NRA Wants It Bad
Swan Song Bill To Allow Guns In Yellowstone Introduced By Sen. Allen
By Brodie Farquhar, 11-29-06
U.S. Senator George Allen, R-Va., introduced a bill earlier this month to allow firearms in national parks. As you might expect, there are strong feelings about the issue either way. And while this lame-duck session of Congress isn't expected to accomplish much of anything, the issue will come up in the next session, from the man who defeated Allen -- Jim Webb, an ardent gun rights politician who used to be a Republican, but turned against the GOP over the Iraq war.
Here's a Webb profile in this morning's Washington Post, and below is my report on Allen's bill and Wyoming reactions.
Gun rights advocates are scrambling in and around Congress, to get a gun ban in national parks revoked, before the newly-elected Democratic majority takes power in Congress in January.
The bill – The National Parks Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006 (or S. 4057) – was introduced by Sen. George Allen, R-Va. on November 16. The bill would over-turn the near total ban on personal firearms in national parks, allowing citizens to bring firearms which are in compliance with federal law and state laws in which the parks are located.
The law does not distinguish between National Park Service properties that are urban in nature (Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia) or remote wilderness (Denali National Park in Alaska).
Here in Wyoming, guns (especially long guns or rifles) were first banned in Yellowstone National Park by the U.S. Army back in the 1870s, as a way to confront the poaching problem.
Currently, hunters are allowed to carry loaded guns into 61 national monuments and preserves where hunting is allowed. Everywhere else in the Service’s 390 sites, guns (rifles, shotguns and handguns) can be transported through parks if they are unloaded, even disassembled, and stored so they’re not immediately available, such as in the trunk of a car. Indeed, guns are allowed in homes inside national parks, inside RVs and even hotel rooms, but not in cars, on trails or on persons, according to National Park Service notices posted at most park entrances.
“The National Rifle Association supports the bill,” said NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner. “We believe it is good practice to allow citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights for self protection.” She added that if she was hiking along a remote trail, she'd want a firearm along for self-defense.
Yet of 274 million visitors to national parks last year, there were 13 murders, 44 rapes, nine armed robberies, 60 aggravated assaults, 270 burglaries and 100 vehicle thefts, according to NPS records. National Park Service spokesman David Barna said national parks are some of the safest environments in the country, but would not comment on Allen’s proposed bill.
Barna does, however, defend the firearms ban. He notes that serious crimes against persons in national parks are extremely low under existing federal law. There are no discernable facts or statistics that demonstrate the need for visitors to carry concealed firearms (i.e., excessively high crime rates, high incidence of animal encounters, etc.), he said.
Barna also noted that background and training requirements for concealed firearms possession vary significantly from state-to-state. Trying to achieve uniformity of concealed weapons issuance (i.e., ensuring adequate training
and background checks) throughout all 390 NPS units would be nearly impossible and unenforceable, he said.
“I think it is a harebrained idea,” said Bill Wade, head of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and former superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. “It would result in increased risks to both visitors and wildlife, and has been introduced solely to ingratiate himself with the gun lobby,” said Wade, referring to Sen. Allen.
Indeed, Federal Election Commission records indicate that the National Rifle Association spent $85,357 promoting Allen's candidacy.
Yet there may be a silver-lining in Allen's recent defeat at the hands of Jim Webb, the Democratic challenger. In a widely circulated letter to Virginia sportsmen a week before the election, Webb pledged that he too would seek to reverse the ban on firearms in national parks.
On the line
Rick Obernesser, chief ranger at Yellowstone National Park, said any ranger or law enforcement officer called in about a fight or domestic dispute, has to wonder about the possible presence of a weapon in what can be volatile situations.
Brian Smith, chief agent in charge of the Park Service’s Intermountain Region, said the weapons ban regulation gives his agents from Montana to Texas, “a good tool” for sorting out criminals from law-abiding citizens.
“It is especially useful on boundary patrols,” said Smith, because a loaded rifle can indicate a potential poacher. Agents and rangers consider numerous factors and can simply wave someone on who has made an honest mistake, he said. The number of arrests and tickets at Yellowstone don’t address every case where a visitor has a firearm, he said.
As for needing a firearm for protection on a remote trail, Smith and Obernesser agreed that is an extremely rare situation in Yellowstone.
Smith did say that the most volatile situations in national parks can occur at places like Lake Mead, where boats, alcohol and firearms create a dangerous mix. That just isn’t something commonly encountered in Yellowstone or Grand Teton, he said.
In Congress,…
Wyoming’s Congressional delegation is staunchly in favor of Second Amendment rights and supportive of the National Park Service. Senators Craig Thomas and Mike Enzi and Rep. Barbara Cubin all explained that they haven’t read Allen’s bill and therefore can’t comment on it. All three noted that with only a few days left in the 109th Congress and no similar legislation having been introduced in the House, it seems very highly unlikely that Senator Allen's bill will even come up before adjournment.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Comments
Add your comment below
Also, what's up with this comment:
"Barna also noted that background and training requirements for concealed firearms possession vary significantly from state-to-state. Trying to achieve uniformity of concealed weapons issuance (i.e., ensuring adequate training
and background checks) throughout all 390 NPS units would be nearly impossible and unenforceable, he said."
Either Barna is a complete idiot, or he was taken out of context. While I haven't read the bill myself, I'm quite sure it wouldn't require park rangers to "issue" concealed weapons permits. Just follow the laws of the state you're in. How hard is that?
I notice a DNR director in Indiana had the same idea for the state parks of Indiana about a month ago. The public outcry was quick, extensive and to the point. Unanimously they were against it.
The DNR director resigned about two weeks ago--I don't know if there is any connection between the two events.
I am curious as to the possibility this topic is being pushed across the country. I could never guess who might be pushing it.
