Keep parks free of firearms

On March 4, 2008, Bill wrote:

“Halfway around, you encounter an unfriendly hiker carrying a loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol.”

Because hikers just go around yielding their firearms in a crazy manner? People need to be more realistic when describing possible scenarios instead of sounding absurd.

It’s a fact that crimes, including murder are committed inside national parks. I believe the NRA is indicating that persons already authorized to carry concealed weapons (CCW Permits) should be allowed to carry for their, and perhaps even the general public’s protection.

Remember, law abiding citizens that go thru the proper procedure for obtaining firearms and permits in a responsible and lawful manner do not commit crimes.

Let’s change that first statement to…

“Halfway around, you encounter an unfriendly character acting suspicious and fear that he may become aggressive towards you and your party. Someone in your party is carrying a concealed and legally licensed loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol….

Any story can be bent or be written with bias. Please make an educated and common sense conclusion to any possible scenario that is given instead of jumping on the anti-guns or even pro-guns bandwagon. Thinking, it’s not a crime yet. Good day.

FoA comments: If thinking is a crime, then you just shot yourself in the foot with your own gun. This is not about carrying concealed weapons.

“From its inception, the National Park Service has required that guns be unloaded and kept out of sight. This helps park rangers control poaching and makes parks a place of refuge for both people and animals.”

The opening hypothetical of the article is specifically about meeting an unfriendly individual openly carrying a loaded weapon — an unsettling experience in any situation for most of us. And that is the point in raising the hypothetical. Who wants to be unsettled (as well as possibly endangered) while relaxing in a park? However, if you find some thrill in such a confrontation, just go to a Wyoming state park where it is legal to carry loaded, unconcealed weapons.

On March 4, 2008, KDC wrote:

Suppose you are in the National Park and you do come across this crazy person wielding a 9mm handgun, which he has in his possession illegally by the way.(94.5% of crimes committed with handguns are committed by handguns obtained illegally. That is and FBI statistic) HE begins on his shooting spree. The Park Ranger is obviously not the closest to the scene………………Round after round is being discharged….still waiting for the Ranger to respond.

Now lets put a twist on that and rather then waiting for the Ranger to respond from his post, which would obviously be a distance away due to the fact the criminal did do some research, there is a trained citizen with a CCW permit, or better yet an off duty officer. The event is then either over or in the worst case scenario is at least contained while the Park Ranger is able to respond.


I am an ATF Agent. How about expanding on the hypothetical. How many of the “crazy 9mm wielding” people who are about to commit a crime actually came across the gun they carry legally or walk into a store or bank with it out in the open? How many of the “crazy 9mm wielding” people will abide by the rules? The chances of that person legally and openly carrying the firearm(even if out in the open) is going to go crazy are much less then the chances of just coming across a crazy wielding a gun. While I will sympathize that an open carry is not the best way to go about things. Again myself as an ATF Agent don’t agree with an open carry scenario as it points out who you are in some cases and can be intimidating to those around you in other cases. I completely understand that argument. The way around that is a concealed carry rather than a straight prohibition. Criminals are going to find a way to get a gun through regardless. I highly highly doubt that a person who is openly carrying a gun is going to turn into crazed mad man as he is already being watched more keenly by a citizen to begin with. It is not a common characteristic in most parts of the country for an open carry. I can confirm that even with my own experiences on days I have to go to and from court in the summer when concealment is hard to come by. If someone wants something they will find a way to do it. To think by not allowing guns into a park means there will be none is absolutely absurd. There are criminals behind bars all across America who have time and time again found away to get what they want done regardless of laws on paper. Why continue to punish those who do follow the laws in order to keep our families safe?

Without allowing people who have proven they can handle a firearm, and/or allowing an officer who is highly trained and PERMITTED BY LAW to carry anywhere in the U.S., who is going to stop that “crazy 9mm wielding” person once he starts shooting? The man/woman with a stick? There will be more casualties with prevention than there would be with law abiding, trained citizens having access to their weapon to stop such a threat. That has been proven in the most recent school shootings as well as the church and mall shootings. Again being an ATF Officer and one who travels to National Parks frequently, the Rangers have a substantial amount of ground to cover and are strained as is…… Why strip them of some much needed help?

AND I QUOTE
“The opening hypothetical of the article is specifically about meeting an unfriendly individual openly carrying a loaded weapon — an unsettling experience in any situation for most of us. And that is the point in raising the hypothetical. Who wants to be unsettled (as well as possibly endangered) while relaxing in a park? However, if you find some thrill in such a confrontation, just go to a Wyoming state park where it is legal to carry loaded, unconcealed weapons.”

