As ought to be reasonable to assume given my pseudonym, I support widening the ability of law-abiding, noncriminal Americans (actually Britons and Canadians as well) to own and possess arms for both self-defense and recreation. I didn't write much about Heller, because as a non-lawyer there wasn't much I could usefully add to the dialog.
But post-Heller, we're seeing interesting regulatory and legal challenges to the prevailing "no-guns no-way" stance, and there are useful things that folks like us can do.
The National Parks Service has extended their comment period on a proposed rule change that would make bringing guns into national parks legal; that's a good idea on so many levels, I'm not sure where to begin - between predatory animals and predatory humans, and a thin-stretched population of park rangers I think it's highly responsible to be prepared to protect yourself and your family and friends.
Note that the firmly anti-gun National Parks Conservation Association has set up a form where you can send a comment directly to the regulators. You may want to edit their default message just a bit, however - mine was edited to read:
"America's national parks are some of the most peaceful places in our country. While they offer solitude and an opportunity for reflection, they also present risks from natural and human predators. That's why I am so pleased to learn that the administration is considering allowing loaded guns in our national parks.Our park rangers cannot keep up with the activity already happening in our parks, and opening up the parks to allow guns even where hunting is not allowed will allow responsible, armed citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones when the Park Service cannot be available to defend them from threatening wildlife and criminals.
Please do open up our parks to loaded guns. This administration would be setting a truly decent and honorable precedent by allowing loaded weapons in our parks, and respecting the trustworthiness and basic rights of the millions of law-abiding respectful American citizens.
Sincerely,
Marc Danziger"
There's also the opportunity to send a message to your friends about the importance of this - I sent a message to Kim DuToit and Glenn Reynolds. I'm sure you can think of a few friends who would like to participate!
If you'd prefer to submit your comments directly (you never know if NCPA vets comments before sending them on) you can do so directly on the US Department of the Interior website.
Hear, hear.
Even if they don't vet them, there's the possibility that the park service doesn't closely read all the emails, and is just directing all the NPCA originated emails into their "These are agin guns" bin. So, yeah, you probably want to comment directly.
Is the purpose of national parks to have a safe place to get away from it all? Or is it to experience the wild?
I can think of two issues with national parks that point in different directions. A number of national parks jut into surrounding communities and many of the community roads traverse federal park jurisdiction. Allowance should be made to coordinate park policies with the local communities.
Second, the national parks are habitat for predatory animals and people will go into the parks to kill these animals if they can get away with it.
A artist acquaintance of mine was murdered in Yellowstone while out alone painting. A gun would have done her good.
I favor gun rights, but I'll play devil's advocate here on one thing:
I'm a bit leery of the practicality of guns in national parks. The first thing I usually ask myself in such a situation is, can I use one safely? For self defense, hmm, probably. Most of those cases should be short range affairs, so hopefully I won't have to worry about hitting something I don't want to, like another hiker. Then again, I've never had to be in such a situation. There might be variables I'm not aware of.
Secondly, I'm pretty sure hunting will be forbidden, unless the park is specifically set up to support that. (I can't conceive of a park that would, unless it was VERY organized to where you could be sure you wouldn't hit another hunter by accident - only one party per unit area, etc.) So, say you're a park ranger, and you hear a shot. What do you do? Chances are, you'll need to investigate, as there's probably a problem, either a dead formerly dangerous animal to clear, or worse, another person, and maybe an ugly dispute still in progress. And that's assuming you can even tell what direction it came from.
For these reasons, I'd be all for guns on parks, still, but at the same time, I think I'd want to let the rangers know what I'll be up to. Let them know I have one (or more), and what kinds, and how I plan to use them. That way they'll know whether they need to send help if they hear anything. That, and respect the culture toward target shooting, if they permit it; I'd prefer not to disturb other guests.
Don't know if the park service is reading those emails, but mine apparently got read by my Congressman, I just got an email reply from her as a result.
If you're a Park Ranger, and you hear a gun shot in the woods, the most likely case is a suicide. But that's true now, too, in spite of the prohibition.
As for not being able to conceive hunting in National Parks, what about National Forests? Hunting is normal and common in them. What's the difference between a "park" and a "forest"? For a few of the parks, there is an issue with the number of visitors; but hardly all of them, and most of the visitors stick close to the roads. For the backcountry of the National Parks, the difference is just its legal designation, and (therefore) which Federal agency manages it and writes the rules.
People have been carrying guns in National Forests all this time without particular incident. This is presented by the NPCA as some sort of horrible thing about to happen, but really, it would just be a harmonizing of the rules in our "parks" with the rules in our "forests."
I'm not sure which way I stand on this issue but I will say that the differences between our National Parks and the National Forests are quite distinct even if, in many locations, they abut one another. To harmonize the rules between them is a difficult concept to grasp since they were set up with very different purposes in mind.
I will also suggest that poaching in both the Parks and the Forests is a problem, just ask a black bear.
You mean the black bears that have grown in population over 40% in the last twenty-five years?
A.L.
Not to mention the innocent picinic baskets involved.
Yes, their population and range
is expanding
And legitimate hunting opportunities are increasing on state game lands and in the National Forests as a result,
but poaching for black bears continues to be an issue across the country.
One more link
PD Shaw,
"Allowance should be made to coordinate park policies with the local communities."
Yes, that's exactly what the proposal IS--to basically act like the Forest Service and BLM already does, and follow the laws of whatever state the National Park unit is in.
"people will go into the parks to kill these animals if they can get away with it."
Surely you don't think that poachers are dissuaded by the current regulations? Remember, these regs don't ban guns entirely, they just require them to be unloaded and inaccessible. This renders them useless for self-defense, but because bringing in a (properly-stored) rifle is perfectly legal, it's not like there are currently vehicle searches that are turning away would-be poachers at the entrances.