Mojave violated NPS policy buying assault rifles and grenades for rangers

A government report says a supervisor at the Mojave National Preserve in California violated policy by buying fully automatic assault rifles and dozens of "flash-bang" grenades

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, California — A supervisor at the Mojave National Preserve in California violated policy by buying fully automatic assault rifles and dozens of flash-bang grenades, according to a federal study released Thursday.

A supervisory park ranger at the immense desert park northeast of Los Angeles bought nine Colt M-4 fully automatic rifles between 2008 and 2010, and 24 grenades some years later, according to a report from the inspector general's office from the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The purchases violated park service policy, which specifies semi-automatic rifles and requires prior approval for defensive equipment, although the policy doesn't specifically mention flash-bang grenades, the report said.

The supervisor, who was not named in the report, acknowledged selecting the guns and allowing park rangers to carry them on duty for three years. They replaced aging and unreliable Vietnam-era rifles that rangers had been using on patrol, the report said.

The supervisor "admitted to purchasing and distributing the automatic weapons despite knowing that they violated NPS policy; admitted telling rangers who received the automatic rifles not to display them to others; and admitted to, at a minimum, not making it clear to his supervisors that the automatic weapons needed to be converted to semi-automatics," according to the report.

"He also provided inconsistent and implausible statements in his responses to our questions and caused us to doubt his overall truthfulness and candor," the report said.

The report did not indicate whether the supervisory park ranger was disciplined or whether he still works for the preserve or the National Park Service.

An email sent after hours to a park service spokeswoman was not immediately returned.

According to the report, the park service firearms program manager said no other national parks had used or sought permission to use fully automatic weapons.

In late 2013, the rifles were converted to semi-automatics, the report said.

The grenades were bought for about $1,000 without proper approval and were never issued to rangers, the report said.

The report said the National Park Service has since strengthened its procedures for buying equipment.

Rumor of Efforts to Ban Hunting on Mojave Preserve Greatly Exaggerated

By Jim Matthews
www.OutdoorNewsService.com

There was a wildfire of e-mails shooting around the hunting community this week over a supposed effort by the National Park Service to change the name of the Mojave National Preserve to “National Park” as a backdoor way to ban hunting.

David Moore, on the planning staff at the Mojave National Preserve, was shocked to hear that news, but after having the scenario pieced together for him, he wasn’t surprised to see how hunters came to that conclusion. But he was emphatic: “It’s not about banning hunting. There isn’t any intention to ban hunting on the preserve or change its name,” said Moore.

The confusion came because all units of the National Park Service have been directed to put together a “Foundation” document that lists all of the important features – biological, geological, archeological, everthing – that makes the unit important and define why the area was and continues to be worthy of inclusion into the National Park system as a way to help future managers of the unit understand the area and make planning decisions that protect and enhance the core features.

A brief draft of this Foundation document for the Mojave Preserve was recently posted on the agency web site along with a request for comments. Unfortunately, it was not clear what the document was about and its purpose.

This statement in the draft panicked hunters:

“Significance statements are directly linked to the purpose of Mojave National Preserve and express why the preserve’s resources and values are important enough to warrant national park designation.”

Hunters have been a little gun-shy after the first superintendent of the Preserve did everything she could to get rid of hunting and hunters. So it sounded like this document was being written to change the status of the Preserve to a Park, very quietly banning hunting.

This was even reinforced by an unfortunately circumstance on the Preserve’s website. On the bottom of each page of the website there is a little factoid, a brief “did you know” about the preserve or national parks. On the page about the Foundation document, it read:

“Park or preserve? Like other parks with the designation of "national preserve," Mojave National Preserve is managed under the same guidelines as national parks. The main difference is that hunting is allowed in national preserves, but not in national parks.”

That juxtaposition was not intentional, according to Moore, and he suddenly realized why hunters were panicked.

But he said this confusion and further reading of the Foundation draft made him realize that the importance of hunting on the Preserve wasn’t even mentioned in the document. He asked that a few hunters and hunting groups look at the document and then send him e-mails or letters expressing how important hunting and hunted wildlife is both historically and today, and why it’s one of the key reasons the preserve was created and should remain a preserve. You can e-mail Moore at david_b_moore@nps.gov, or write him at David Moore, Mojave National Preserve, 2701 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311.

It’s refreshing to have a staff on the Preserve that is working with hunters instead of working against us.

BLM declares Burning Man Second Amendment-free zone

BY: DAVID CODREA
Examiner.com

The Bureau of Land Management has declared the Burning Man “radical self-expression/self-reliance" community “experiment” in northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert a temporary weapons-free zone, GunLeaders Blog reported today. Citing a Department of the Interior “Notice of Temporary Closure and Temporary Restrictions of Specific Uses on Public Lands in Pershing County, NV” appearing in the Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012), the edict mandates “temporary closures and temporary restrictions will be in effect from August 13, 2012 to September 17, 2012.

Proclaiming its authority under 43 CFR 8364.1., and issued by Gene Seidlitz, District Manager, Winnemucca District, the restriction notice declared “The possession of any weapon is prohibited except weapons within motor vehicles passing through the public closure area, without stopping, on the west or east playa roads.

“The prohibitions above shall not apply to county, state, tribal, and Federal law enforcement personnel, or any person authorized by Federal law to possess a weapon," the notice continued. "‘Art projects' that include weapons and are sanctioned by BRC LLC will be permitted after obtaining authorization from the BLM authorized officer.”

“Any person who violates the above rules and restrictions may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000, imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both,” the notice warned, adding “Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for at 18 U.S.C. 3571.”

Whether this upsets Burning Man organizers and participants, and there does not appear to be any mention of weapons in the almost-anything-goes gathering’s “rules and regulations,” remains unknown, but there are larger principles at stake here.

First, it’s not like crimes of violence, particularly sexual assault and rape are unheard of there, and Mr. Seidlitz’s edict is silent on any responsibility or duty to protect those he demands be defenseless. His notice does admit “Actions by a few participants at previous events have resulted in law enforcement and public safety incidents similar to those observed in urban areas of similar-size populations,” documenting that he knows people he is disarming may be exposed to physical danger.

