News-Miner Editorial
Shooting for freedom
New park rule well-intended but leaves some questions
Published Sunday, December 14, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!In most of the national parks in Alaska, carrying a firearm is neither illegal nor unusual. In fact, it is wise policy. Extending that right to visitors of all of the national parks is a similarly wise policy.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced this week that the federal government’s blanket prohibition on carrying operable firearms in national parks outside Alaska will end early next year. The National Park Service instead will follow state laws, he said.
In Alaska, state law allows most people to carry concealed firearms in most places, so all the national parks in the state will now be open to visitors with such guns.
Previously, all operable firearms were prohibited in the national parks created before 1980’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act: Denali, Katmai and Glacier Bay, as well as two smaller units in Southeast Alaska.
Unfortunately, the new federal regulation has an odd ambiguity. Here’s the actual language: “... A person may possess, carry and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area ... is located ...”
That seems clear enough, but the preamble published by the department in the Federal Register indicates that this regulation only applies to handguns.
It suggests that the regulation does not allow the carrying of rifles or shotguns.
“Although we understand that there may be good reasons to update our policies with regard to these firearms,” the preamble states, “we have decided at this time to adopt a narrowly tailored rule to give greater respect to state laws which authorize law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms.”
But the actual regulation the department adopted doesn’t make any distinction between rifles, shotguns and handguns, as can be seen above. An Alaska park spokesman said last week, when asked about this apparent inconsistency, that the agency was looking into the issue.
So, as it stands now, the Interior Department appears to intend to allow a person to carry a concealed, loaded handgun into Denali National Park, but not a rifle or shotgun of any sort, whether concealed and unloaded or not. If that is indeed the intent, it’s a strange distinction to make and it needs to be explained more thoroughly.
Alaskans have carried all sorts of firearms all across the state’s “new” national parks for nearly three decades now. They do so not to hunt, which is prohibited on such park lands for anyone but local, qualified subsistence users, but rather to protect themselves from the very occasional ornery bear or moose.
This permission to pack rifles, shotguns and handguns in our parks has never been controversial. It is accepted, prudent practice.
Opening the old parks to only concealed handguns would be an inconsistent, unnecessary and confusing divergence from what otherwise is an enlightened change in public policy.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Let's do a little comparison here. Deaths due to firearms throughout the nation annually? Thousands. Deaths in national parks due to animal attacks? You can number them on the fingers of one hand.
But, since the gun-strokers of the NRA have to have their guns with them even if they go to the bathroom, we are now going to turn our parks into shooting galleries.
It's no wonder the rest of the world thinks we are, as a nation, are stuck in the Old West frame of mind when it comes to guns for we are.
However, I know there are plenty of people who will come in here and comment on how necessary are the guns in the parks, how we daren't impinge on the 2nd Amendment in any shape or form for it is more holy than God himself, and how anyone possibly thinking there is anything wrong with this idea should get out of Alaska and go live with some godless Communist government.
I swear...no wonder the NRA is also known as the National Redneck Association....
Should we get Timothy Tredwells opnion on the subject?
So because I may be the only person to get mauled this year I shouldn't be allowed to prevent it? How many people get assaulted and or killed each year by motor vehicles? Would you also ban cars?
Glad to see the News-Miner taking a stance on a topic. And I agree wholeheartedly.
Protecting one's life against a bear while hiking in a national park is not turning the park into a shooting gallery. Try not to exaggerate...
.
All those cowards with guns in national parks is scary! Glad I have a gun to protect myself from them!
dobie it's fortunate for you we still have freedom of speech.Those Amendments are pesky things....Happy Kwanzaa
Right from jump street we have living proof how habitual and chronic dope smoking affects ones rationality...
I would give up my guns if we could ban rap. :)
Can a young (well maybe not so young) lady have an opinon here? Dobieman should never be allowed to own a gun. Bet he has one though.
dobieman-the rest of the world has had their guns taken away from them.If I were your neighbor I would put up a sign pointing to your house saying there are no guns in this house.
The 2nd amendment, is what it is....and the law in Alaska related to carring of guns, is what it is.
I know of no 'Nation" that thinks we (the American People) are less well off or less protected because of our 2nd amendment...and the rights we enjoy as free people, in no small measure, because of it.
