Time For Public Comment On New Rules For Guns In National Parks

NRAILA ^ | 4/2/08 | staff

[epow]

Time For Public Comment On New Rules For Guns In National Parks

Friday, May 02, 2008

On April 30, the U.S. Department of Interior, through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, issued a proposed rule to amend the current strict regulations on firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA-ILA led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands. The public has until June 30 to comment on the proposal, and NRA-ILA strongly urges members to file comments in support.

“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state carry laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction, and we applaud efforts to amend the out-of-date regulations.”

These new regulations will provide uniformity across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service lands did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges.

The NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect changes in state laws on carrying firearms. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Now, there are 40 states that respect the right to carry, via “shall issue” laws or otherwise.

This proposed rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to carry concealed firearms for self-protection on most Interior Department lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state carry law in which these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a bipartisan letter to the Department of Interior supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands and wildlife refuges.

Anti-gun groups have already geared up a massive propaganda campaign, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., calling the proposal “appalling” and others suggesting there will be carnage among both park visitors and wildlife if the proposal is adopted. These predictions, of course, have not come true in any state that’s adopted a Right-to-Carry law, or on other federal lands where firearms possession is already allowed.

The NRA will file comments, including suggestions that the final regulation should mirror state law in all respects (not just for concealed carry), and that the proposal’s reference to state laws on parks or “any similar unit of state land” is vague, and could lead in some states to the type of patchwork regulation the proposal was meant to do away with.

Again, NRA members should take this opportunity to help write our nation’s laws, by submitting comments until June 30. Members should submit comments online here, or mail comments to:

Public Comments Processing Attn: 1024-AD70 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222 Arlington, VA 22203

[Sacajaweau]

Federal Lands are "THE PEOPLE'S LANDS".

The restriction should never have happened. People have the right to protect themselves.

[Erik Latranyi]

...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., calling the proposal “appalling” and others suggesting there will be carnage among both park visitors and wildlife if the proposal is adopted.

Ask yourself why can't these idiots come up with arguments other than this one every time concealed carry is debated?

[G.Mason]

" ... The restriction should never have happened. People have the right to protect themselves."

People can say that until they are blue in the face.

The fact of the matter is that you either believe that, or you don't.

I believe it, and I carry whenever I go into a Florida wildlife management area. I have done so long before the laws were changed to "allow" it.

In the past, even with a CCW Floridians were not allowed to carry in the WMA's

It's the two legged animals that one usually need protection from.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

[Dick Bachert]

The comment site is conveniently down for “maintenance.”

Wonder if it will be back up by June 30th?

[Dick Bachert]

The comment site is conveniently down for “maintenance.”

(Like they give a crap what WE think because, as everyone in Washington knows, we are incapable of that basic process.)

Wonder if it will be back up by June 30th?

[sergeantdave]

“Fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a bipartisan letter to the Department of Interior supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands and wildlife refuges.”

Gee, what’s wrong with this sentence?

Fact is, unelected bureaucrats are writing law without input from elected representatives voted in by the people.

In every sense, these slimey Washington bureaucrats are ruling over us without our consent. Nor do we have the ability to vote these federal fascists out of office.

By definition, rule by an unelected and unaccountable entity is a dictatorship.

The entire criminal fascist syndicate occupying Washington - the bureaucracy, other than those involved in national security - needs to be ripped out by the roots and burned.

Either we have a representative republic or we don’t. Obviously with congress petitioning these unelected bureaucrats to change a law, we don’t have a representative government. Every day we look more like a soviet union.

[epow]

In the past, even with a CCW Floridians were not allowed to carry in the WMA's

When I lived in FL we often camped in the Ocala National Forest and occasionally in Myakka State Park. I don't know if guns were banned except during hunting season, but I was never without one in my camper at any time we were there.

The same went for any other public camping areas we stayed in wherever we traveled across the US, I never camped without a gun close at hand no matter where we went. I don't advocate breaking the law, but the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution, and according to Amendment II I was in full compliance with that supreme law. I refuse to meekly submit to criminal attack just because liberal politicians believe that their irrational bias against guns overrides the US Constitution.

[epow]

Wonder if it will be back up by June 30th?

Good question. We know the bureaucrats are opposed to the rules change, and I don't put any kind of subterfuge past them.

[epow]

Obviously with congress petitioning these unelected bureaucrats to change a law, we don’t have a representative government.

The elected lawmakers aren't any btter than the bureaucrats IMHO. If a majority wanted to they could change the federal rules by simply passing a law. But by using this dodge they can tell their gun owning constituents that they tried to get the rules changed but the park service people took comments from the people and the people said no. Who in the private sector can challenge the results of the comment poll if the bureaucrats in charge of running it lie about it?

[TXnMA]

I am not one who advocates messing with our Constitution, but here are a couple of amendments I would support:

1. "No regulation or policy enacted by unelected employees of the People shall bear the force of law, unless specifically enacted as law by Congress.

2. "Raising revenue" is not a legitimate purpose of any branch of government -- at any level.

The first would help us bring rogue bureaucracies like IRS and BATFE under the control of the citizenry.

The second would stop travesties like Kelo, which allows your property to be taken by eminent domain -- and given to Wal*Mart -- under the excuse that doing so would "raise tax revenues".

[Tzimisce]

“....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wow - that is such a hard phrase to understand.