Second, where does this guy get off, dictating away the right to keep and bear arms? Who first decided there was a “need” to do this? Who authorized it? What is the approval process? Did it have to go beyond a district manager? What other federal agencies think they have this power? Can any bureaucrat declare himself the boss of you, or does one need to be a certain pay grade?

“If they (think they) can ban guns for Burning Man, essentially a private festival that as far as I can tell has no specific rules of this manner, then DOI can do it for pretty much any reason they want,” Dave Yates, co-founder of GunLeaders Blog observed to Gun Rights Examiner by email.

Indeed. If unaccountable self-anointed masters are allowed to get away with arbitrary rulings, if their demands for kneejerk authority over our unalienable rights are tolerated, then what is to stop them from declaring any place off limits, and extending the time period to whatever interval they choose, that is, what is to stop them from effectively burning the Bill of Rights?

Who Does The Government Intend To Shoot?

By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.)
Daily Caller

The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

All my life I’ve handled firearms. When a young boy growing up on my father’s farm in Pennsylvania Dad’s first rule of firearms training was, “Never point a gun at someone, in fun or otherwise, unless you intend to shoot them. If you shoot someone, shoot to kill.” I’ve never forgotten his admonition. It stayed with me through my Boy Scout training, when I enlisted in the army as a Private to fight in the Korea
War, during my days as a Ranger and Paratrooper and throughout my thirty-four year military career.

If this were only a one time order of ammunition, it could easily be dismissed. But there is a pattern here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.

In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.

I fear that Congress won’t take these ammunition purchases seriously until they are all led from Capitol Hill in handcuffs. Why buy all this ammunition unless you plan to use it. Unknown to Congress, Does DHS plan to declare war on some country? Shouldn’t Congress hold hearings on why the Administration is stockpiling this ammunition all across the nation? How will it be used; what are the Administration’s plans?

Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? All of these rounds of ammunition can only be used to kill American citizens, though there is enough ammunition being ordered to kill, in addition to every American citizen, also every Iranian, Syrian or Mexican. There is simply too much of it. And this much ammunition can’t be just for training, there aren’t that many weapons and “shooters” in the U.S. to fire it. Perhaps it is to be used to arm illegal immigrants?

We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest.

We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?

Were I the JCS, and if I wasn’t already fully briefed on this matter, I’d stop the purchase of hollow point bullets, ask the secretary of Defense why all this ammunition is being purchased and spread around the country? If I got answers like the ones Congress got during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious – I’d start tracking all ammunition deliveries nationwide to find out what organizations and units are using them, for what purpose and, if it is not constitutional, prepare to counteract whatever it is that they are doing.

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

Jerry Curry is a decorated combat veteran, Army Aviator, Paratrooper, and Ranger, who for nearly forty years has served his country both in the military and as a Presidential political appointee.

Are environmentalists' anti-gun policies to blame for wildfires in the West?

Photograph by Mark Thiessen

by Chad D. Baus
Liberty For All

The headlines have echoed across the country:

“Guns blamed for starting wildfires in parched West”

According to the Associated Press, officials believe target shooting or other firearms use sparked at least 21 wildfires in Utah and nearly a dozen in Idaho. Shooting is also believed to have caused fires in Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico.

In Utah, the AP says Republican Gov. Gary Herbert “took the unusual step” of authorizing the top state forest official to impose gun restrictions on public lands after a gunfire-sparked fire.

A gunfire-sparked, you say? How could target shooting start fires? I mean, we’re almost certainly not dealing with flintlock guns here.

The devil is in the details, and an accurate Associated Press headline would read as mine does above:

“Are environmentalists’ anti-gun policies to blame for wildfires in the West?”

From the AP article:

“Utah officials believe steel-jacketed bullets are the most likely culprits, given one shot that hits a rock and throws off sparks can ignite surrounding vegetation and quickly spread…The bullets were recently banned on state and federal lands in Utah. Officials are telling sportsmen to use lead bullets that don’t give off sparks when they hit rocks.”

What the article doesn’t mention, of course, is that environmental extremists have been attempting to ban the use of lead bullets - the very ones Utah officials now say are preferred - in favor of bullets made of materials such as steel, which is blamed for causing sparks when they impact rocks. Many in the West are avid Second Amendment proponents, so most state lawmakers are hesitant to enact any restrictions for fear of a backlash.

“We’re not trying to pull away anyone’s right to bear arms. I want to emphasize that,” said Louinda Downs, a county commissioner in fire-prone Davis County, Utah. “We’re just saying target practice in winter. Target practice on the gun range.

“When your pleasure hobby is infringing or threatening someone else’s right to have property or life, shouldn’t we be able to somehow have some authority so we can restrict that?” she asked.

For weeks, state officials have said they were powerless to ban gun use because of Second Amendment rights, but legislative leaders say they found an obscure state law that empowers the state forester to act in an emergency. The last high-profile time people’s Second Amendment rights were stripped in the name of an emergency, the problem was hurricane-level flooding in Louisiana, not fires.

For his part, Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Sports Shooting Council, told the AP he is skeptical about the placement of blame on target shooters, and estimated that perhaps 5 percent of the wildfires in the state have been caused by target shooters this year. “I don’t know how much of a problem it really is,” he said. Aposhian said his group will conduct tests to determine if the steel-jacketed bullet theory is true. If there are limits, “we want to make sure it is not knee-jerk legislation to ban guns or ammunition,” he said. “If it turns out the problem is with a few types of rounds, we will not be an apologist for them.” There is no need for such tests, Utah state fire marshal Brent Halladay said. With steel bullets, “you might as well just go up there and strike a match,” he said.

And so, yet again, we have to suffer the unintended consequences of extreme environmentalist policies that weren’t based on sound, verifiable data in the first place, just as we are suffering with the whole lead bullet controversy that may very well have caused these fires in the first place.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman

Interior Reverses Course: No Shooting Restrictions

Paul Bedard
Washington Whispers

In a major victory for gun owners, hunters, and conservationists, the Interior Department today reversed course and junked its plan to tighten shooting restrictions on western lands, which could have put areas long used for target practice off limits.

