Park Rangers oppose bid to ease ban on guns in national parks

[lanlady]

Source: Associated Press via Government Executive

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Park rangers, retirees and conservation groups are protesting a plan by the Interior Department to reconsider regulations restricting loaded guns in national parks.

The groups say current regulations requiring that visitors to national parks render their weapons inaccessible were working and have made national parks among the safest places in America.

"Loaded guns are not needed and are not appropriate in our national parks," said Doug Morris, a retired park superintendent and member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

The plan to reconsider the gun regulations "could break what is not broken and change the nature of our national parks," Morris said Monday.

Read more: http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0208/022608ap1.htm

---

The park rangers have it exactly right--loaded guns have no place in our national parks. And what infuriates me more--the moment a group of schoolchildren or a family gets killed by some gun-toting maniac at Yosemite, the NRA and the gun lobby will take no responsibility.

[maxsolomon]

1. hell, make loaded guns MANDATORY

even infants must wear them on their hips. make it go away.

this is going to be a wedge issue this summer. its going to be f-ing retarded.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Meh. What exactly is the problem with having a gun in Yosemite?

:shrug:

[rawtribe]

5. Potential Consequences of Bowing to NRA Demands

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

[SteppingRazor]

7. I'm joking, I'm joking!

Sorry. Should've put a eye-rolling emoticon in there or something.

Yeah, taking guns to federal parks is really a dumb idea -- you can't hunt, and there's no need to use them for self-defense against attackers. I mean, it's not as though there's muggers lurking in Yosemite.

Oh, and I say this as an owner of several handguns.

[achtung_circus]

8. Two options, depending,

What exactly is the probably (probability?) with having a gun in Yosemite?

I don't know, but see #2

What exactly is the probably (problem?)with having a gun in Yosemite?

What is the point?

[SteppingRazor]

11. Edited, thank you.

I was making a rather goofy joke, just based on the fact that, as a gun owner, I really don't see any reason to take a firearm to a federal park.

[Turbineguy]

3. More people need to get shot

while enjoying a nice vacation.

I wouldn't even wish that on Rush Limbaugh. OK, check that last.

[sepulveda]

4. the article doesn't support the title of the thread

not surprising.

i don't see evidence that park rangers, ie the field rangers support this at all.

the article quotes administration, NOT line officers.

this is like when the media spouts positions by the IACP etc. , iow administrative officers, to claim that cops don't support concealed carry.

i am not a park ranger. i have no idea if the rangers support it or not. i DO know this article provides no evidence that actual park rangers oppose this bid.

a poll of the ACTUAL RANGERS would tell me that. not positions taken by administration

it's like saying because general X supports position Y, that means soldiers do.

it's misleading at best

[slackmaster]

6. Park rangers have often told me they don't care if people carry guns discretely

Rangers themselves usually carry guns.

[sepulveda]

14. yes

i have spoken to only a few park rangers, so i didn't want to state definitely whether they do or don't support carry in the parks.

thats not quite a sample size (2 or 3) :)

i do know that (n= a lot) cops generally support concealed carry. but the IACP consistently takes the anti-gun (in civilian hands) stance

i suspect (suspect!!!) :) the same is true here.

the guys out in the field know who the enemy(ies) are, and it aint yer average CCW holder.

[villager]

9. Drive-bys: They're not just for urban areas anymore!

n/t

[eringer]

10. Lets Adopt the Iraq Home Weapons Policy

Limit park visitors to one AK-47 and two clips of ammunition.

[Phred42]

12. Wonder how many of those rangers voted for Bush?

[virginia mountainman]

13. I can PLAINLY see that many of you in this thread..

Has not spent much time, deep in a national forest...

I LIVE, next too the George Washington and very close to the Jefferson National Forests. I have always carried a sidearm when I, or my family go deep into them on camping trips. Their are Bears, Coyotes, and Bobcats and at certain times of the year, they are much more dangerous than at other times.

Not to mention, that we have reports of rabid animals from time to time.

And NO, I wont shoot any of the above on sight, ONLY if they are actively attacking a member of my party, and warning shots, and shouting have no effect. We have seen Bears on many occasions, and a bobcat on another, no shots where fired, and the animals beat a hasty retreat when they became aware of our presence.

