parks. These should be the exclusive reserve of seekers, wanderers, individualists, and adventurers who are trying to gain distance from those aspects of humanity that include firearms, crowds, noise, pollution, and base desire.

[dalylab]

She was an armed citizen - she was unpaid and not issued a weapon. She was a volunteer carrying her own weapon.

She was identified by the church as a volunteer security guard with law enforcement training.

Of course, the coroner reported the man died from a self-inflicted gunshot to the head and not at the hand of the security guard as was first reported. So I am not sure about the relevance of the example anyway.

But if your example can be any guide on this topic I think it is that the church did not ask everyone to bring their guns to church in response to this tragic gun incident. Rather - they replaced volunteer security guards with professional ones.

So I still don't see the need to overturn an 80 year ban on guns in the sacred places that are our National Parks.

[RBar]

She was identified by the church as a volunteer security guard with law enforcement training.

Of course, the coroner reported the man died from a self-inflicted gunshot to the head and not at the hand of the security guard as was first reported. So I am not sure about the relevance of the example anyway.

Yes, the woman, Jeanne Assam, was a former police officer. She had the same kind of training that is available to private citizens.

She shot and wounded the gunman who then killed himself. She stopped the shooting spree, and when the gunman was no longer effective, he took his own life.

In this case, she did not have to kill him to stop the shooting - which I think is preferable to having to kill him.

Had she not done what she did, it is reasonable to believe that he would have kept killing people until the police arrived - many minutes later.

Additional information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_C ... 9#Shooting

Let's bring this back to hiking. My feeling - my belief - is that our national parks should be sanctuaries for that within us that needs silence, needs space, needs solitude, needs solace. Our most pristine and beautiful wild areas should be sanctuaries away from societal pressures. You can call me an idealist; I'll accept that. Yet, I truly believe that our national parks deserve to be as free from man's influence as possible.

Crowds at Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and other parks are detrimental to those qualities I spoke of above. Reducing that impact is another argument entirely - but it remains that crowds of people in easily accessible national parks negatively impact on the landscape, and introduce the very threat that gun advocates wish to protect us from.

Murder, rape, assault, theft, crime in general – these are aspects of our society we cannot escape. They follow us to our national parks because we visit our national parks en masse and bring our problems with us.

I agree completely. My only concern is that by making those areas less accessible, and reducing the crowds, we also end up with fewer people who really appreciate those environments. Which could be fewer people who vote to keep or expand the wilderness areas we have, fewer people who are concerned with sustainable goods, and fewer people who understand the value of the natural world.

Last week I had a friend from New York City come out and visit. She is not the outdoors-type, but I took her to the coast, the gorge, and Mt. Hood and talked to her about why these things are so valuable. She saw how beautiful they were and had a great time exploring. I think she went back having a much greater appreciation for our green spaces.

In other words, no crowds, no need for protection. Advocates for firearms in national parks are treating the symptom, not the cause, and the treatment increases the risks.

This is where I disagree. We are treating a symptom, but the treatment does not increase the risks. I have been studying this for years and in every state that has adopted a shall-issue concealed carry permit system, crime has gone down and no state has repealed their concealed carry law.
Additional information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ ... ted_States

If you take a firearm with you that is your choice, just as it is your choice to take a GPS, camp stove, Gore-tex clothing and other modern conveniences. As long as it does not prevent another person from enjoying the wilderness, I do not see a problem with you having it.