Bowing to complaints from a special advisory committee made up of conservation and hunting groups like Ducks Unlimited, Cabela's, and the National Wildlife Foundation, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today told the Bureau of Land Management, which manages 245 million acres of mostly wild western land, to stop drafting shooting rules.

"Based on feedback that members of the [advisory committee] have provided the BLM on the draft policy guidance, I am directing that the BLM take no further action to develop or implement the policy," wrote Salazar, himself a hunter and shooter and former Colorado senator and game official. [Check out new Debate Club about whether Congress needs to overhaul gun trafficking laws.]

Instead, he said in a letter to BLM, "The BLM shall continue to manage recreational shooting on public lands under the status quo in accordance with resource management and public safety considerations under existing authorities." Just the title alone of his letter made his point to BLM officials and the public: "Protecting Recreational Shooting Opportunities on Public Lands."

The issue of pushing shooters off some public lands where they have traditionally shot targets was a sensational one to gun rights groups and hunters. When Whispers first broke the story about the draft BLM plans, the story was headlined on the Drudge Report and Fox Nation. Officials conceded that the resulting pressure from gun owners who saw the Drudge and Fox report prompted them to clarify, and today end their efforts.

"BLM is not moving forward with the issue you wrote about," said an official. Instead, BLM land managers and not Washington will continue to use their existing authorities to work with communities and create land use plans where closure to shooting is a last resort. [Read about the subpoena issued as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.]

The issue of target practice put the BLM in the middle of traditional American gun rights and the rapid urbanization of once open public lands. Officials from BLM told Whispers that people moving in from more urban areas would "freak out" when walking in woods and hearing shots. Apparently, they also feared for their safety and BLM was working to draft a policy that soothed their concerns and also pleased hunters. Officials suggested that the end result would have been shooters being pushed a bit further away from urbanized areas near BLM lands, even provided with a guide to where they could shoot. They also assured hunters that access to public hunting lands would not be limited even under the draft rules.

But hunters and shooting groups saw it as a federal bid to clamp down on guns and shooting and they resisted. The advisory group, for example, assailed the draft policy.

In the end, they won. In his letter today, Salazar called hunting and shooting on public lands a national priority. He wrote: "It is a priority of the Department of the Interior to support opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on America's public lands. By facilitating access, multiple use, and safe activities on public lands, the Bureau of Land Management helps ensure that the vast majority of the 245 million acres it oversees are open and remain open to recreational shooting."

Visitors can bring their weapons

By JOHN ASBURY
The Press-Enterprise

A new federal law lifts a ban on firearms in national parks, but officials at Joshua Tree National Park said visitors still will not be allowed to have loaded weapons.

The federal law that took effect last week now allows residents nationwide to carry firearms into the parks -- as long as they also follow state gun laws.

But how the new federal law will be applied in California is unclear, according to the state attorney general's office.

In Joshua Tree National Park, the Inland region's only national park, gun owners may carry the weapons, but they cannot be loaded, said park spokesman Joe Zarki.

The federal law leaves it to states to apply the new law, which has not been brought before the attorney general's office for an opinion, officials said.

Joshua Tree park officials have not had any incidents related to the change in law and do not expect any problems, Zarki said.

The park neighbors the Mojave National Preserve, which does allow hunting, so visitors will need to know what area they are in to follow gun laws.

"It's up to the individual carrying these weapons to know what the rules are," Zarki said. "It's something we have to be aware of."

Park rangers have undergone training to address the new law, and signs have been posted throughout the park, Zarki said.

The law still prohibits guns from entering U.S. facilities where federal employees and rangers work. Whether that would apply to amphitheatres, campgrounds or other outdoor sites is still being determined.

"People don't come here concerned for their safety. It's widely known as one of the safest places in the U.S.," Zarki said of Joshua Tree.

The law has drawn mixed reaction from park officials and gun-rights advocates.

Bryan Faehner, with the National Parks Conservation Association, said guns aren't needed in national parks. He said the new law raises safety concerns for visitors and increases the threat of poaching.

"It's really unfortunate. National parks are extremely safe, and there's no need to change regulations," Faehner said. "We're concerned it's going to change the general experience of many park visitors." National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons said crime in national parks has increased, but unloaded weapons do nothing to protect visitors. She said there needs to be consistent laws in all wildland areas.

"The NRA believes law-abiding citizens are not prohibited from protecting themselves while enjoying park facilities," Parsons said. "Visitors are not immune to attacks from criminals or wildlife."

Government: Loaded guns allowed in national parks, wildlife refuges as of Monday

MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and other national parks under a new law that takes effect Monday.

The law lets licensed gun owners bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law. It comes over the objections of gun-control advocates who fear it will lead to increased violence in national parks.

The national parks law takes effect in a climate that favors advocates of gun rights. The debate shifted dramatically in 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.

Gun owners have rushed in record numbers to get concealed weapons permits, saying they worry President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress may impose stricter gun laws. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard to allow guns in parks and has spent millions to challenge its opponents.

Now gun-control advocates are on the defensive, seeking to preserve some gun restrictions in the face of aggressive assertions of gun rights.

As of Monday, guns will be allowed in all but about 20 of the park service's 392 locations, including some of its most iconic parks: Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park. Guns will not be allowed in visitor centers or rangers' offices, because firearms are banned in federal buildings, but they could be carried into private lodges or concession stands, depending on state laws.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said national parks are now among the safest places in America, but that could change under the new law. Current rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.

"It really is sad that we've become such a paranoid society that people want to take guns pretty much everywhere — including national parks," he said Friday.

"When you are at a campfire and people are getting loud and boisterous next to you, you used to have to worry about them quieting down. Now you have to worry about when they will start shooting," Helmke said.

Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, called the new law a sad chapter in the history of the park system.

