Bid to allow guns in national parks

The Interior Department considers a proposal to lift a 25-year ban on concealed weapons in national parks.

Visitors to America's national parks may soon be able to pack more than a picnic lunch on their next visit to Yellowstone, the Everglades, or the Grand Canyon.

The US Interior Department is considering a proposal to scrap a 25-year ban on carrying concealed weapons in national parks.

If adopted, the measure would mark a significant victory for gun rights advocates and would come at a time when gun control efforts are under increased scrutiny across the country.

In June, the US Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared for the first time that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a firearm at home for self-protection.

The high court did not address whether the Second Amendment guarantees the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in national parks. But, at the urging of 51 US Senators, Interior Department officials are weighing the option of writing it into federal regulations.

National Rifle Association (NRA) chief lobbyist Chris Cox has called the proposal "an important step in the right direction."

Opponents disagree. "This is part of a broad campaign by the NRA to get guns into all our public places," says Daniel Vice, a senior attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The department received an estimated 100,000 comments during a public comment period that ended Aug. 8. Interior officials are now examining the submissions before announcing a final decision.

Ban would hold in some parks

Under the proposed new rule, the ban would be lifted only in national parks and wildlife refuges located in states that permit concealed weapons in their own state parks.

Although 48 states have enacted concealed gun permit procedures, only 24 of them currently allow concealed guns in state parks.

Those states are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

The new regulations would allow concealed guns in some of the nation's most popular and beloved parks, including: Denali National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Everglades National Park, Isle Royale National Park, Glacier National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Shenandoah National Park, Olympic National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and Yellowstone National Park.

Concealed weapons would continue to be banned in national parks in states with stricter gun laws like California. That means the new regulations would not apply in Yosemite National Park and Sequoia National Park. They would also not apply in most of Death Valley National Park, except potentially for a small triangle of that park that extends into Nevada.

Opponents of the measure say it would lead to confusion among park patrons since the ban would apply in some parks but not others. That problem might become particularly acute for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, which is part of the national park system. In effect, the trail is a long, skinny national park extending for 2,176 miles from Georgia to Maine through 14 states.

"It is hard to view this proposed change as anything more than an election-year gimmick directed at the [NRA] and the sportsmen's community," says David Startzell, executive director of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. "We've got bigger issues facing our parks than accommodating a relative handful of people who want to carry a concealed firearm."

Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America (GOA) in Springfield, Va., says it shouldn't be up to the government to tell Americans where and how they can defend themselves.

"We are all about the right to self-defense," he says. "We don't think people should forfeit that right when they go for a hike in the woods."

Divided views on safety

Opponents of the proposed regulation say national parks are relatively crime-free and that wildlife does not pose a significant threat. Supporters of the proposal say being armed is just a precaution, not a declaration of a free-fire zone.

One submission to the Interior Department questions why rangers carry weapons if the parks are so safe. "Are their lives and safety more important than mine?" asks the writer from Huntley, Mont.

Experienced hikers say guns aren't necessary to be safe in the backcountry. And in a worst case scenario, a concealed weapon may not be enough. "If we are talking handguns, you'd need a pretty-good-sized piece to stop a bear," says Mr. Startzell. "I don't picture a hiker packing a .44 Magnum. These are people who drill holes in their toothbrushes to save weight."

The presence of even concealed guns reduces the aura of being in the wilderness, say opponents. They include seven former directors of the National Park Service, the Coalition of Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).

"Our organization is not opposed to gun ownership and people carrying weapons," says Laura Loomis of the NPCA, "but we just don't feel they are necessary in national parks."

On the other side of the debate are the NRA, the GOA, several other gun rights groups, and a vocal grass-roots community of armed Americans.

"I am a retired police officer, retired Navy Masterchief, and a grandfather," says a man from Plant City, Fla., in an e-mail supporting the proposal. "I am too old to run and too big to hide. I have a concealed carry permit in my state. Therefore I keep a gun nearby to protect myself and family."

In another comment, a writer from Sparks, Md., said lifting the gun ban would make her feel less safe. "As a woman who often hikes alone in the national parks, I have rarely feared for my personal safety," she writes. "However, if this rule change is implemented I will be faced with the possibility that the next person I meet on the trail may carry a loaded gun. … This does nothing to make me feel safer."

By: Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor

Cities Vie over Gun Ownership Laws

Some two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that Washington’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, San Francisco is facing a lawsuit from the National Rifle Association over a handgun ban by residents of public housing. Oak Park, Ill., a Chicago suburb bordering the city, is struggling to keep its gun control laws in tact. Three other Chicago suburbs—Wilmette, Morton Grove and Evanston—have rolled back or lessened their gun control laws, in part to avoid lawsuits from gun advocacy organizations such as the NRA.

And Dick Heller, the federal guard whose lawsuit was debated in front of the nation's highest court in June, is filing another lawsuit against Washington, D.C., this time to repeal its ban on semiautomatic weapons, which, because they can “shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading,” the District considers technically a machine gun.

On June 27, the day after the Supreme Court ruled on D.C. v. Heller, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco for its ordinance banning handguns in public housing. The lobbyist group filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unnamed gay man who says he keeps a gun to protect himself against hate crimes, despite a rider in his public housing lease banning firearms.

Wilmette overturned its 19-year-old handgun ban the same day as the NRA sued San Francisco. Wilmette’s village attorney, Tim Frenzer said, “Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance.”

Evanston struck down its handgun ban on Tuesday, following Morton Grove’s decision last month to repeal its ban on firearm possession, while keeping in place a prohibition on grenades and automatic weapons.

“Specifically at issue is whether the Second Amendment can be enforced against state and local governments or is only applicable against the federal government and in federal jurisdictions like the District of Columbia,” the Christian Science Monitor explains.

This is Oak Park’s bone of contention as well. “Oak Park feels like it should have authority to make that decision itself” rather than federal judges, said Chicago lawyer Lance Malina, whom Oak Park hired to defend its gun control law against the NRA.

In addition to Oak Park, the suburb of Winnetka has a total ban on handguns, and eight other Chicagoland suburbs forbid the transfer or sale of handguns. The NRA also filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago for its handgun ban on June 27.

As for Heller, on Monday the District of Columbia issued official registration for his revolver.

By: Anne Szustek, Finding Dulcinea

Pro-gun group to lobby CU regents

Students for Concealed Carry take aim at ban

BOULDER — A student group will try to persuade the University of Colorado regents this week to loosen the school's gun-control rules and allow those with handgun permits to pack heat on campus.

The Colorado Springs chapter of the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argues that gun-free zones on college campuses translate into a ban on self-defense.

The group's petition argues: "Gun-free zones have proven ineffective. Criminals do not respect gun-free zones any more than they respect human life. Gun-free zones only disarm victims."

The group is making its pitch to the regents as colleges across the country grapple with how best to increase campus safety following deadly shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

A proposed change to the university law surrounding firearms could pick up some traction on the conservative-heavy CU board, if one of the regents decides to take it up as an issue.

The Boulder campus police department favors the university gun guidelines as they stand, saying that allowing gun-permit holders to have weapons on college campuses could be chaotic.

The Board of Regents is not scheduled to take action on the matter at its meeting this week, said Deborah Mendez-Wilson, a CU system spokeswoman.

It is illegal for people other than police to bring firearms, explosives or other weapons onto CU's campuses, according to Board of Regents policy.

By: Brittany Anas, The Camera