[epow]

I would support both of your amendments, but good luck on getting them passed by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures that allow local governments to condemn and take possession of all the private property they can grab in the name of imminent domain and give it practically free of charge to their big money contributors like Walmart. The only way that those outrageous situations can be changed is by a voter revolt, and in our bread and circuses political climate I don’t see that ever happening.

[TXnMA]

Be aware that commenting on this issue places you and your personal data in a government database -- much of which is viewable by the public...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* denotes required field
# denotes public viewable field

# First Name
# Middle Initial
# Last Name
Mailing Address
Mailing Address 2
# City
# Country
# State or Province
# Postal Code
Email Address
Phone Number (format: ###-###-####)
Fax Number
# Organization Name
# Submitter's Representative
# Government Agency Type
# Government Agency

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I fish beautiful Caddo Lake,

which is a patchwork of State waters and WMA areas -- and it is usually not clear as to which jurisdiction you are in. I will not give up my Second Amendment rights simply because I might cross some invisible line -- defined by unelected bureaucrats -- out in the wilderness...

[epow]

I will not give up my Second Amendment rights simply because I might cross some invisible line -- defined by unelected bureaucrats -- out in the wilderness...

Good on you, and neither will I.

BTW, as a side comment I give my unqualified stamp of approval to your non-PC tagline. I am convinced that Allah is just another name for Satan.

[ExSoldier]

THIS is the letter I submitted:

For decades the rate of crime in rural areas has been creeping upwards. Mostly this is due to a combination of factors: Drug cartels seeking areas to refine and manufacture where law enforcement is thin and curiosity by locals is containable. Illegal immigration is a huge portion of the reason along the borders and many of our national parks are part of a sort of underground railroad path for these illegals to make the journey north. An important part of this network of trails and paths cuts through our national parks and forests and the SPINE of the network is called the "Appalachian Trail" in the east and the "Pacific Crest" in the western part of the country. These trails are isolated but maintained by the National Park Service. But due to manpower shortages and budget constraints you could spend weeks on the trails before you see a park employee. However you'll see other hikers daily and a certain percentage of these stand to be predators.

Many of these people are hardened criminals who won't hesitate to take the life of a law enforcement officer not to mention a helpless citizen. The rates for forcible rape in these situations are truly horrifying. Drug smugglers often take the same routes and have the same issues. In the woods there is no way for 911 to be effective and many times a cell signal isn't going to be attainable anyway due to the terrain and isolation of the caller. The only recourse for law abiding citizens in these areas who wish to lawfully partake of the magnificent outdoor experiences afforded by our park system is to use the same means they have to protect their families in the home: A firearm. Allowing holders of state concealed weapons permits to have ready access inside a national park is an important method of deterrence to all groups of those who would prey upon the innocent.

Especially in light of the fact that the actual numbers who DO carry a concealed permit into a park or other venue will be miniscule in light of the benefits derived in that the criminals won't KNOW who has the gun so it becomes a deadly shell game for them with the odds against their best interests. Speaking as a former State of Florida Parole and Probation Officer I have it directly from the mouths of the felons that such a scenario represents a nightmare for the prospects of shearing the "sheep" in safety.

Looking at the rates for the state of FLORIDA in relation to the revocation of concealed firearms permits revoked for cause we get an astute answer to the detractors of this common sense measure:

Out of over 1.3 million licenses issued since 1987, only 165 were revoked because of firearms used. That means that only about 1 out of every 7878 licensees committed a violent act with a gun. Hmm, that would be .01269%. Pretty small numbers. In the light of doing the "people's business" such numbers don't even make a blip on the radar. In fact I would consider any politician who sees otherwise as a self declared opponent to the mere PREAMBLE to the US Constitution!

Moreover, the Recreational Vehicles that simply pull into a campground for a weekend of respite from the noise and hazards of the city should and indeed MUST be afforded the same rights to self defense and defense of family. This is especially important since an RV is able to be declared a "second home" by the IRS and the interest payments are deductible in the same fashion.

Ladies and gentlemen thank you for taking the time to listen to these arguments in favor of allowing people who are holders of concealed weapons permits the right to self defense in our national parks and for those who are enjoying the comforts of a moveable SECOND HOME the same rights they enjoy in the fixed version.

[epow]

Your letter makes excellent points in favor of the proposed revisions of the current no-guns policy.

Less than 30 miles from where I live a beautiful young lady hiker on a US government administered hiking trail was recently taken captive by a vicious, demented 2-legged animal who tortured and raped her for four days before murdering her in cold blood. All that took place on the Appalachian Trail which is of course managed by the federal government and is strictly off limits to privately owned firearms. Now that the murderer is in custody he is strongly suspected of murdering several other hikers on the same trail in GA, and NC, as well as in FL public recreational areas.

If any one of those murdered hikers had been carrying a firearm it is very possible, even likely, that most or all of those innocent people who were cruelly murdered with knives and improvised clubs would still be alive, and their murderer would now be dead or would have been in jail before he had the opportunity to continue his murderous rampage. Yet liberals like Feinstein and Schumer would rather have innocent young women raped and murdered than to allow law abiding people to carry guns on federally managed trails, campgrounds, parks, waterways, and wilderness areas.

If I had my way Senator Feinstein and her fellow anti-gun Senators would be locked one at a time in the same cell with the demented murderer of that young lady for a week or so to get a better understanding of why the constitutionally guaranteed right of law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms is more critically important in this increasingly lawless day and age than ever before.