"People go to national parks to get away from things that they face in their everyday living, where they live and work. Now I think that social dynamic is really going to change," he said.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, said the law would place an unfair burden on park service employees, who will have to wade though a variety of state and local laws to determine whether visitors are breaking the law.

Officials said visitors who want to bring a gun to a national park need to understand and comply with state gun laws. More than 30 national parks span more than one state, so visitors need to know where they are in those parks and which state law applies, the park service said.

A spokesman for the National Rifle Association scoffed at the idea that parks would become more dangerous, saying people have been assaulted and even murdered in national parks.

"This common-sense measure will enhance the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans and also ensure uniformity of firearm laws within a state," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The National Park Service said there were 3,760 reported major crimes, including five homicides and 37 rapes, in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available. The agency does not note which crimes involve firearms. Crime is down across the system's parks, according to park service spokesman David Barna.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who led congressional efforts to change the law, said concerns about increased violence were overblown.

"I don't expect anything major to come from this other than to restore the Second Amendment rights taken away by bureaucrats," Coburn said

The park service has prepared for months for the new law. "We will administer this law as we do all others — fairly and consistently," National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said in a statement.

National parks hosted about 275 million visitors in 2008, the agency said.

Suicide Victim Found Near Ibex Dunes

Ibex Dunes.

National Park News

On Saturday, May 23rd, BLM ranger Dave Brenner found an unattended car on Giant Mine Road just outside the park’s boundary near the Ibex Dunes area in the southeast corner of the park.

A check with dispatch showed that the car belonged to a missing person who was deemed at risk and reportedly armed with a handgun. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the man, 52-year-old David Penn of Lancaster, California, had been missing since April 30th.

Brenner subsequently found Penn’s remains on a rock pile. There was a loaded Sig Sauer P229 40 caliber handgun near the body and only one set of tracks leading to that location, which matched the footwear found on the body.

The Inyo County coroner later determined that Penn had died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. GPS coordinates later showed that the body was approximately 150 feet inside the park boundary.

Penn was reportedly despondent over a recent separation and pending divorce. Next of kin notifications were made by the Inyo County Coroner’s Office. The Inyo County Sheriff’s Department is leading the investigation.

Congress votes to allow loaded firearms in national parks

NRA VICTORY: Legislation allows others across country to do what is already allowed in most of Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News
Staff and Wire Reports

Pro-gun forces won a major victory in Washington on Wednesday when Congress voted to allow people to carry loaded weapons in most national parks and refuges.

The action was a major defeat for supporters of gun control, who earlier in the year won a court reversal of a Bush administration policy that first lifted the restrictions on loaded firearms on those public lands.

Some Alaskans -- their minds filled with visions of pistol-packing tourists climbing aboard Denali National Park buses armed to the teeth -- had joined with a variety of national organizations in challenging the Bush decision to allow guns in the parks.

But National Park Service officials in Alaska never expressed much concern about the change.

Legislation creating vast new parks and refuges in Alaska in 1980 specifically left millions of acres open to firearms, and there have been no serious problems, according to Alaska region park service spokesman John Quinley.

Rangers in places such as Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Lake Clark Park and Preserve and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve are accustomed to running into people carrying loaded guns. And the agency has long given a tacit endorsement to people packing firearms into some of these areas for survival and safety reasons.

An Alaska region brochure on dealing with bears in wildland parks notes the dangers firearms pose to people inexperienced in their use, but also advises:

"A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

"State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be salvaged and turned over to the authorities."

The only Alaska parks closed to the carry of loaded firearms have been Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park in Skagway, the Sitka National Historic Park and the old sections of Denali, Katmai and Glacier Bay national parks.

That could change if the president signs the legislation passed by the House on Wednesday in a vote of 279-147. The Senate approved similar legislation a day earlier.

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was an outspoken supporter in the House. He has been asking for the rule change since 2007.

"Murders, rapes, robberies and assaults happen each year on National Park Service land, and the victims don't have the right to carry a firearm and protect themselves,'' Young said in a prepared statement. "The Second Amendment grants us the fundamental right to protect ourselves. Anyone who knows me knows that I will always defend our right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our loved ones. Current Park Service Regulations require that firearms transported in national parks be unloaded and encased. This makes them useless. Guns are allowed in most park areas in Alaska, and that should be the case across the country."

Both Alaska senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat, voted in favor of the legislation which drew broad, bipartisan support in both chambers.

In the House, 105 Democrats joined 174 Republicans in supporting the change, which was attached to a bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. The gun legislation basically tracks with Young's position that guns should be allowed into national parks and wildlife refuges under the terms of whatever state laws apply.

The Associated Press called the vote "a bitter disappointment for gun-control proponents, who watched as a Democratic-controlled Congress handed a victory to gun-rights advocates that they did not achieve under Republican rule. Many blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law."

"The NRA is basically taking over the House and Senate," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun-control supporter. "If the NRA wins, the American people are going to be the ones who lose."

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said liberals might believe that, "but the American people won't buy it."

"The fact is American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape," Hastings said.

Hastings and others said the bill aligns regulations for national parks and wildlife refuges with those for the national forests and Bureau of Land Management holdings. The GOP called the existing policy outdated and confusing to those who visit public lands, noting that merely traveling from state-owned parks to national parks meant some visitors were violating the law.

A majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposed the gun measure, but enough Democrats voted for the bill that the final tally in both chambers was large in its favor.

Democratic leaders decided against trying to remove the gun provision after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was able to insert it into the popular credit card measure. Lawmakers and aides said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee -- where it could be removed without a vote -- and still get it to President Barack Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.

"There's a lot of momentum to get this done," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, R-Ariz.

Grijalva, chairman of national parks subcommittee, opposed the gun measure, but said the "sense of urgency from the White House" to get the credit card bill approved, combined with the NRA's clout, were impossible to overcome.

Theresa Pierno, executive vice president of the National Parks Conservation Association, which has fought the gun rule in court, criticized Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for allowing the vote.

"By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association," Pierno said, adding that the gun provision had no public hearing or other review.

In a statement after the vote, Pelosi called inclusion of the gun measure unfortunate and said it undermines the nation's gun safety laws.

