Pack your piece, baby! Starting today, you can legally carry loaded, concealed weapons in national parks, so long as the state where the park’s located allows it, thanks to a rider on last year’s credit card reform act passed by Congress. This probably isn’t news to you–since firearms are such a sensitive, symbolic topic, few media outlets in the country haven’t mentioned it. But one thing should be clear: Despite the provision’s name, “Section 512: Protecting Americans From Violent Crime”, this law has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with political posturing.
That’s because the crime rate in national parks is so low, no additional laws are needed to address it, especially ones that bring loaded guns into parks. In 2008, there were 5.4 homicides per 100,000 people and 29.3 rapes nationally in the United States (based on a population of 304 million, 16,272 homicides, and 89,000 rapes). In that same year in national parks, there were a total of 5 murders and 24 rapes out of 275 million visitors, which, if my math is correct, gives the parks a homicide rate of .0018 per 100,000 and rapes of .0087 per 100,000. That means you’re 3,000 times less likely to be murdered in a park and 3,367 times less likely to be raped than anywhere else in the United States.
The numbers confirm what we already know: National parks are refuges. They are safe–not 100 percent safe, but no place is 100 percent safe.
So, let’s not kid ourselves: The argument about firearms isn’t about safety. It’s about the perception of safety, the philosophy of personal firearms, and the symbolism of carrying a weapon. It’s not about carrying the weapon so much as the right to carry it.
The language of the law itself practically seethes with indignation:
“Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
“The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.”
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., spent a year attempting to get the language into law and finally succeeded by tacking it onto the credit card reform act. It was conservatives’ lone legislative victory in 2009 and a clear bone tossed to the National Rifle Association. You’d think some of that energy could go into tackling issues that really matter, like the economy, health care, climate change, and energy policy, but no.
Although the law goes into effect today, few national parks have updated their websites with guidelines, and what it means from park to park isn’t clear. The law doesn’t actually legalize loaded, concealed weapons, it turns the legality over to state laws, which vary tremendously. And guns still aren’t allowed in buildings where federal employees work, such as visitors centers. Oh–and note that actually using the gun is still illegal.
“Many of the details of the law are unknown at this time,” Deputy California Atty. Gen. Alison Merrilees told the Los Angeles Times. “It won’t be crystal clear the day the law goes into effect.”
If you want more on the topic the LA Times has a thorough overview here and the New York Times has a debate tackling both sides of the issue.
Mad Men’s Christina Hendricks Uses Camelbak
Fresh Goods: Mike Giant-Cinelli Ram2 Road Cycling Handlebars
In Sierra Leone, Giving Birth Can Mean Death — But There’s Hope
Say Hello to Finless, The Future of Surfing
The Deeper You Get…Well, You Know How It Goes
Is This The Best Bike Lane Graffiti Ever?
Cyclist Gets Thrown Off Bridge
First Rodeo Flip Pulled in Surfing’s World Tour
Fresh Goods: Giro Introduces Full Line of Cycling Shoes
Keeping An Eye on the Tiger: Ibis Eye Hurricane Tracker
Red Bull Illume Photo Contest Picks Actions Sports Gallery of the Year
After 8 Days of Waiting for Surf, Billabong Pro Restarts
Lapsing in Time: An Epic Full Moon Risin’
What Do Think About When Riding Your Bike?
The Many Faces of Munich Cycling
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
National parks were found, set aside, and protected by men with guns right???? Was that because of the high crime rate???? NO. It was for their protection from anything that tried to harmed them and because this is America and the 2nd amendment is what it is like it or not. I don’t dispute your numbers above however the odds wont matter much if something was to happens to you or your loved one, will it? The issue is not loaded guns the issue is personal responsibility weather it’s a gun, a car, or anything else that has the potential to effect someone else. The ability to carry a loaded gun by a law abiding citizen in a NP should never have been illegal in the first place. It in no way affects anyone else’s ability to enjoy this precious’s PUBLIC natural resource, which should be the only thing up for debate.
Wow, this is a surprisingly biased take on the subject at hand. I am not sure what the downside of passing the law is?
unbelievable!