Again I sympathize with the feeling one gets from viewing and open carried firearm. I think the reason is it unsettling is just because most people are not exposed to firearms. Most people just have the info portrayed by the news media that guns are bad and only murderers have them has flawed society and intimidated people more than guns will ever do. I do believe in “Gun Control” laws. However a ban on firearms completely is not the solution. The fact the man/woman who is intimidating has a firearm isn’t why he/she’s intimidating alone. Said person would be intimidating nonetheless without one if he/she’s in fact ignorant/intimidating. If the simple fact he/she has a gun is intimidating enough on its own then the person who is intimidated needs to re-evaluate himself/herself and become more educated and tolerant. Again I sympathize with an open carry argument and understand it does cause intimidation, but I don’t feel it necessary to punish other folks who have followed thel aw in every accord for one’s insecurities.

And in closing….
The idea of being able to carry an unloaded firearm makes that firearm less useful than a rock. Things happen in split seconds and by the time you will realize you need to load it and then use it it will already be over.

Thank you for you time
An animal loving ATF Agent

FoA comments: The hypothethical in the article is both reasonable and likely — encountering someone in the park openly carrying a loaded weapon. I haven’t heard of any wild shooting sprees happening in a national park — especially not any ended by a licensed-to-carry gunowner. But then, maybe that’s because the carrying of unconcealed loaded weapons is still banned in national parks. So if it ain’t broken, why fix it?

And even well-meaning gunowners can be disarmed by less well-meaning gun toters, knife-weilders, rock-throwers or even someone with a pointy stick. When that happens, the situation is made worse, not better.

You are right that an unloaded gun is less useful in the heat of the moment, and that is one reason for maintaining that restriction in national parks. The delay in loading the weapon gives the user just a few more moments to thoughtfully ponder the question, “Do I really want to blow this person away?”

There isn’t a perfect solution to every possible hypothetical that can be raised here. But for many of the same reasons that the public is not allowed to carry loaded unconcealed weapons in courtrooms and schools, on airplanes and public streets, nor even into police stations (try that some time), neither should they be allowed to do so in national parks.

On March 7, 2008, praxis75 wrote:

The simple argument is that gun laws only hurt responsible gun owners (not an absolute. some people who can legally obtain weapons never should ie VT gunman). Congress can pass all the laws they want and criminals will continue to violate those laws. It’s time to face the real world and not the cute and fuzzy one we pretend to live in.
And if it’s an effort to stop poaching I have to ask what type of retarded criminal would advertise the nature of the crime he intends to committ by waving around his gun?

I’ve spend lots of time in the backcountry and met tons of people, a few carrying guns most not and have never felt uneasy about it. Some are even surprised that I’m not carrying for my own safety. But when I meet unfriendly people that throws me off, that’s what makes me unsettled. A’holes in the woods ruin the serenity. Blame the people for who they are not because they carry a gun.

[Blog editors’ note: National parks should be off-limits to gunners, and those who think an animal inside a national park should be shot need to stay out of that park.]

On August 17, 2010, DB78 wrote:

I have lived in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and currently reside in Wyoming. There is a difference in culture and stance on guns in each of these states. Not that any one solution is best, they are just different.

Speaking to Wyoming in particular, there are animals in the parks that have the potential to seriously injure or kill a human being. I enjoy fishing and this activity puts a person in danger of bear attacks and moose attacks in particular. This probably sounds ridiculous to the outsider, but it is a reality that residents that aren’t just driving through must deal with. Three campers were attacked, one killed a couple weeks ago by a rogue bear. A fisherman was killed a month or so ago. Last year, a guy was cutting down some of the standing dead and was attacked by a mountain lion. I carry bear-spray which isn’t 100% effective on anything that really wants to do harm. A fireman back up is a plausible and effective deterrent and may have reduced injury or prevented it altogether in the 3 above examples.

In Yellowstone, where tourists are concentrated and rangers are more prevalent in high interaction areas, guns are banned. In the state forests, typically frequented by residents all year (I’m in Shoshone Nat’l Forest a couple times a month year-round)guns are allowed and rangers are sparse. Tourists utilize the areas in lower concentrations and then mostly during the 3 summer months of the year. The rest of the year, non-residents flee the freezing temperature and winds, and residents use the parks in solitude.

Someone visiting may not understand the culture and may take offense to guns being exposed. I don’t see this as any different than being shocked by the many different cultures existing within the regions/cities of the United States. People across the country have different lifestyles in general. People visiting need to understand and respect that there is a difference in lifestyle, instead of trying to push their beliefs and comforts on others.

There are many scenarios that one can imagine or create to their own purpose. Just realize that 99.9% of all people are inherently good (I made this statistic up, but it seems about right). Those that are bad will be bad no matter what laws are passed to the contrary. The additional restrictions, whether its guns, foods, expression, etc. reduce the freedom of choice to only those that already obey.

FoA comments:

It’s a good story, but it doesn’t give any evidence that any lives would be saved from the animal attacks cited if only humans had weapons. And as more crimes and killings are committed by people carrying guns rather than directly prevented by them, it’s a hard argument to swallow that everyone in parks or even the whole world should carry weapons to prevent crimes or animal attacks.