"There is no compelling argument for replacing the Reagan administration's rules regarding guns in national parks, and certainly not as part of legislation designed to protect Americans during difficult economic times," Pelosi said.

Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, said the group pushed for the gun measure but that its power in Congress was being overstated. The NRA does not set the agenda there, he said. Cox also disputed a claim by the Humane Society of the United States that the gun bill would increase wildlife poaching in national parks.

"The NRA is opposed to poaching and always has been," he said. "We've supported enhanced penalties for illegal activities, including poaching. The Humane Society has zero credibility when it comes to Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners."

National Park Rangers and Park Advocates Outraged by Votes Allowing Loaded Guns in National Parks

PRESS RELEASE
National Parks Conservation Association

WASHINGTON - "We are disappointed in the members of the House and Senate who allowed this amendment to pass, as well as in President Obama. By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association. This amendment had no hearing or review, and will increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures, and threats to park visitors and staff."

"These are special protected places, where millions of American families and international visitors can view magnificent animals and majestic landscapes and experience our nation's history, including sites where lives were lost to preserve our American ideals.

"The Reagan Administration's regulation requiring that guns carried into these iconic places be unloaded and put away is a time-tested, limited and reasonable restriction to carry out an important and legitimate goal of protecting and respecting our national parks, monuments and battlefields. It is a tremendously sad day that it has been thrown out by political leaders from whom we expect more."

Statement by Bill Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees:

"Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else.

"Legislators who voted for this amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources. Moreover, they've just contributed to diminishing the specialness of this country's National Park System. We hope the American people register their disappointment in the actions of these legislators."

Statement by Scot McElveen, President, Association of National Park Rangers:

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Statement by John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police:

"One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards? We are disappointed that Congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of our national parks. If signed by President Obama, this will clearly be a change in his rhetoric towards taking better care of our environment and protecting federal employees."

Statement by Theresa Pierno, Executive Vice President, National Parks Conservation Association: NPCA is a non-profit, private organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System.

New rule lifts ban on firearms in national parks

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — People will soon be able to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.

The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.

"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the new rule. Crapo and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had organized letters to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate — 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.

"I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for taking this stand. The rule as it has come out is what we asked for with regard to handguns," Crapo said. "It's a very, very significant improvement."

Crapo called the current rule confusing and complex and said it "literally resulted in different standards as you traveled through the same state."

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.

"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."

Interior spokesman Paolino said the rule would not affect a ban on guns in federal buildings. Guns will still be prohibited in national icons such as Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty, he said. Guns also will be banned in visitor centers and other buildings at national parks.

Grijalva: Bush policies bad for federal public lands

Tucson Region




By Tony Davis
Arizona Daily Star




Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)



The Bush administration mounted a "concerted strategy" to reduce protections for federal public lands and to open them to all types of industry, a Tucson congressman says in a new report.

The report lists more than 40 actions by federal agencies such as the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that Rep. Raúl Grijalva says harmed public lands.

They often allowed mining, timber and other private industry to exploit resources at the environment's expense, he claims.

Grijalva, a Democrat, is a congressional leader on public lands issues, as he chairs the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee.

However, Bush administration officials and agency managers have generally defended their actions, calling them efforts to restore balance to public lands policy after eight years of Clinton administration policies that more commonly sided with environmentalists. Federal officials have also cited budget pressures in explaining some of the decisions.

Here are capsule accounts of some of the actions criticized in Grijalva's report, their effects on Arizona, and the federal agencies' responses:

Border fence
Grijalva's report criticized the Department of Homeland Security for repeatedly invoking a 2005 federal law allowing it to waive environmental laws — such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act — to build a 670-mile border fence.

The congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to rescind provisions of that law. Grijalva and environmental groups say the fence blocks wildlife movements and fragments habitat crucial for the survival of dozens of imperiled species, including jaguars, wolves and pronghorn antelope.

Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff said the fence, now about half-finished, is needed to block the illegal entry of terrorists, to impede drug smuggling, human smuggling and gang activity, and to counteract the environmental effects of illegal immigration.

Chertoff has used the law four times to waive dozens of environmental laws and regulations to build nearly 500 miles of fence, including segments along more than 200 miles of Arizona's border with Mexico.

Grand Canyon uranium mining
Grijalva has pushed through a measure to prevent uranium mining on 1 million acres adjoining Grand Canyon National Park for a year. But Interior Department officials have refused to withdraw the area from mining, and they are fighting to repeal underlying regulations.

Two potential uranium-mining exploration sites are being drilled on BLM land north of the national park. Environmental groups are suing to force the Interior Department to withdraw those lands, on the grounds that the radioactivity from the uranium could leak into the groundwater or the Colorado River running through the Grand Canyon.

There's a long history of uranium mining north of the Canyon, and it is "very responsible mining," counters Scott Florence, director of BLM's Arizona Strip office. It's all underground, with "a very small footprint" on the surface, Florence says. "They are not a big open-pit mine."

Loaded-gun parks
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has proposed a regulation allowing visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to carry loaded, concealed weapons if they have proper permits. Today, visitors can pack only unloaded guns. The new rules would affect Arizona and other states that already allow concealed weapons in state parks.

Grijalva says the new rule would cause widespread confusion among gun owners because many national parks are located in two or more states with different gun rules.

Interior says it wants to respect states' ability to determine who may possess firearms within their boundaries. The National Rifle Association says park visitors should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense.

Seven retired National Park Service directors opposed the proposal, telling Kempthorne it would impair park rangers' ability to protect people and natural resources.

Off-road vehicles
Grijalva says environmentally harmful off-road vehicle use is out of control and growing rapidly on public lands. The vehicles have damaged cultural sites, disturbed wildlife habitat and destroyed private property, Grijalva says.

"Irresponsible off-roading has become such a menace that it is now the single greatest threat to American landscapes," a retired Forest Service official, Jack Gregory, testified at a congressional hearing in April.

A Tucson BLM official says the agency is trying to keep off-road vehicles under control, using trained volunteers on motorcycles and ATVs to go on patrol, pick up trash and talk to off-roaders about proper use.

