Rangers, Conservation & Anti-Violence Groups Seek National Park Gun Ban

President Obama is called upon to keep American families and wildlife safe in National Parks.

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - In a letter sent to President Obama today, several national park ranger organizations, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence asked for the President’s help in stopping efforts to allow loaded rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in America’s national parks—risking the safety of American families and wildlife.

“...the National Park Service would be forced to allow loaded guns in parks, battlefields, historic sites and monuments after decades of requiring guns to be unloaded and stored when traveling through these special, well-visited locations,” the groups wrote to President Obama.

“We ask you to help stop this amendment by signaling your support for its removal before it reaches your desk.”

To curry favor with the National Rifle Association, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) this week sponsored an amendment to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2009.

As passed by the U.S. Senate, the Coburn amendment overturns the existing Reagan-era regulation, which supported the authority of the National Park Service to permit unloaded and safely stowed guns in national parks.

Instead, the amendment, which is more radical than the regulation proposed by the Bush Administration last year, imposes state law, permitting openly-carried rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in national parks if the firearm is in compliance with state law.

“Assault rifles have no place at campfire talks and ranger walks in our national parks,” said NPCA Associate Director and former park ranger Bryan Faehner.

“This rider is a vote against the safety of American families in our national parks. The U.S. Senate disregarded the concerns of national park rangers and former Park Service directors who want American families and wildlife to remain safe in our national parks. We hope that President Obama won’t do the same.”

“The Coburn amendment would result in more guns in our national parks and put more hikers, campers, and families at risk. It is a reckless measure that should be rejected—whether the gun lobby tries to push it on to credit card reform legislation or anything else,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“If signed into law, this bill would create confusion for visitors who may not know what law would apply to the national park they are visiting, and would further complicate the job of America’s understaffed national park ranger corps,” said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police.

“This is astoundingly misguided and presents a clear threat to not only visitor and ranger safety, but to wildlife.”

In a letter sent to Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service opposed changing the existing Reagan-era regulation, stating, “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

The American public also registered opposition to changing the existing regulation: of the 140,000 people who voiced their positions on this issue during the comment period, 73 percent opposed having loaded, concealed weapons in our national parks.

“From their beginnings, national parks were intended to be special places where we can get away from the routines, pressures, and risks we face in our everyday lives. We believe that Americans want to keep national parks that way—and not like the mean streets of some U.S. cities.

"Allowing firearms in national parks, in accordance with state law, significantly diminishes their national stature, and increases the risk not only to visitors and employees, but to the very natural and historic resources Americans expect to be protected,” said Bill Wade, chair of the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees."

On March 19, 2009, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction against the implementation of the Bush Administration regulation.

The judge found that the Bush Administration’s process was “astoundingly flawed” because the Department of the Interior “abdicated their [National Environmental Policy Act] obligations” and “ignored substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts.”

The Obama Administration reported to the court on April 17, 2009, that it would not appeal the ruling, and would conduct the appropriate environmental review as to the potential effects of the rule and proposed alternatives.

Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and president of the Association of National Park Rangers, with a membership of 1,200 consisting of both current and former Park Service employees expressed apprehension about the ability of the Park Service to provide the best available protection to park resources under the Coburn amendment, should it become law.

“Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said McElveen.

“One of our members reported to me that in Yellowstone National Park, rangers found an 11-year-old kid on the side of the road illegally shooting at squirrels with his dad. When confronted, his dad said, “I always carry a loaded pistol, and these are just squirrels.”

If he had not been carrying a readily-accessible, loaded firearm, I don’t think this incident would have happened,” McElveen added.

“The presence of a loaded weapon is one of the only clues available for rangers to discover and prosecute those who illegally kill wildlife,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.

“Allowing loaded weapons in national parks will put wildlife—and possibly park visitors—in the crosshairs, as well as create even more law enforcement challenges for already overtaxed park rangers.”

The Senate version of the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2009 is expected be conferenced with the House version of the bill, which does not contain language about loaded guns in national parks, and then sent to the president for his review before Memorial Day.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Allan Erickson May 15, 2009 7:01 pm (Pacific time)

@ John Hardin... But they did credit it to its source, didn't they? Papers print press releases as news pieces all the time. Hell... the local network TV news is in large part, press releases, promos and community fluff... Maybe if one of you spent the time crafting an Oped instead of whining in the comment section you'd be making your point to a much larger audience is all that I'm saying. I don't have a dog in this fight.

John Hardin May 15, 2009 5:17 pm (Pacific time)

H dudley wrote: "There is a lack of gun control in this country ..." 30,000+ laws regarding firearms is a "lack of gun control"? How many laws would you consider we need before we actually _do_ have gun control?

H dudley May 15, 2009 1:17 pm (Pacific time)

There is a lack of gun control in this country,that said,National Park Law Enforcement have enought to deal with like employees peeing into Old Faithful!There is no need for weapons in National Parks.People who truly care about protecting our beautiful parks and keeping crime out would appreciate this.