But violent animal attacks have happened in the past, and most certainly will happen in the future.

Keep in mind just how vast this national forests are, and just how under maned they really are...Not to mention the fact that cell phone coverage is NON EXISTENT in most of the area.

Yes, I carry a gun.....Because you are very literally are "own your own"

Some of you "anti-gun" people need to get a grip on that reality.

[SquireJons]

15. Not sure I agree

I live pretty close to you and go to those parks all of the time (I've camped in GW and Jefferson National Parks at least 50 times over 25 years). In all of that time, I've never needed a gun, never see a bear, bobcat or coyote. I've seen one rattle snake and had to deal with thieving raccoons, but that hardly qualifies for needing a gun. When hunting season comes along, the mountains are filled with guys (usually drinking beer) and guns. That's when I stay out of the parks. Every year there are accidents involving hunters getting shot by their own or a friends gun, often when putting loaded guns into a vehicle (usually a pickup truck).

In addition, that handgun you might be carrying isn't likely to do much to dissuade a bear unless it a really high caliber and even then my money is still on the bear. So, unless you're carrying a high caliber rifle, and a bear attacks you, you can forget about it. Also, most bears attacks are sudden, and the bear will go for the smallest among your group (women and children) who are not likely to be carrying guns. So, what are you going to do, shoot it in the butt as it carry's away your son?

Truth is, the last time I remember hearing of a bear attack in one of the national parks here in Virginia, was on the Marhar Trail, way back in the late 1980's. Guns are not needed, plain and simple. For those of you who just "feel better" carrying a gun, I might suggest you try viagra instead.

I do support gun ownership rights, but also restrictions on where they can be taken. Thanks to Gov. Macaca, Virginians can get a CCW license and take one into bars, or fight clubs or just about anywhere that doesn't specifically ban them. I haven't heard of any trouble yet, but I don't trust everyone to act rationally all of the time. Do we have to arm everyone to feel safe?

[virginia mountainman]

17. What is wrong with CCW???

My wife and I both have a permit...and we carry..

I have never had to discharge a firearm while camping in the national forest, but that does not mean I might NEVER need to..It is all about preparedness.

Yes, I realize that taking on a bear with a large caliber handgun is risky, but it is still better than barehanded. Actually, I have never had an issue out of any park ranger over a discreetly carried gun in the national park, as pointed out above, Rangers understand the back woods.

Actually if the rules where relaxed I would probably stop carrying the 44 Mag, and use a carbine length rifle instead. It is a far more appropriate weapon for an angry bear.

And why the Viagra comment?? Does it make ones penis expel a lead projectile out to about 50 yard, that will stop and angry bear?

If not, than it is a poor substitute for a gun.

[SquireJons]

18. Viagra can stop a bear at 50 yards!

lol...

Just couldn't stop myself on that one. Sorry.

I added the Viagra comment because for a lot of people, carrying a gun gives them a sense of power and importance. A reasonable substitute for an erection if ever there was.

Now, that's not true for everyone. The Second Amendment problem is a very tricky one. I absolutely believe that ordinary citizens should be able to bear arms and protect themselves. But I also understand the troubles that guns create in urban environments. That's the problem; differences in where people live. Gun owners in rural areas are much different than gun owners in urban areas, and they have them for different reasons. The only reason most city dwellers have guns is self protection from other people. They usually don't ever use them, aren't particularly well trained on them and prone to accidents. Rural gun owners are just the opposite. If there were some way to allow rural people to own guns and keep them out of cities, I'd be all for it. But of course that's a pipe dream.

Speaking of pipe dreams, I gotta go now...

[belpejic]

44. I just don't agree

I've backpacked in arctic Alaska, where some really nasty critters live. All I brought with me was some bear spray and a few friends. There are many things one can do to dissuade bear attacks. Make lots of noise, stay in groups >=4, don't panic if you run into one. And I'm not talking about VA black bears. I'm talking about AK brown bears. If you run into a polar bear, God help you. Then you will need an AK-47.

