US Parks Officials Urge Lawmakers Not to Overturn Gun Ban

[dihappy]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... spanc12564

By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
2/7/2008

WASHINGTON -- Park rangers warned that a move to drop a ban on carrying loaded guns into national parks -- backed by Oklahoma's two U.S. senators -- could degrade experiences for visitors, pose a safety risk and hurt efforts to crack down on illegal activity such as poaching.

Although almost half of the U.S. Senate supports doing away with the current policy, critics are zeroing in on an expected amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits huntSEE ing," stated a letter urging senators to vote against the Coburn amendment.

"The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes -- the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors."

Dated Feb. 1, the letter was sent by the Association of Na tional Park Rangers of Golden, Colo.; the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees of Tucson, Ariz.; and U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police of Twain Harte, Calif.

In a separate statement,
the park rangers' association also pointed out that guns are banned from other government sites, including the Senate offices.

Coburn declined to comment.

He and fellow Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe joined 45 other senators, including eight Democrats, in signing a Dec. 14 letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to have the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service drop their current policies.

"We appeal to you on this matter in the interest of Sec ond Amendment rights and consistency in firearms policy across federal public land management agencies," their letter stated.

"These regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, who wish to transport and carry firearms on or across these lands."

They also pointed out the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have different policies on transporting firearms across the federal lands they regulate.

"These inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome, and unnecessary," they wrote.

Kempthorne, a former U.S. senator and governor from Idaho, has not responded.

"We are reviewing the letter," said Chris Paolino, an agency spokesman.

Paolino believes the National Park Service's policy, which allows guns in parks as long as they are not readily accessible and not ready to be fired, dates back to the Reagan administration.

Policies at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management do vary, he said.

While not mentioning Coburn's amendment specifically, a second letter signed by The Wilderness Society, Campaign for America's Wilderness, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and U.S. Public Interest Research Group also urged senators to oppose any amendment that would weaken the legislation on public lands.

[frankie_the_yankee]

"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits huntSEE ing," stated a letter urging senators to vote against the Coburn amendment.

Gee, how about "protection of innocent life"?

"The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes -- the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors."

How can someone dare to make a statement like that when ordinary people are lawfully carrying concealed handguns in 40 states, with a crime rate that is so low it is practically off the charts?

And the last time I checked, they are not screening people who enter national parks through metal detector checkpoints. Nor are they exercising full control over the "borders" of those parks. (Like the Feds are really good at border control, hey?) So why would anyone with half a brain or more think that a criminal, a poacher, etc. would give up on their plan because "guns are not allowed"?

I'd like to see hearings on CSPAN where the people spouting this nonsense could be cross examined. In fact, I'd like to do it myself.

I'll bet the people making the pro-rights argument would come off looking a lot better.

[KBCraig]

Wow, those NPS LEOs must do a lot of poaching... they're all armed!

[Photoman]

Just the ramblings of another elitist slacker. They don't want anyone but them having guns and they're too lazy to track down and prosecute gun abusers.

[dihappy]

"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits huntSEE ing," stated a letter urging senators to vote against the Coburn amendment.

Gee, how about "protection of innocent life"?

"The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes -- the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors."

How can someone dare to make a statement like that when ordinary people are lawfully carrying concealed handguns in 40 states, with a crime rate that is so low it is practically off the charts?

And the last time I checked, they are not screening people who enter national parks through metal detector checkpoints. Nor are they exercising full control over the "borders" of those parks. (Like the Feds are really good at border control, hey?) So why would anyone with half a brain or more think that a criminal, a poacher, etc. would give up on their plan because "guns are not allowed"?

I'd like to see hearings on CSPAN where the people spouting this nonsense could be cross examined. In fact, I'd like to do it myself.

I'll bet the people making the pro-rights argument would come off looking a lot better.

Frankie,
I thought the same thing. Some of these antis have really lost their common sense!

In addition, in the great park called Big Bend here in Texas, you may find yourself within a shouts distance from the border with no one around for miles. I personally know that most mexicans crossing to be fine people, but there are a few who will take advantage of anything and everyone they come in contact with and i do not wish to be out enjoying this great state without a means to defend myself.

These idiots who think guns do not belong in national parks are the same ones who say "guns dont belong in our schools"

[anygunanywhere]

PLease refer to my prior postings on reasonable restrictions.

Once DC ban goes away this one should be next.

Anygunanywhere