"As more people are out on public lands, our challenges will always be there," said Brian Bellew, BLM's Tucson manager. "But we are coming up with much better means of dealing with those resource conflicts."

Air quality in national parks
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed changing air quality regulations to make it less likely that emissions from new power plants near national parks would be in violation.

Grijalva says the regulation, still pending, would let companies seeking to build plants near national parks, including the Grand Canyon and Saguaro National Park, circumvent congressionally established pollution limits.

EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said the rule is part of an agency program to prevent air quality degradation in national parks and would not change the level of emissions allowed in clean-air areas.

Roadless rule
Throughout President Bush's tenure, federal officials have sought to overturn a last-minute rule instituted by then-President Bill Clinton that would ban logging, road building and development on 58 million acres of national forests and grasslands. That includes 420,000 Coronado National Forest acres in Southern Arizona.

In 2005, the Forest Service approved a new rule allowing state governments to petition federal officials to exempt these forest lands in their states from wilderness designation.

There have been conflicting lower-court rulings on whether the decision failed to consider environmental impacts. The decisions are under appeal.

Guest Opinion: A proposal for concealed weapons in national parks

By DIRK KEMPTHORNE
Secretary of the Interior
Billings Gazette

The Department of the Interior is charged with managing America's national parks and wildlife refuges in a manner that ensures their conservation and the safety of those who visit them. As secretary of the interior, I am committed to accomplishing this goal with careful regard to the rights and responsibilities federal laws provide and with the cooperation of states and Native American tribes.

America's government is firmly founded on the fundamental principle that states have the prerogative to develop their own policies and standards in many areas, and that the federal government should respect that right whenever possible. As Thomas Jefferson said during his first inaugural address, the states are "the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns."

Respecting state law

While obviously the federal government has the power to regulate federal lands, the Department of the Interior and other agencies traditionally have managed these lands in cooperation with state governments, respecting state law when possible on issues such as hunting, fishing and wildlife management.

Our current federal regulations governing firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges properly limit poaching, target practice and other illegal uses. I strongly endorse these important objectives. These provisions will continue to be enforced so that visitors and natural resources are fully protected.

These regulations were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time, many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently 48 states have laws allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons. While these state authorities vary, all of them have mandatory minimum age and criminal background check requirements and the lion's share have permitting systems that include residency requirements, fingerprinting and firearm safety training as prerequisites to permitting possession of concealed firearms.

National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations are inconsistent with this development in state laws, a fact pointed out in a letter sent to me by 51 U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans.

Last week, the Department of the Interior published a proposed regulation that will align with state laws that allow for concealed weapons permits, while continuing to maintain important regulatory provisions that ensure visitor safety and resource protection. The Department carefully worked with law enforcement professionals from the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to craft this proposal.

Public comment sought

We are submitting this proposal to Americans for their comments. We carefully will consider their comments before issuing a final rule.

Under the proposed rule, which narrowly amends existing provisions, citizens would be able to carry concealed weapons in national parks and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so on similar state-administered lands.

States where citizens have permits to carry concealed weapons in state parks, refuges and other similar state lands will be able to carry them in national parks and wildlife refuges. Some states, like California, issue concealed weapon permits but do not allow concealed weapons to be carried into state parks. Under this proposed rule, concealed weapons would not be permitted in national parks in those states.

Since the proposal maintains existing prohibitions on poaching and target shooting, and carrying weapons in federal buildings, the proposed rule would not cause a detrimental impact on visitor safety and resources. States issue concealed weapons permits in the belief that law-abiding citizens will not misuse this privilege.

The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and a number of state parks and refuges authorize the possession of concealed weapons consistent with the laws of the states in which they are located. The evidence does not suggest that visitors to these lands misuse their legally permitted weapons for poaching or illegal shooting or that there is additional danger posed to the public from lawfully carried concealed weapons.

America's national parks and refuges are safe places to visit, and our law enforcement officials do a great job maintaining visitor safety. States have adopted laws that allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and receive a permit to carry concealed firearms. The Constitution guarantees citizens' rights to bear arms in the Second Amendment. The current federal regulations were issued more than 25 years ago, and much has changed in how states administer their firearm laws. We should work toward managing federal lands in light of these new changes approved by the states.

New rules would allow concealed weapons in national parks

The Interior Department proposal would overturn a 25-year-old regulation that has restricted loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

From the Associated Press
Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON -- Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed new regulations Wednesday that would allow people to carry a concealed weapon in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

The new rules would allow someone to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge only if the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge was located allowed guns in parks.

The proposal would overturn a 25-year-old regulation that has restricted loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

"The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior," Kempthorne said in a statement.

The proposal would incorporate state laws authorizing the possession of concealed firearms "while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection," he said.

Park rangers, park service retirees and conservation groups protested the plan, saying it would lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"This is purely and simply a politically driven effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist," said Bill Wade, executive council chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

Critics cited statistics showing that national parks were among the safest places in the country. The probability of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in more than 708,000 -- less likely than being struck by lightning, the groups said.

"This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it," Wade said.

Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino said the rule change would give great weight to state and local laws. In Washington, D.C., for instance, which has a lot of national park land, guns would not be allowed because the city banned handguns.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called the rule change confusing.

"This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective and inconsistent patchwork of policies," she said, noting that in some cases, rules would be different within the same national park.

For example, Death Valley National Park is in both California and Nevada. California prohibits loaded and accessible weapons in state parks, whereas Nevada does not.

U.S. considers easing ban on guns in national parks

Advocates of change say it will improve safety.

Opponents are convinced it would do the opposite.

By Richard Simon and Judy Pasternak, Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON -- In a victory for gun-rights advocates, the federal government is preparing to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday that his department would suggest new regulations by the end of April that could bring federal rules into line with state laws concerning guns in parks and public lands. His announcement came in a letter to Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), one of 50 senators who have written to him about the issue. Senators from both parties have backed a drive to repeal the ban, which has been in place in some parks for at least 100 years.