Why do we need guns in the first place? their main purpose is to cause death. National parks are designed to preserve life. is this not ironic and unmindful.
Why on earth would you want to walk around with a concealed loaded gun in a National Park? It makes me nervous that a few militants, vigorously claiming there right to bear arms are in my vicinity. It seems it would only increase the number of incidents.
A car? Well you can’t just drive willy-nilly around the park. You have to stay on the roads. And for that matter not all roads, and in many instances not at all. Most of the park is an off-limit natural area.
To me the park is a haven, and the above mentioned statistics demonstrate that there is no reason to carry loaded guns in a park. That is like insisting to go to the post office or a court house with a gun. Which I am sure you support, vigorously. Having a person with loaded gun is like having a person walking around with dynamite. I don’t care how responsible you are, if it is not being used for a constructive purpose then please keep it out of public spaces.
I think it is safer, if you can’t bring a gun into the Park. Bring your pepper spray, people, and relax. Try going on a nature hike with a Park Biologist, or on a history tour with a Professor of archeology. You don’t have to live in fear.
Brian H
You are very wrong a guns main purpose is for protection. At last resort it is to cause death, however if you are in that circumstance you will wish you had one. Join us in reality sometime and realize that in a perfect world no one need a gun, however we don’t live in a perfect world and people do need protection. If bears didn’t attack people we wouldn’t need pepper spray but they do so we carry it. Same idea it’s a sad reality but it is reality. Don’t be scared of the big bad wolf. O and there is that one other thing too umm.. Oh ya the constitutions 2nd amendment. We can’t pick and choose the ones we like it is what it is period.
David Dietzgen
First you need to understand what loaded means. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you have one in the chamber chocked and ready to go, so anyone with half a brain knows that to carry a gun safely you have it on safety and no rounds in the chamber. You are right it is a lot like dynamite…… with out an ignition source, completely safe in the right hands. It is a fact that cars killed more people then guns last year but you are not scared of my rolling dynamite are you? These are the facts period. According to Statistics, Facts and Quotes there were 30,694 gun-related deaths in the US in 2005 vs Fatal Car Accident, Crash Statistics: Stats Auto, Traffic, Car, Collision, Traffic showing 43,443 vehicular fatalities that same year. So guns overall are about 71% as deadly as vehicles in the US. On top of that I can guarantee you that there will be more accidents related to vehicles next year in parks then related to guns. You have to keep it in perspective and like I said above don’t be scared of the big bad wolf we can all coexist.
FYI I will not be carrying a gun with me anytime soon when I am in the park I feel no need however if I did and could legally do so I should have the right to. Just because your idea how a NP should be enjoyed is different from others doesn’t make you right. It is my right to safely enjoy the park as much as it is yours. That is the beauty of NP and public land we all get to enjoy it and use it however we would like as long as it is not detrimental to the area.
We can’t expect those who have taught that the US is a bad country from their progressive professors, and who have not been taught what the Bill of Rights means to our citizens, to understand God-given rights protected by the Constitution. I am less concerned about gun-grabbing politicians than I am about constitutionally ignorant citizens who keep putting the gun-control nuts into power. They are more interested in politician granted entitlements than constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment. Lose the Second and it is soon followed by the loss of the First.
Dunno about you sonny… but the main purpose of any gun I ever carried was preventing death… mine. Only thing unmindful is assuming that having a law against having guns in parks would have any effect on someone who went there to commit a crime.
And I carried for along time as a police officer, safely. I never carried a gun that wasn’t loaded, ever. If it’s something you’re carrying for self-defense especially by the time you get the thing loaded it will be a moot point. The goblin will have had his way with you and be gone, with your gun and whatever else he wants. Locked and loaded, safety on. Only way to carry… Gun’s not like dynamite, it’s like a snake… it only bites on one end.
Carry a gun in a post office almost every time I go in one. So? As long as you’re committing no crime, the sign says it’s okay.
Brian H February 22, 2010 at 22:06 pm
Why do we need guns in the first place? their main purpose is to cause death. National parks are designed to preserve life. is this not ironic and unmindful.