John Hardin May 15, 2009 3:32 pm (Pacific time)

Allan Erickson wrote: "offer up an article of your own!" Why? We are not the newsroom staff of the Salem News, and this was not published as an editorial or opinion or press release, but as news. Articles submitted by outsiders should be clearly marked "opinion". Press releases should be clearly marked as such. That they published this blatantly biased press release as news is a telling commentary on the quality of their newsroom's reporting skills and impartiality, or lack thereof. We're lucky that they were clumsy enough to leave the "byline" at the bottom.

ajones May 15, 2009 12:16 pm (Pacific time)

This article is rediculously biased.

Anonymous May 15, 2009 10:41 am (Pacific time)

The Salem-News should either "report" news or come clean and label such "reporting" as this piece as "advertisement", paid or not. Or else put it in the Op-Ed section. Newspapers like this make one wonder if they should be protected by the First Amendment, seeing as how they are willing to throw the very next Amendment under the bus.

Allan Erickson May 15, 2009 9:59 am (Pacific time)

I repeat... for those of you chastising S-N for publishing this piece: offer up an article of your own! Or would you just like some cheese with that whine?

xh May 15, 2009 9:29 am (Pacific time)

So the next time a rabid fox attaches itself to a woman's arm in a park and she runs 3 miles to seek help with a fox dangling off her arm maybe then someone will note that there are legitimate safety concerns in the great outdoors that guns legitimately can help. Sick animals are a threat to hikers and a firearm can prevent a situation from becomming deadly to a human. The safety of humans should come first, and that safety can be better guarded with a gun. This is just one more case of urban concerns deciding that they're more important than rural ones.

Anonymous May 15, 2009 8:58 am (Pacific time)

Allan Erickson wrote: "why don't y'all support the other Amendments as strongly as you do the 2nd?" What makes you think we don't? The subject of this article was firearms rights. Engaging in 4th or 5th Amendment advocacy here would be off-topic.

Molon Labe May 15, 2009 7:32 am (Pacific time)

Wow. Imagine a world where BOTH sides of gun issues were represented in the media! If you're going to copy and paste something almost verbatim, at least balance the laziness with integrity and show the other side. This may upset the sheeple, but at least give them an opportunity to leave the herd and make a decision on their own.

Allan Erickson May 15, 2009 6:52 am (Pacific time)

Why don't one of you friends of the Second Amendment make sure an opposing piece is offered to Salem-News? And, just kind of rhetorically asking here... but why don't y'all support the other Amendments as strongly as you do the 2nd?

Ted Clayton May 14, 2009 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

The Salem-News ought to quickly solicit and post a similar prepared statement by one of the leading pro-Second Amendment groups. I am surprised to see this letter from the anti-gun Brady Group presented as though it is a 'news' article. The Constitution does not change or go away, when we enter Park lands. Everyone with an interest in the National Parks should take a few minutes to read the actual law on which our Parks are based. It is nothing like the image of them cultivated by environmental and liberal interests, who sometimes act as though their view alone is valid in setting Park policies. For the brave, for those who would be informed, go ahead and read the "Organic Act of 1916", aka, The National Park Service Act. It's quite short ... but extremely shocking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service_Act

John Hardin May 14, 2009 1:41 pm (Pacific time)

So, will the Salem News publish an NRA press release on this subject as News, just to show how unbiased and ethical journalists you are? "What media bias?" from me, too.

Anonymous May 14, 2009 11:46 am (Pacific time)

This article makes no attempt at viewing the other side of this argument; it is disgraceful. Thank you, guys, for speaking up!

Rob May 14, 2009 10:40 am (Pacific time)

This subject is so misrepresented in most of the media (most of whom, like the New York Times, don't allow for such user feedback as this where readers can call them on it). This isn't about "assault weapons" in national parks, this is about people who already have the right to carry a weapon for their own self defense within the borders of their state not being an instant felon just because they happen to cross park service land. While idiots in some cities, who have no concept of life outside their own urban dump, may not get it, in many parts of the country you can't drive down a public road from place to place without crossing park service land. Why should exercising your constitutional rights in a perfectly legal manner suddenly become a felony just because you cross an invisible line on PUBLIC property? The people crying about this senate amendment have no one but themselves to blame. There was more limited executive order that solved the problem for law-abiding citizens already in place, but they went to court and had it blocked. So now, in order to restore the rights of the citizens of this country against the biased political actions of an anti-rights minority, a 2/3 majority of the representatives of the American people have voted to reinstate our rights. If you don't like the scope of this amendment Brady Bunch, then stop forcing the American People to take strong action in order to retain their fundamental human rights against your ignorant attempts to violate them.