The proposed rule change would let visitors carry loaded weapons into national parks in states with few gun restrictions, such as Montana.

California is not one of those states. Its law prohibits loaded guns in state parks unless they are locked inside a car trunk or are similarly inaccessible. "It's a place of refuge, not a place for hunting, and it's patrolled by state park rangers who are there to protect visitors," California State Parks spokesman Roy Stearns said.

Gun rights advocates, notably the National Rifle Assn., have said the ban infringes on their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms and their ability to defend themselves from predators, both human and animal.

"If you're hiking in the backcountry and there is a problem with a criminal or an aggressive animal, there's no 911 box where you can call police and have a 60-second response time," said Gary S. Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assn.

Kempthorne's decision to review the ban was hailed by the NRA. "This is an important step in the right direction," said the organization's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox.

On the other hand, the National Parks Conservation Assn. called Kempthorne's action "alarming." Thomas C. Kiernan, the group's president, said loosening the ban would be "a blow to the national parks and the 300 million visitors who enjoy them every year."

His view is echoed by gun-control advocates and some rangers who say that permitting firearms would be dangerous for visitors and wildlife and would alter the national park experience.

"Parks have long been sanctuaries for both animals and people," said Charles R. "Butch" Farabee, a former acting superintendent at Montana's Glacier National Park who is retired. "There need to be places in this country where people can feel secure without guns and know that the guy in the campground across the way does not have one."

Although a federal rule change would not directly affect California, George Durkee, a board member of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police who works at Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks east of Fresno, worries about gun owners from other states: "Somebody who says, 'Oh, well, I can now carry a gun in national parks,' and doesn't read the fine print will just figure he can carry one in Yosemite."

The federal government would not cede authority over firearms in national parks to the states, said Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino, but would like to reflect the policies of host states. Paolino said the department would also take into consideration the ban on firearms in federal buildings.

Weapons originally were prohibited in national parks to prevent "opportunistic poaching" of wildlife, said Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park, east of Palm Springs.

A 1908 Yellowstone National Park regulation, for example, required that visitors "having firearms, traps, nets, seines or explosives" surrender the weapons at the entrance unless they received written permission from the park superintendent. A similar policy was in effect at most parks for decades. Then the Reagan administration in 1983 required that visitors unload and store their firearms before entering most parks.

Supporters of the repeal effort note that state gun laws apply to federal land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and they think that should be the case in national parks and wildlife refuges as well.

Half of the Senate seems to agree. Nine Democrats and 41 Republicans have signed letters to Kempthorne calling on him to lift the gun ban. "We do not believe that allowing law-abiding citizens to transport and carry firearms -- rather than forcing them to disassemble or store them in their trunks -- will increase the chances that they will be tempted to violate prohibitions on discharge," one group wrote.

In campaigning to repeal the ban, the NRA hoped to add to a string of recent victories that included blocking an effort in Congress to give local law enforcement officials access to federal gun purchase data and a move in Virginia to require background checks for buyers at gun shows.
In a measure of the bipartisan support for relaxing gun laws, a majority of Congress -- 55 senators and 250 House members -- recently urged the Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, one of the nation's strictest.

Advocates of allowing loaded guns in national parks believe it is foremost an issue of ending what they see as an unconstitutional infringement on their right to bear arms. But they also contend that park visitors are "increasingly vulnerable" to violent crime.

"While park rangers now use bulletproof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry law exists are denied the opportunity for self-defense," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said in "talking points" distributed by his office.

The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.

Supporters also think gun owners should be able to protect themselves against dangerous animals, dismissing arguments that firearms would ruin the park experience. "An attack, whether by an animal or a criminal, would degrade the experience of park visitors more," NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

The park service said there were four bear attacks last year: two in Yellowstone, one in Sequoia and one in Grand Teton. There were none in 2006.

Officials at Glacier -- which recorded 10 deaths from grizzly bear attacks between 1967 and 1998 -- said the last attack was in 2005, when two hikers were mauled.

One of the victims, Johan Otter, an Escondido man who, with his daughter, was seriously injured, said the idea that a gun could have stopped the 400-pound bear that charged him is naive.

"We only had, like, half a second between seeing the bear and the impact," Otter said. "Most likely, if you shoot, you're going to hurt the animal. It's just going to get even more mad at you. The minute they're on top of you, there's no way you can pull a trigger."

Organizations that represent current and retired park workers oppose a repeal, saying it would endanger visitors, rangers and wildlife, and change the parks' character.

Bill Wade, executive council chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said people could be discouraged from visiting certain parks, such as Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, where he served as superintendent. "How many of you would want to go out there if you knew that people were running up and down the Appalachian Trail with guns?"

Senate to Vote on Allowing Park Visitors to Carry Loaded Guns

Environment News Service

WASHINGTON, DC, February 12, 2008 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate is likely to consider the "National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act," this week. When that happens, Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican is expected to offer an amendment to allow state law, rather than federal law, to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

This measure was authored and is supported by the National Rifle Association, which said in a February 1 letter to its members, "We have been working on your behalf for nearly five years to facilitate this policy change and are committed to ensuring that it finally happens this year."

On February 1, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police wrote a joint letter to U.S. senators urging them to reject the Coburn amendment.

"Senator Coburn's amendment could dramatically degrade the experience of park visitors and put their safety at risk if units of the National Park System were compelled to follow state gun laws," warned the rangers and retirees.

"For example, since Wyoming has limited gun restrictions, visitors could see persons with semi-automatic weapons attending campground programs, hiking down park trails or picnicking along park shorelines at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks," they wrote.

An analysis of the Coburn amendment and NRA campaign released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, finds that they are founded upon basic misconceptions.

Coburn's amendment forbids the Interior Secretary from enforcing "any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System…"

On December 14, 2007, a group of 47 senators wrote to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne urging repeal of these regulations because they are "confusing, burdensome and unnecessary."

The letter was signed by 39 Republican senators along with eight Democrats.

The NRA claims credit for both the senators' letter and the Coburn amendment.

