Could this have any effect on photography/photographers in our National Parks?



Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks
Written by Daniel White
Friday, 22 February 2008

NRA press release

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.

“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America’s National Parks and wildlife refuges,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction.”

These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.

“These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year,” concluded Cox.

-NRA-

I don't know what you think you have to worry about. People are already allowed to pack everywhere else in the wilderness. Allowing them into the national parks is not going to make them suddently turn into violent killers.

I rarely go to national parks, but in the country and backcountry that I visit, I would say that well over 50% of the people I come across have guns. Sometimes they're out in a saddle-sling, sometimes they're packed away, sometimes in a holster, and it's just not a problem. In fact, the folks you run into with guns are, as a rule, the nicest and most polite you'll find.

On the flip side, one of my wife's friends and his sister were gunned down in a canyon inside the city limit, near a home, for no apparent reason. The perp was a drug-addict who was strung out, and just wanted to see what it would be like to shoot someone.

The folks like that, the ones you *should* be worrying about, don't spend much time hiking the backcountry. The folks you run into in a national park aren't a worry at all.

In fact, despite ALL gun crime, it's still more dangerous for you to get in your car and drive to work.

this is about guns in our national parks and what it potentially means to photography.

I dont want people in the parks gunning down grizzly bears when they bluff charge or when they see one approaching their car or think that they were in danger. I dont want bears and other wildlife getting shot at, or hearing gun shots for that matter. Too many "accidents" and too many potential problems with guns in the backcountry of our national parks. It happens multiple times across montana every year. I guess I'd ask you why would you need a gun in a national park anyhow if everyone is soo nice?

It makes me uneasy to think that there could be people poking a rifle out the window of their car because they are just going to protect themselves -- just in case that bear comes too close. I can see wolves and bears now being shot at random, from roads, that makes ME a suspect because I'm in the Park off trail all the time -- I dont like the idea of guns in the back country. I spend a great deal of time in out national parks i dont think we need to have guns in the backcountry of our national parks. wilderness is another matter. I used to be a guide and packer I get your points. . .

If this becomes law, you WILL see wildlife being shot in national parks - what would Denali be like if anyone that wanted to packed a gun?

I personally think this is a big mistake. The national parks have a concentration of both wildlife and tourist. I think we will see not only wildlife being "accidentally" but people to. I can just image John Doe who's never handled a weapon thinking I'd better buy a gun to protect my family on our trip to bear country in Yellowstone. Then the first time something stirs in the brush he gets scared shoots and you have one dead tourist innocently shot because they where in the brush taking a picture of a flower.
Now don't get me wrong, I am all for the freedom of right to carry a weapon but I think allowing them in our National Parks is just a recipe for a disaster. I've also got personal experience with this. I've been shot at 3 times and hit once. All of them in the woods on our farm. The idiot that shot me was illegally trespassing on our property trying to shoot a deer. I guess I looked like one.

Heck I'm the kind of idiot that probably does need a gun in the parks. I love to go alone into the back country to shoot my pics. I move as quiet as possible and hope to see a bear. But, while it will suck if Mr. Grizzly eats me it's my own fault. What right do I have to act that like that in the animals domain and then shoot it because I'm dumb?

I gotta say I am kinda torn on this one. I know there are times I would feel more comfortable in the back woods with a hand gun "just in case". To be fair, I was raised around guns, my father collected guns and was through a gun safety course when I was like 7 yrs old. I dont personally hunt as I cant find much stomach to harm any wild life except in defense.

I have raised wolf hybrids as well and know animals well and I interact well with animals. I also know how ugly things can get under the "wrong" circumstances....hense the desire to carry a gun in the back country.

But....I also know humanity and for the most part....I can see MAJOR problems letting just any yahoo cary a gun in the back country. Animals killed all because a person dosnt know how to act when they are in the animals back yard. People killed because they were suspected to be an animal (I see visions of a south park episode where they would see a rabbit and yell "its comming right for me!!!!" as they pulled the trigger....comedy that is sadly closer to reality than most are comfortable to admit.)

So....with the balance of safety and the knowledge of human nature....I agree that while even I would feel a bit safer with a sidearm in the back country....for now...as we are in our evolutionary adolesence...I can see wisdom in NOT allowing guns in the backcountry of our NP.

Roman

You're forgetting that people can (and do) already take guns everywhere else outside of national parks, and there are still plenty of wildlife out there.

I can hike locally where bear, cougar, moose, deer, coyotes, and other wildlife are plentiful and easily found, despite the fact that people can (and do) take guns there.

If I thought that guns in a national park would mean any significant impact on tourists or wildlife, I'd be against it, too. But my experiences outside of the parks leads me to believe that it would work out just fine in a park.

The places where you see a serious impact on wildlife are in close proximity to small towns. The locals go out and shoot things for fun. Any time I'm within five miles or so of a small town, wildlife becomes scarce to none, and spent casings and trash become the norm. But in any area that's even remotely similar to a national park, that's just not the case.

I am like Roman on this one. Maybe my emotions are a tad raw right now since I am only twenty minutes away from the NIU college shooting on Valentines Day. I do not think people should be allowed to carry guns at a school either but they do and always will.
I really do believe that National Parks should be safe for wildlife and not allow "hunters". Gun carrying would make people more inclined to use if it is permitted. No Mr. Bush - you are wrong!

"You're forgetting that people can (and do) already take guns everywhere else outside of national parks, and there are still plenty of wildlife out there."

Abolutly not foretting that. The main difference is 1. millions, I mean MILLIONS of people concentrated around "habituated" animals in the parksand 2. wildlife, including bears that are at or near road, and places where people camp and eat. . . put them together with a wing-nut with a gun and park pass and you got a mess. . .

Jamesdak, is right on the mark! and as other's have pointed out, it spells trouble.

Consider this, there probably is no place that represents the spirit of this nation, freedom, democracy, around the world, and is more "public" than the National Mall in washington dc, the arlington cemetary, the national catherdral, the white house, the federal courthouse, the jefferson building, the Dirkson building, the national archives, I could go on and on, should just anyone with a gun be allowed in those buildings?

I'd like your oppinions on this, come on, guns in national parks, nevermind the serious poaching issues that cause the ban in the first place, how about guns in the capitol, that's a national park folks . .. ..

Take a look here, the National Parks Conservation Service has some good information on this subject, just posted today.

http://www.npca.org/media_center/fact_sheets/coburn-amendment.html

Law abiding citizens are never the problem, theres always an idiot somewhere around, the thing to remember is the right to carry is changing not the right to use fire arms, you will still be responsible for what you do. just because you have the right to carry doesn't mean you have the right to shoot when ever you want to.