Jorge Caro May 14, 2009 10:07 am (Pacific time)

I enjoy visiting National Parks frequently and there is a serious danger to visitors like myself from certain individuals living in the parks illegally and taking possession or claiming of a piece of land. Many park visitors that have been camping, hiking or enjoying similar activities have been violently robbed and even killed by these people. Now, how on earth would any one deny me the right to defend myself against such people when I have the legal right as well as anyone else to be in the same park to begin with? Sure, I would carry a firearm in the presence of others like park rangers and similar visitors but I do now anyways outside the parks with my concealed weapons permit. Police officers don't mind, they understand I've been through hours of safety classes, training and am familiar with the laws. And the rest of society will never know the firearm is on my person because it's simply not displayed in a threatening manner, "it's hidden from view", "concealed". The same rules and principals should apply within the National Parks. As far as firearm safety and the general safety of the millions of National Park visitors are concerned, "firearms do not go off by themselves as many gun fearing, ill informed people may be intent on believing". Some one has to intentionally HOLD the firearm and DELIBERATELY pull the trigger. Which at this point, "would be considered first degree murder" or "a plausible case of self defense" depending on which end of the stick you happened to standing on. Would poaching increase as a result of allowing firearms into National Parks? Absolutely not, when I go hunt, other gunfire can be heard for from many miles away. So that being said, if you or I heard gun fire when "it's not hunting season" there's absolute trouble in the distance and the authorities need to be notified. It would also take some time for the poacher to remove and/or process the animal allowing authorities more than ample time to investigate. And also, with the advent of the GPS and cell phone, "park authorities can find a location in a heartbeat". Instead of imposing unreasonable rules or rather limiting our due freedom and right to bear arms, impose harsher rules on those presently raising havoc in our National Parks. Jorge Caro, NRA Firearms Instructor and Chief Range Safety Officer. A few issues within Florida. http://www.wesh.com/news/10321253/detail.html http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com/2008/06/dark-forest.html

Rustmeister May 14, 2009 10:00 am (Pacific time)

What media bias?

4B May 14, 2009 9:49 am (Pacific time)

"Hey look! A whole article from the Brady campaign in my inbox" "I'm going to lunch boss"

Mike May 14, 2009 9:44 am (Pacific time)

The whole notion that armed-to-the-teeth hillbillies will be sitting around Ranger Rick's fireside chat at Jellystone is laughable. In enlightened states that issue concealed carry permits (or don't require them at all) VPC members walk down busy city streets without any clue that they are surrounded by peaceful armed citizens. For what reason does the VPC suddenly believe that being armed in a park will suddenly result in manifest armed confrontations? This lie has been disproven time and again as more and more states adopt concealed carry laws, with no indication of the "Wild west blood in the streets" carnage that VPC touts as the sure result of such legislation. Fortunately, except for those who enjoy keeping their heads buried in the sand, the constant and shameless VPC lies have been pretty well busted, and most normal folks now recognize that the ability to effectively defend oneself, whether in a mall, park, church, or campground, is a good thing.

HM-UK May 14, 2009 8:55 am (Pacific time)

It is sad to see that idiocy is pandemic the world should fear most but chooses to ignore. the existing laws regarding firearms in national parks are clear, as are the signs at the entrances. This does not stop poachers from entering the parks or for that matter all the other criminal classes who ignore these regulations. The Brady camp. and their cohorts seek to disarm the legal law abing members of society who, as certified by the state and federal government, have proven themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be trustworthy and responsible. The only time these people will draw their weapons is in defence of their ownor their families lives against some criminal intent on doing them harm. The flora and fauna is safe, as are other park users from these people. Why not concentrate upon the criminal ellements that operate within the comparative safety of the National parks?

Dan May 14, 2009 8:12 am (Pacific time)

Wow, talk about a one sided article! The article listed coutless opinions against the measure, but not a single supporting position. Readers, see this for what it is, a Brady Campaign propaganda piece. I wonder what they paid for this "advertisement".

Carl in Chicago May 14, 2009 7:46 am (Pacific time)

"SENT AS A COURTESY OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE" Well, that explains the hysterical tone of this article.

Sam May 14, 2009 7:37 am (Pacific time)

Hmm. Interesting to note the very last thing mentioned in this feature: "SENT AS A COURTESY OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE." The Brady Campaign- formerly known as Handgun Control Inc.- is the largest anti-gun group in the country. I am wondering if they paid for listing this article, because it is nothing more than advertisement for them. Tell me exactly how preventing LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS from protecting themselves will keep everyone "safer". The problem with that idea is for some reason, criminals in this country seem to disobey the law on a regular basis. Just as is the case with every "gun free zone", they will laugh at any law that prohibits them from possessing weapons, or taking them wherever they wish. I have never understood why some people fail the see the obvious lunacy in punishing the law-abiding in an effort to prevent gun crime. There simply has to be another reason for their efforts. I personally believe that the gun control groups' ultimate goal is the abolishment of private ownership. Yes, I'm quite sure the criminals would be willing to go along with that idea, right? Anyway, people getting attacked (or worse) in national parks is a bigger problem than you think. I myself would rather at least have the option of protecting me and my family. Being looked at as a moral failure by the likes of the Brady Campaign means nothing to me, because I have no illusions about their real motives.....

mrlarry May 14, 2009 6:22 am (Pacific time)

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Return to Top]