Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://tinyurl.com/635l9z
New West Missoula, Montana
By Bill Schneider, 9-04-08
LET'S FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER
Don't Waste Energy on Rule Allowing Concealed Guns in National Parks
Election-year politics is maddening, but let the gun lobby have "this
important step in the right direction," becuase it really doesn't
matter. What matters is the long-term health of our national parks.
A lot of people are hot and bothered about the Bush administration's
proposed rule to allow concealed weapons in national parks, but
practically, is this really worth our time and effort?
Yes, it's maddening to tolerate such low-end, election-year politics
spurred by the National Rifle Association (NRA), but I say give the
gun lobby this hollow victory, so we can spend our time and energy on
issues that could really help our national parks instead of worrying
about something that's already happening and hasn't caused any problems.
Last year, after efforts to attach the loosening of the 25-year-old
regulation that restricts but does not ban taking firearms into
national parks as a rider on a must-pass bill failed, the new strategy
became the administrative rule-making process, which is currently
underway. The comment period ended August 8, and the Department of the
Interior, which includes the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, received more than 100,000 comments. Obviously,
these comments, even if 99 percent opposed to the new rule, won't
matter, which is the case with most "public involvement" exercises.
The Bush administration is obligated to do make "this important step
in the right direction" for the NRA. Even with widespread opposition,
you can bet your last bullet that our lame duck will approve the rule
before he leaves office with his tail between its legs.
As I've said in a past column on the subject, people who believe so
strongly that they always need a gun to protect themselves from bears
and perverts are unlikely to leave it home when they go to a national
park. Instead, they illegally take concealed weapons into national
parks. Rangers know this happens, but do nothing to stop it. What
could they do? Search every car? Have rangers ever searched a car for
firearms at any national park entrance station? For many years, this
has gone on, and has it been a problem? No. The national parks have
traditionally had very low crime rates, and that's unlikely to change
when the new rule goes into effect.
Will backpackers start taking big handguns and stub-nosed shotguns
with them? Not likely. Backpackers are the type of people who count
out their vitamin pills and drill holes in toothbrushes to save
weight. You think they'll throw a three-pound revolver in the pack
when they know the chances of needing it are as close to zero as you
can get.
(Interestingly, ten years ago, I went on a nine-day backpacking
adventure in Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska, and the NPS
actually recommended we take a shotgun with us, which we declined to
do, primarily because nobody wanted to carry it. And alas, we returned
safely.)
The proposed rule has been totted as "lifting the handgun ban" in
national parks, but this exaggerates what the rule does. Park visitors
can already take handguns and all other legal firearms into national
parks, but they must be dissembled, unloaded and inaccessible (such as
cased in the truck of the car). This regulation was put in place in
1983 by none other than a NRA darling, Republican Ronald Reagan, and
under the reign of terror of Secretary of the Interior James Watt.
As currently proposed, the rule would be extremely confusing, so let's
fix that problem before it becomes NPS policy. Right now, it only
applies to national parks in states that allow concealed guns in state
parks. Among western states, that includes Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, not California,
Idaho, New Mexico, Texas or Utah. (But you gotta think laws in those
states will be changing fast after this new rule hits the books.) Gun-
toting tourists will have to be on their toes as they travel from park
to park--or, get this, parts of parks! National parks like Yellowstone
and Death Valley cross state lines. In Yellowstone, for example, you
could only carry your gun in the Montana and Wyoming parts, not the
Idaho part. Ditto for Death Valley, which crosses the California/
Nevada border.
So, let's forget the state park requirement, and just let people have
their guns in all national parks. In the meantime, the greens can
concentrate on more important issues like getting adequate funding for
national parks, making parks more affordable and accessible, trail and
road maintenance, and improved interpretation. These and other issues
related to the long-term health of our national parks need all our
time, money and energy.
http://tinyurl.com/635l9z
New West Missoula, Montana
By Bill Schneider, 9-04-08
LET'S FOCUS ON ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER
Don't Waste Energy on Rule Allowing Concealed Guns in National Parks
Election-year politics is maddening, but let the gun lobby have "this
important step in the right direction," becuase it really doesn't
matter. What matters is the long-term health of our national parks.
A lot of people are hot and bothered about the Bush administration's
proposed rule to allow concealed weapons in national parks, but
practically, is this really worth our time and effort?
Yes, it's maddening to tolerate such low-end, election-year politics
spurred by the National Rifle Association (NRA), but I say give the
gun lobby this hollow victory, so we can spend our time and energy on
issues that could really help our national parks instead of worrying
about something that's already happening and hasn't caused any problems.
Last year, after efforts to attach the loosening of the 25-year-old
regulation that restricts but does not ban taking firearms into
national parks as a rider on a must-pass bill failed, the new strategy
became the administrative rule-making process, which is currently
underway. The comment period ended August 8, and the Department of the
Interior, which includes the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, received more than 100,000 comments. Obviously,
these comments, even if 99 percent opposed to the new rule, won't
matter, which is the case with most "public involvement" exercises.
The Bush administration is obligated to do make "this important step
in the right direction" for the NRA. Even with widespread opposition,
you can bet your last bullet that our lame duck will approve the rule
before he leaves office with his tail between its legs.
As I've said in a past column on the subject, people who believe so
strongly that they always need a gun to protect themselves from bears
and perverts are unlikely to leave it home when they go to a national
park. Instead, they illegally take concealed weapons into national
parks. Rangers know this happens, but do nothing to stop it. What
could they do? Search every car? Have rangers ever searched a car for
firearms at any national park entrance station? For many years, this
has gone on, and has it been a problem? No. The national parks have
traditionally had very low crime rates, and that's unlikely to change
when the new rule goes into effect.
Will backpackers start taking big handguns and stub-nosed shotguns
with them? Not likely. Backpackers are the type of people who count
out their vitamin pills and drill holes in toothbrushes to save
weight. You think they'll throw a three-pound revolver in the pack
when they know the chances of needing it are as close to zero as you
can get.
(Interestingly, ten years ago, I went on a nine-day backpacking
adventure in Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska, and the NPS
actually recommended we take a shotgun with us, which we declined to
do, primarily because nobody wanted to carry it. And alas, we returned
safely.)
The proposed rule has been totted as "lifting the handgun ban" in
national parks, but this exaggerates what the rule does. Park visitors
can already take handguns and all other legal firearms into national
parks, but they must be dissembled, unloaded and inaccessible (such as
cased in the truck of the car). This regulation was put in place in
1983 by none other than a NRA darling, Republican Ronald Reagan, and
under the reign of terror of Secretary of the Interior James Watt.
As currently proposed, the rule would be extremely confusing, so let's
fix that problem before it becomes NPS policy. Right now, it only
applies to national parks in states that allow concealed guns in state
parks. Among western states, that includes Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming, not California,
Idaho, New Mexico, Texas or Utah. (But you gotta think laws in those
states will be changing fast after this new rule hits the books.) Gun-
toting tourists will have to be on their toes as they travel from park
to park--or, get this, parts of parks! National parks like Yellowstone
and Death Valley cross state lines. In Yellowstone, for example, you
could only carry your gun in the Montana and Wyoming parts, not the
Idaho part. Ditto for Death Valley, which crosses the California/
Nevada border.
So, let's forget the state park requirement, and just let people have
their guns in all national parks. In the meantime, the greens can
concentrate on more important issues like getting adequate funding for
national parks, making parks more affordable and accessible, trail and
road maintenance, and improved interpretation. These and other issues
related to the long-term health of our national parks need all our
time, money and energy.