The National Parks in Alaska should be subject to the laws of the State of Alaska.
John McPhee observed and wrote in "Encounters with the Archdruid" that exaggeration is the weapon of environmentalists. Dobieman daily affirms this.
The National Park Service cannot protect the public who visit park lands. They can only protect themselves. They have afterall, armed themselves. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the public to protect themselves and each other under the right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment and as regulated by the sovereign States.
olypopper
Good one..... lol :-)
Well, we can all take heart that the greatest risk of carrying a gun is to the gun toters themselves, and those closest to them. Y'all try to wear something distinctive so I can be sure to get me and mine out of range.
Oh and when we are on the road, just go on by, I know that the safest place on the road is probably behind you.
In 2003 Missouri legalized the right to carry concealed guns.The Jefferson Memorial Expansion ( Gateway Arch) here in St Louis is a National Park. We are searched just as if going through airport security.
To my knowledge - there are no reports of law abiding citizens who legally carry firearms turning any state or national parks into a shooting gallery. That is a fact.
Another fact is more people have been murdered in Washington DC (a gun free zone) each and every year for the last 6 years than troops killed in Iraq during the same year.
What confuses me are people like Dobieman above. The incidence of violent crime - rape and assult - are up 32% in our national parks. The people who visit national parks are typically tourists and easy prey. This is driving force behind the new policy - not Alaskans looking for bear protection.
Dobieman is worried about our national parks becoming a 'shooting gallery' while our national capital has become - and remains - a war zone. Obviously out of touch with reality - people need to learn to ignore the raves and rantings of the vocal minority.
Dobie's a burn out that suffers from hysterical paranoia! To tha mountain man....................Tru dat! I hope I spelled paranoia correctly.
Glacierwolf has it correct, this law change did not come about because of bears or animal attacks, it came about because people were being preyed upon by other people (criminals) across the nation and are very vulnerable while camping. The 2nd ammendment is the 2nd ammendment, we shouldn't even be discussing this. Arm and protect you and yours as you deem neccessary.....I do!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a paranoids eveywhere, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So unclever majast --
Not only is this a 2nd amendment issue; it's also a 10th Amendment one.
"""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""" -The 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
So if the congress isn't allowed to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, how did it become that an organization of unelected bureaucrats (NPS) was allowed to do that very thing in the first place?
Government will confiscate the peoples' freedoms when the people fail to claim tthose freedoms.
right on realdeal
"New park rule well-intended but leaves some questions", I do not see the question? When was the last time someone w/ a concealed weapon committed a crime? When will you "do-gooders" get over yourself? I am not your problem. I am protecting myself from the druggies, gang-bangers, and criminals.
dobies comparison gave me a good laugh, and explained a couple things about his thinking if thats the way he truly considers. Lets flip it around...
number of people maimed/killed by animals throughout the nation annually? Hundreds!
Number of people killed in national parks by guns? zero.
I can only say that it is about time the rest of the country woke up and took responsibility for their own protection.
An acquaintance of mine has a favorite saying: Eliminate rudeness; Legalize dueling. The misguided notion that eveyone carrying a firearm will only result in more people being shot is naive at best and extremely dangerous at worst. It is a well documented fact that the states which have implemented concealed carry programs have seen decreases in violent crime; not the bloodbath in the streets the brady crowd keeps screeching about.
The responsible citizen who takes the time to learn how to carry correctly, who practices at the range on a regular basis, who educates his family and friends about safe firearms practices and who exercises good judgement in his firearms carry is a welcome asset to his community.
not for long, thomas
The real problem with this whole change in policy is that GW didn't make the change because he believes it is the correct thing to do. He did it as part of his lame duck "I'm gonna mess with the new administration as much as possible" policy. He's making these kinds of changes on a daily basis--mostly with the environment. The media has actually taken to writing up daily lists of the attrocities this man is heaping on this nation. Don't get too comfortable with this new ruling. A new Sec. of the Interior, Homeland Security, etc., and Obama himself, may just be able to say "NO YOU CAN'T!" Obama can start undoing a lot of these messes at 12:00 PM 01/20/09. Thank goodness.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.