[SquireJons]

53. Bears and Guns

...just don't mix. While most bears are even tempered, there's always the occasional hot head, and if we arm those darn bears, there's no tellin' what trouble lies ahead.

What's that? ...I'm being told that the bears don't get the guns, the humans do.

Oh shit...

[boilinmad]

49. All the viagra in the world...

....is NO substitute for a beautiful gun snuggled up against you at night. Go on vacation without my lovely guns? I dont think so.:sarcasm: GUNS FUCKING SUCK

[brentspeak]

21. What about the park rangers? Are you saying that THEY haven't spent much time in the forests?

[pattmarty]

16. Jesus Christ, why not listen to your fucking employees.

[sepulveda]

19. where's the evidence

where's the evidence that the majority of the EMPLOYEES ie the actual line park rangers vs. the ADMINISTRATORS quoted in this article support a gun ban in the parks?

i don't see any.

those are two entirely different things. the article doesn't say most park RANGERS support the ban.

as an analogy, fwiw, the majority of IACP members and appointed police administrators (iow cop-o-crats) support gun control

the majority of ACTUAL REAL LINE OFFICERS (the ones working the streets) are pro CCW in my experience.

big difference.

quoting administration hacks to imply that the labor (the line officers) believes position X is disingenuous at best

[brentspeak]

22. It's disingenuous to imply that your alleged experience re. cop's attitudes on CCW

is analogous to the attitudes of park rangers and their administrators on the same matter.

[sepulveda]

23. first of all

it's not "alleged experience"

2nd of all, my analogy was in your (and other's ) misinterpretation of data

try reading critically, not in order to confirm your own biases.

i readily state I DON"T KNOW what the majority of park rangers think.

but NEITHER DO YOU, despite claims otherwise.

the article says NOTHING about whether the majority of rangers support the ban

inferring that they do without evidence is called prejudice- prejudging without evidence in order to confirm your bias

i made no such assumption. i made an analogy in regards to disingenuousness of position pieces like this that use one data point to infer another, when in fact there is no correlation

frequently, in fact (like the police example), there's a negative correlation

would you accept an article that spoke about the CEO's position on policy X as somehow suggestive of what the average store employee felt?

of course not. well, law enforcement officers (and park rangers ARE LEO's. i know several) are no different. they are labor, and assuming that they march in lockstep with the positions of their administrators is ridiculous

don't make assumptions without evidence is my point. that's exactly what the OP has done. inferring without any reason to do so

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sepulveda]

27. wow.

way to have a mature discussion. not. im not even going to respond to your vicious profanity, because you have demeaned yourself, and i won't lower myself to your level.

all of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars (chrissie hynde channeling camus).

others... not so much . have a great day

[pattmarty]

30. Uh huh..........................

[sepulveda]

31. well at least you used your keyboard without throwing out vicious profanity

that's a step towards adult behavior.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

26. A retired park superintendent is not the voice of national park admistration

Park superintendents are simply rangers with some additional supervisory duties. The guy quoted in the article was a ranger. It doesn't mean his opinion is representative of the all rangers, but it sure isn't representative of the "higher ups".

[sepulveda]

28. thank you.

that's an intelligent point.

i stand by my point. no evidence was presented that the majority of rangers support the ban. yet, that was what the title of the OP's post implied and it is simply not supported by evidence

[brentspeak]

29. Ok, we can agree on that

I don't see the point of civilians bringing guns into the national parks, though. Only certain handguns would have the power to stop a bear, but due caution would prevent most bear encounters anyway.

[pattmarty]

32. This ain't about bears. These fucking gun nuts want to carry........

......... their guns to Wal-Mart, campgrounds, church, their moms knitting club etc.

[sergeiAK]

34. Many already do.

Research CCW laws and their requirements/restrictions, and get back to us. It'll be enlightening.