I don't think that allowing firearms into the parks as a matter of course makes a lot of sense. There are too many people out there with guns who have no idea what they're doing or what guns are about. I recall from last year the case of a guide in Montana who was shot by one of his hunters when the guide came up behind the hunter with the horses and another hunter, and the hunter fired at the guide because the hunter thought wolves were coming to get him. The guide was badly injured. I shudder to think that some idiot with a gun might unload on me in the Park because I and my horses look or sound like grizzlies tromping up the trail.
I myself normally carry a weapon into the backcountry (Forest lands) but then I know what I'm doing with weapons, having spent a number of years as an Army officer as well as having grown up with guns hunting, etc., and in any case, I need a weapon in case I have to put down a horse.
All we are asking for is to adopt the same rule for parks as forests!
I am about as far from a poacher as you'll ever find.
I neither hunt or even eat meat.
I hate you useless bureaucrats deciding what rights I "need"!
It's the Bill of Rights dang it, not the bill of needs.
When Cary Stayner raped and killed 4 young women
in Yosemite did he care about the dang laws?
I could care less how many murders there are or are not, one is enough for me to want to protect my family.
If you abhor freedom please move to some God forsaken dictatorship somewhere, I am getting mighty sick and tired of stupid idiots telling me how to live my life.
I have personally logged over 1,000 hours of close proximity to Alaskan grizzly bears while guiding trips (the most "dangerous" of animals). This doesn't take into account the time spent living around them while not guiding; that's about 5,000 hours. I have hiked and backpacked about 1,000 miles in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
I have spent time in the backcountry of the following National Parks: Katmai NP, Alaska; Kenai Fjords NP, Alaska; N. Cascades NP, Washington; Olympic NP, Washington; Mt. Rainier NP, Washington; Glacier NP, MT; Yellowstone NP, MT/WY/ID; Zion NP, UT; Grand Canyon NP, AZ. These are just the ones that I can recall off the top of my head.
All of these trips (even in Katmai NP) have been completely and utterly without incident. Also worth noting, I am a gun owner and a concealed carry permit holder, who complies with the law fully when recreating or guiding in National Parks.
Animals: Statistically, your chances are better of getting struck by lightning than having a negative encounter with a "dangerous" animal. Reseach has indicated that in a surprise bear encounter (95% of all injuries result from these) where a gun was available, it had a marginal effect, if any, on the outcome. Statistically, your best chance of avoiding a negative animal encounter is to travel in a group of 4 or more, when your statistal chance of getting attacked goes down to almost ZERO.
Crime: Statistically, National Parks have a significantly lower incedence of violent crime that the rest of the country. To propose that there is a significant increase in safety in this case is utterly without basis. This is excuse-making to justify paranoia.
Conclusion: Toughen up, buttercup. I would suggest that if you are truly this paranoid about recreating in our National Parks, than you would be better served recreating on other public lands (USFS, USBLM to name a couple) where possession of firearms is permitted.
Educate yourself as to how to properly travel in the backcountry and coexist with these percieved threats. Don't rely on an irrational fear of animals, violent crime, and paranoia which is what the gun advocacy extremists pushing this legislation are basing their argument around.
We can carry guns in are cars in almost every state at will!
Time for National parks to join the club!
Any law that restricts the choices of LAW ABIDING gun owners and those who carry them is fundamentally against the individual rights given to them by the constitution of this country. THIS COUNTRY! Not it's government (federal or state) It is also an individual right to exercise their right or choose not to. Just as it is wrong to REQUIRE everyone to own and/or carry a firearm, it is just as WRONG and unlawful to PROHIBIT anyone from that choice also. How can anyone argue this point is beyond me.
This is my perspective,
I could do everything right is life and not deserve to encounter any aggressive action toward me what so ever. BUT, as I believe everyone can agree, LIFE IS NOT FAIR no matter how much anyone may deserve it to be. With that said, anyone is suseptible to aggression from another or something that does not care about them. If this was not the case, there would not be any wars or conflicts.
Since I am no different than any of you I choose to believe that the possibility exists that I will find myself threatened one day. I ask for only one thing REGUARDLESS of the outcome of the situation: I JUST WANT MY FIGHTING CHANCE TO LIVE.
Not because I am afraid to depart this world. It's not out of fear. I just would like to be with my family as I know it if at all possible. I would like my family and friends to be with me for as long as possible too. It is my right to defend myself and family and friends and even strangers againt those that would unlawfully hurt us just as much as any other animal on this planet. And just because we have the intelligence and ability to produce a tool to help in that process does not take away from that right to defend life. We are an intellegent animal but we still live under mother nature's rules of survival of the fittest.
anyway that is my rant of sorts.
Just a couple of things for the Anti-gunners. The moment you are assulted by another and you seriously have you life threatened and you are accutly aware that there is no one that can respond to help you in time to prevent that assult, I guarrantee you will have one thought: God, please give me a way to defend myself!
And is your life is being threatened with a gun then I am sure a gun is what you are going to want for defense of yourself.
Also, I find it hard to understand that our government (state or federal ) whom believes in possessing weapons for the purpose of possessing a deterant against those who would be aggressive toword us, will make laws that take that very ability that they exercise away from the individual. There might be a scale difference between the individual and the government but that should never change the circumstances. And if it did change the circumstances, it should always benefit the individual above the government. That was the spirit behind the whole constitution to begin with. The individual rights of the country.
One last thing, I don't see why there isn't a carry permit that can be agreed upon by all states that would allow carry throughout all states on just one permit. I'm sure that is another discussion all together though.
Of course this is all IMHO. And I don't force this onto others. Just don't force your opinions on me or take away my rights. And restore the rights that have been removed rightfully back to me.
Keep It Simple And Free