A central assertion of the Coburn measure is that the current regulation offends the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting the possession of a firearm in parks.

But in fact the current regulation states that weapons may be possessed as long as they are not loaded and ready for use.

The regulation, (36 CFR 2.4), says that "…unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use."

These rules, re-written in 1983 under the Reagan administration, were intended to relax earlier stricter prohibitions. As the National Park Service then explained, "[T]he Service has determined that it is not feasible to prohibit the possession of weapons in all situations, and a total prohibition would be unenforceable."

"The Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear Arms' does not specify that the weapons must always be loaded and holstered," said PEER Board Member Frank Buono, the former deputy superintendent of Mojave National Preserve. He notes that the fundamental reason for this regulation is to prevent opportunistic poaching, as most park units forbid hunting.

The other rationale for removing firearm regulations is "consistency in firearms policy" on federal lands, according to the senators' letter to Kempthorne.

Senator Coburn's legislation would have federal firearm policy conform to state laws, but because firearms laws vary from state to state, there would then be at least 50 sets of rules for federal lands. In some instances, where a park straddles a state line, there would be two different firearms policies in different sections of the same park.

"This uniformity argument is absurd," Buono added, pointing out that the White House is also part of the national park system. "We don't allow guns on airplanes, in penitentiaries or in the halls of Congress, either."

The rangers and retirees say allowing the possession of loaded and accessible guns in parks would be dangerous to law enforcement officers. "Many rangers can recite stories about incidents where the risk to other visitors - as well as to the ranger - would have been exacerbated if a gun had been readily accessible. This amendment would compromise the safe atmosphere that is valued by Americans and expected by international tourists traveling to the United States," they wrote.

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

U.S. senators attempt to soften park gun rules

FEDERAL LAND: Stevens, Murkowski and 45 others want loaded weapons legal in more parks and refuges.

ERIKA BOLSTAD
Anchorage Daily News

WASHINGTON -- Both of Alaska's U.S. senators have signed a letter asking the Interior Department to repeal federal gun rules for national parks and wildlife refuges, saying that the existing guidelines are "confusing, burdensome and unnecessary."

If federal officials agree, the result could be people being able to legally carry loaded guns onto federal lands in Alaska where they're now banned, including much of Denali National Park.

The letter was drafted by U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who asked Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to change rules that prohibit visitors to most national parks and wildlife refuges from carrying operable, loaded guns.

Such changes would "respect the second amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries" Crapo said in his letter.

The letter was signed by 47 senators, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both Republicans.

Stevens' signature is "consistent with his long-standing support for Second Amendment rights, as well as state's rights," said his spokesman, Aaron Saunders.

"In Alaska, legally possessing a gun is as much a necessity as it is a right," Saunders said. "Senator Stevens strongly supports streamlining federal regulations regarding law-abiding citizens carrying firearms on public lands."

Murkowski had similar reasons for her support, said spokesman Kevin Sweeney.

"She's signing on as someone who's an advocate for Second Amendment rights," he said.

If the changes were adopted, it could mean that people would be allowed to carry loaded guns in most public areas of Alaska's national parks, including the main road into Denali National Park.

However, there currently is no process under way to change the existing gun guidelines on federal lands, said Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino.

"We've received the letter and will review it and take the senators' views into consideration," he said.

ARRAY OF REGULATIONS

Current gun regulations on federal lands vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the land.

Active, operable guns are allowed on federal land overseen by the Bureau of Land Management, for example, as long as the applicable state and local firearms laws are followed.

Nationwide, guns are generally allowed on national wildlife refuges and in national parks -- but only if the owner has broken down the firearm and has it in a carrying case, rendering it inoperable.

However, there are some exceptions, particularly in Alaska. Some national wildlife refuges allow hunting, and guns are acceptable during hunting season. There also are 59 National Park units nationwide where people can hunt and carry weapons, Paolino said, but again, only during hunting season.

If park visitors are uncertain about the regulations, "there's no harm in calling where you're headed and just asking the question, and getting it clarified," Paolino said.

In Alaska, however, there are separate regulations for guns at national parks within the state, said John Quinley, a spokesman for the national parks in Alaska.

Operable firearms aren't allowed at all in Klondike Gold Rush or Sitka national parks. They're also not allowed in the older parts of Denali, Katmai and Glacier Bay national parks, where they must be broken down and inoperable if visitors have them. In Denali, that prohibition includes the area of the park seen by most visitors: the park road, between the Parks Highway and Wonder Lake. In Katmai, operable guns are off-limits at the popular Brooks Camp.

However, it's acceptable to have a loaded, operable gun in much of the national parkland added to Alaska after 1980, including vast swaths of Denali, Katmai and Glacier Bay.

That's largely for protection against bears in backcountry locations, Quinley said, although the park service points out that visitors are also allowed to use pepper spray if they feel threatened by a bear.

NRA IN THE PICTURE

The changes to federal gun rules have long been sought by the National Rifle Association, which has been trying to modify the regulations for about five years, said spokeswoman Ashley Varner.

"When you have law-abiding citizens who are not allowed to carry firearms for personal protection when they are out hiking, when they are out camping deep in the national forests ... that really leaves the law-abiding citizens defenseless," Varner said.

They're merely asking for consistency from federal agencies, said Crapo's spokeswoman, Susan Wheeler. Often, people aren't aware whether they are on federal or state land, and don't know which regulations they should be following, Wheeler said.

Sometimes, people have to stop and break down a gun and stow it in a carrying case when they cross from state lands to federal lands, Wheeler said.

"We've got a couple of agencies that go by state law and some that don't," she said. "If they all went by the same rules, that would be a lot easier."

Crapo decided to press for the changes now, so that they would be considered before the end of the Bush administration, when a new Interior secretary will be in place, Wheeler said.

The Idaho Republican has spoken to Kempthorne about his proposal, Wheeler said. She wouldn't elaborate on whether the Interior secretary, a former senator and Idaho governor, was interested in the changes.

"We would hope that he would be amenable to it, being a fellow Westerner and understanding the lifestyle," she said.