Weapons versus wild

COX NEWS SERVICE

A Bush administration proposal to allow loaded guns to be carried in national parks is provoking a crossfire of controversy.

a crossfire of controversy.

On one side are the National Rifle Association and 47 senators seeking a rule change to allow the firearms. On the other are all seven living former National Park Service directors and several park-employee groups.

For the past 23 years, carrying firearms in parks has been permitted only in designated locations where hunting and target practice are legal. Otherwise, guns must be “inoperable or packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use,” according to Park Service regulations.

“It’s a ridiculous idea to change regulations that are working just fine,” said Bryan Faehner, legislative representative for the National Parks Conservation Association.

“Parks are safe. The current regulation is in place to keep parks safe and make sure that poachers don’t get away with poaching in parks. There is just no need [to change the rule]. It is a crazy political stunt by the NRA,” he said. “This policy change is coming from a political situation at the Department of Interior level, and the Park Service doesn’t want this.”

The National Rifle Association disagrees, saying park patrons should be able to use legal means to protect themselves from wild animals and violent crime.

“If there are politics being played, it’s by those who continue to misrepresent the facts and law-abiding people who want to defend themselves and families from two-legged and four-legged creatures,” said the NRA’s chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox.

On Wednesday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed new regulations that would let people carry a concealed weapon in a park or wildlife refuge if that person has a state-issued permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located allows guns in parks.

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

The public now has 60 days to comment before the department takes final action.

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

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, 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, while Nevada does not. Mrs. Feinstein called the rule “almost impossible to enforce” and “an open invitation to poachers.”

The furor began in December when the 47 senators — 39 Republicans and eight Democrats — sent the first of two letters to Mr. Kempthorne requesting that the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service remove restrictions on the carrying and transport of firearms.

“Regulatory 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,” the letter said. A similar February letter from four more senators — three Republicans and one Democrat — also expressed support for a new rule.

All seven surviving former National Park Service directors sent letters to Mr. Kempthorne defending the restrictions on firearms.

Fran Mainella, the immediate former Park Service director, who was appointed by President Bush, said the current rules “have been received very well.”

“We have over 270 million visitors a year, some visit several parks in different states. The most important thing is for them to feel that they are coming into a special place with special rules,” she said.

Other organizations opposed to changing the rule, including the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, have said that carrying a loaded gun could give visitors a false sense of security. They said more effective precautions, such as bear spray, can be taken to protect families against animals.

But supporters of the rule change argue that guns should be available in all areas to protect visitors.

“I think people should use whatever means necessary to defend themselves and their families,” Mr. Cox said. “If a lawful person chooses to run from an attack, by all means run fast as you can. If you choose to use [bear] spray or jingle bells, then by all means do so. You should have the right to whatever legitimate option you choose.”

Beyond the danger from animals, some say, production of illegal drugs such as marijuana and methamphetamine are on the rise in national forests. Although neither the National Park Service nor the U.S. Forest Service keeps statistics on violent crime in parks, rangers across the country have told reporters they see an increase.

Allowing guns in parks “is not only common sense, but good policy,” said Mr. Cox. “The dire predictions of shootouts in the streets are the same we heard during the debate over the right to carry [concealed handguns]. Those predictions have not materialized — in fact, the opposite has happened. There has been a benefit to community.”

• Matthew Daly of the Associated Press contributed to this report.