[sepulveda]

36. it's not JUST about bears

it's also about people. and about civil rights.

but i note you continue your rational and even-keeled approach using both profanity AND derisive terminology to slag those who are fighting for civil rights. if you don't want to carry a gun in a national park, or anywhere else, then don't.

i live in WA state. we have legal open carry and shall issue concealed carry. even on college campuses!

and yes, i support that policy. and last i checked, there are no bears at UW. just rabid huskies

have met plenty with CCW's. none of them are nuts

statisitcally speaking, they are among the most law abiding demographics there is.

as somebody with 20 years + of law enforcement experience (and some firefighter experience in my earlier days) i support concealed carry, as do most LEO's - in my experience.

the WA (a solid blue state i might add) constitution says it best -

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[ozone_man]

20. There is no need for a gun in a National Park.

If it's defense against bears that one worries about, pepper spray is a much better idea, and bear training at the NP headquarters.

[sepulveda]

24. there's this logical fallacy again

one must prove a "need" in order to exercise/justify their civil rights (to carry a gun).

classic among anti-gunners.

it's not a matter of "need". that's a burden that no advocate of carry in the parks should have to meet. the issue is 1) is it good policy to deprive people of their civil rights in a park . what's the compelling interest? 2) is it even constitutional?

as to 1) , i would say "no".

as to 2), i would say wait until DC v. Heller. i'm optimistic :)

[ozone_man]

37. I think NP's are a different environment

requiring different rules. Should we also allow guns in public schools or colleges? Or in courtrooms or in Congress? I don't think so.

I was answering in my above post from a perspective of whether one needs to arm themselves in a NP. Who are they defending themselves against and is there a risk for others in the park. There are no policeman to run to or call if a crazy gun owner decides to stalk a hiker, or to confront a ranger and his authority. The latter I know has happened.

I would propose that only bears be armed. :)

[sepulveda]

38. ok

i live in WA state. it is legal to have guns in public (and private) colleges.

not so in public elementary schools (except for an exception for parents picking up their kids may have it in their car on campus).

i again dispute that the concept of one "needing" to arm oneself is the issue

gun carry is a civil right. nobody should have to argue a "need" to exercise a civil right. govt. should have to establish a compelling NEED to restrict it.

your example is EXACTLY why i would (among other reasons) support CCW in parks. because if a deranged person DOES go wild (stalks a hiker etc.) rangers are often a long way away, have little or no backup, and chances are (statisically speaking) the wild problem guy with a gun is NOT a legal carrier ANYWAY, thus the law does not deter him. that's statistically verifiable. CCW holders are among the most law abiding there are.

i have many years of LEO experience, many in rural areas. i am glad, and fully support armed citizenry, and if *i* was a park ranger, i'd feel the same way.


i've backed up rangers many many times (not so much federal ones though)

[ozone_man]

50. Then perhaps you should back them up now?

i've backed up rangers many many times (not so much federal ones though)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Park rangers, retirees and conservation groups are protesting a plan by the Interior Department to reconsider regulations restricting loaded guns in national parks.

The groups say current regulations requiring that visitors to national parks render their weapons inaccessible were working and have made national parks among the safest places in America.

"Loaded guns are not needed and are not appropriate in our national parks," said Doug Morris, a retired park superintendent and member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

The plan to reconsider the gun regulations "could break what is not broken and change the nature of our national parks," Morris said Monday.

Why not listen to the park rangers? Who knows national park needs better than they do?

Where I live we have an expression, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." :)

[sepulveda]

51. because

as i have repeatedly explained, i see no evidence (iow, it may be true, but i see no evidence that it is true) that the majority of park rangers support the ban.

look at who they are quoting. i have yet to see any quote or stat that says what the majority of park rangers want.

"national park service RETIREES" aint it.

nor are conservation groups.

again, IF you can show me the majority of park rangers supporting this, that would give me pause. although, i don't think a majority of anybody should be able to restrict civil rights. the whole purpose of a civil right is protection AGAINST majority rule.

but i have yet to see evidence the majority of park rangers support the ban.

if it is presented, i would be happy to see it.

[Recursion]

39. Err...

Should we also allow guns in public schools or colleges?

Well declaring them "gun free zones" seems to have been very effective :sarcasm:

Or in courtrooms or in Congress?

Ah, those are actually gun-free zones, in that they limit access to them and check people entering for weapons. That seems to work pretty well; I think the last shooting in the Capitol was 1998.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

35. True bear story...

On their way to San Francisco, Mr GoG and a buddy camped in Yosemite one night back in the late 1960s. They went with a couple of friends who were recently married. After dinner, the couple slept in the van, and Mr GoG and his other friend went off and found a nice camping spot. They got pretty mellow on pot, zipped up the screen door of the tent, and chatted a bit before going to sleep.

Aftr a while, they heard something sniffling around their tent...something very large, judging from the noise it was making. When it got to the front of the tent, they could barely make out the unmistakable outline of a bear from the light their candle lantern was putting out. Mr GoG and his friend wasn't sure what kind of bear it was, but they were messed up enough to find their situation absurd, and started joking and laughing hysterically about the fact that they could possibly become some animal's dinner that evening. Upon hearing this noise, the bear snorted and left.

A week later, they learned that two young women were mauled by a grizzly in the same area where they had camped. Now maybe it was the same bear they encountered, and maybe it wasn't. But bears are pretty territorial critters with a pretty wide range that they aren't fond of sharing. It could very well have been the same one. Makes you wonder if laughter doesn't work as well as pepper spray or guns... :-)

[ozone_man]

40. I'll have to try that next time.

Laughing that is. Wouldn't mind being stoned either, but it has been so long, I think I forgot how. :hippie:

Of course there are the obvious things like not having any food in or near the tent, and especially not in grizzly country. But also things like making sure the latrine is well away from the tent and if woman is menstruating there are other precautions to take. Basically, bears have excellent noses and you can't give them any reason to go near your tent.

And don't camp on their trail or fish in their stream. Annoys them off to no end.

These things and much more are learned at the park headquarters, in Glacier NP for example, or in Glacier Bay NP, Alaska. Probably Yellow Stone too.

Besides, a gun wound might just make a bear madder and more dangerous. I'd go with laughing. My wife bangs pots at them as they approach, which has proven to be very effective.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

41. I've only seen black bears...in Shenandoah NP

I've seen them more often in my car than on the trail. However, our favorite campsite is in an abandoned apple orchard. With plenty of raspberry, blueberry, and bearberry bushes around, it's also a favorite feeding ground for black bears. We've found their scat still steaming on occasion. We always tie up the food, eat and clean up dishes well away from the tents, and never bring food into the tents. We've been camping there for decades without incident.

We bring Jack Daniels along...I guess that's like geriatric pot. :D

[Doctor_J]

42. Yes, and most police officers want tighter gun control laws too

but the NRA and their whores on Capitol Hill don't want to hear about it.

[lanlady]

43. they also want to ban cop-killer bullets--

--the ones that pierce through body armor. But the NRA objects to that too.

[scrinmaster]

46. You want to ban hunting rifles?

Show me where the NRA supports lifting the restriction on sales of AP handgun ammunition.

[RamboLiberal]

54. Cop Killer bullets are a mostly a myth

Just like the hysteria over "plastic guns" defeating metal detectors when Glock first started selling their guns in the U.S.

[Jack_DeLeon]

48. Some police like to beat up people and violate 4th amendment rights too...

I guess we shouldnt fight for our rights and just let them decide right? After all why should our opinions matter more than those of the police? :eyes:

I dont have much sympathy for "authority" figures who want to restrict our freedoms. If they dont like thier line of work they are always free to quit and find a new job.

[defendandprotect]

45. Yeah . . . we'd have to give the rangers machine guns --- !!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. You have flawed logic

The law doesnt prevent what you said in your example from happening already.

The no guns in national parks prohibition wont stop a criminal from killing people there if they want to. Its no more effective than the prohibitions in schools.

The law should be changed to allow people who are licensed to carry concealed handguns, such as myself, to cotinue to do so even in national parks.

As for park rangers and the like I dont exactly sympathize with them. We shouldnt restrict the rights of all Americans for the privilidge of a small group of people. Some police dont like the fact that citziens like myself can carry, well thats too bad, if dont like it they are always free to find another line of work.

What if these people were for restricting your 1st or 4th amendment rights in those places would you feel any different, just because it was them who wanted it? Just because they work there that doesnt give them any special rights over the rest of us or make thier opinions any more important.

[fascisthunter]

52. The Park Rangers are RIGHT!

fuck the NRA and the gun manufacturers who pay them to peddle gun propaganda.