Artist and blogger Todd Wilkinson is unhappy about the upcoming rules change which will permit law abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms in National Parks beginning in February. He asks...
Always, the first question responsible legislators should ask when writing a law is this: What significant problem is being solved by putting another code on the books?
I happen to agree with that particular statement. In this case, the significant problem being solved is that visitors to National Parks, unlike State and local parks, are having their Second Amendment rights taken away from them and are rendered defenseless. Wilkinson doesn't see this as a problem. He doesn't feel that safety is an issue.
I have never, after hiking thousands of miles and visiting dozens of national parks, ever felt the need to carry a loaded firearm inside one.
Classic Liberal thinking. Because he hasn't felt the need to carry a gun, nobody should. I'm sure Canadian folk singer Taylor Mitchell didn't feel the need to carry a gun when she went hiking in Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Nova Scotia before being killed by coyotes two weeks ago.
Fortunately, a Montana man didn't feel the same way when he was attacked by a Grizzly bear in the Cabinet Mountains (not a National Park but it could happen there as well). He shot and killed the charging bear.
A 14-year-old Montana boy found himself in a similar situation when he was stalked by a Cougar. Fortunately for him, he wasn't in a National Park that bans guns and was able to shoot and kill the animal. Officials ruled it self-defense.
Wilkinson issued a challenge in his article.
How many homicides, drug killings, and acts of gang violence have occurred in Yellowstone and Grand Teton in the last decade?
Name one.
The Christian Science Monitor ran an article about increasing crime rates in all the National Parks noting "incidents of vandalism, arson, burglary, and theft." Yellowstone's website notes that "while most park visitors leave Yellowstone after a safe visit, some are victims of offenses such as burglaries, automobile break-ins, and an occasional assault or murder."
The National Park Service website notes an incident from a few years back when two bank robbers were arrested in Yellowstone. ABC's 20/20 also ran a story about increasing crime in all the National Parks.
Is that enough? Fortunately, crime rates and animal attacks in National Parks are still fairly rare, but that is little consolation to those victims who are attacked and/or killed. Just because one person feels safe does not mean that everyone is safe. If someone wants to trust their safety to the odds, that's their business. But if they want to take responsibility for their own safety and be prepared to repel an attack, whether from man or beast, they should be allowed to do so.
If, and when, it results in just one headline about a life saved thanks to the rules change, will Todd Wilkinson and those like him admit their mistake? Probably not. But if just one life is saved, it is all worth it.
Further reading: Tears flow from gun control advocates as the end of the National Parks gun ban draws closer
Comments
Bears are furry and lovable creatures.
Residents of States that have been trained and cleared to carry concealed handguns should be allowed to carry them everywhere, not only to protect themselves, but as a deterrent to crime.
If John and Irene Bryant had been able to defend themselves in Mount Pisgah National Forest, perhaps not only would they have survived, but the subsequent grisly murder of Meridith Emerson might have been prevented.
Potential victims, when armed or otherwise capable of defending themselves, may be the best solution to the increasing numbers of repeat predators who are neither deterred or rehabilitated by our ineffectual legal system.
While I am 100% all for firearms training, once you start using it as a reason people should be 'allowed' to keep and bear firearms, it is a slippery slope that invites standards - standards that can allow legislation that all but prohibits private citizens from owning and carrying firearms.
The idea of 'sensible' gun laws/regulations itself is a slippery slope. There is no training required to buy, own and carry a machete, a gallon of kerosene and a pack of matches, a hatchet, or even a boy scout knife. As deadly and dangerous as these things are (and, arguably, they are all as dangerous as any firearm), laws restricting them would be ridiculous.
As per the SCOTUS, the 2A is an *individual* Right that includes the Right to Bear Arms for reasons of personal protection and self defense. As Ranger Bob (who, himself, is often disarmed) cannot be all places at all times, individuals should not suffer the loss or restriction of any fundamental Rights because they are on 'federal' land
I value National Parks in part for their refuge of the few remaining large and dangerous carnivorous animals. We need places to refuge for such beasts, because should they be extirpated, there is no bringing them back.
Would I defend my life against a four-legged predator in a National Park? Sure. But to me, this rule change (I think of it as not a new law, but the repeal of an old law prohibiting the right to arms in parks) is about the means to defense against the most dangerous predator of all ... man.
I carry arms to defend myself and others in the event one of my fellow humans might try to use force to harm me or take my property.
I encourage you to discuss the need for arms in parks as defense against criminal acts of humans ... while you diminish your justification for arms in parks as a means to defend against predatory wildlife (which has a right to survive in our last remaining refuges).
I carry my gun everywhere I legally can. I carry it because I just might need it to save my life or the life of a family member. It is not about where I carry it, it is about will it be there if or when I might need it. National parks are not the issue. The threat of being attacked by a animal is probably lower then being attacked by a bad guy but if the time ever comes I want to have the option of carrying my gun while I am there. I am sick of hearing about safety issues from anti gun and non educated gun people. We are out here every day carrying and talking to the very same people that would take my gun away if they had the chance and they are none the wiser. Their Scared view of guns is the default response to lack of gun education. Plain and simple.
The ranger in the national park like the police in your town are only responders who show up after a crime or attack happens to clean up the mess. I carry a gun because the park service like the police can't be everywhere at once.
If you don't feel safe in a National Park without a gun then you must be crazy to go there in the first place.
Most animal attacks occur when the animals are provoked, they much prefer to avoid people.
Allowing the gun huggers to bring their guns into the National Parks will only result in making the parks less safe, not more safe.
Four years ago in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park on Riverview Road in Brecksville, I saw a BEAR. I was in my car. If I was walking - I would prefer a gun with me. This bear was later found in Peninsula at the Winking Lizard in back at the dumpster. The authorities moved in and took the bear to another part of the state. Look it up. You think we don't have wild animals? The Emerald Necklace - Metroparks encircles our lovely area. I hear coyotes howling in my backyard every night. We also have wild animal HUMANS who like to do bad things to women walking in the park. My life or theirs? Guess what I choose?
If you only go to the major sites in National Parks, you are unlikely to ever be in any danger. If you frequent the backcountry, you are on your own. I have encountered poachers and other obvious law-breakers in the backcountry of Yellowstone, Olympia, Great Smoky and other national parks. Two women were raped and murdered in Yosemite NP not too long ago. The right to self defense should not stop at the park border, because criminals won't stop there.
alex,what happened at fort hood should show you crime can happen anywhere,and some animals attack without being prevoked
The expert idiot ALEX speaks again!! ALEX, we've missed your mindless wisdom. Where HAVE you been??This time your blither can be easily debunked. The desparate gun banner idiots like you always predict mayhem when Second Amendment rights are restored, in this case to the national parks. Just watch, moron, it NEVER happens, but now the folks who were carrying anyway for self protection are no longer criminals by decree.
You're absolutely right, even if she'd been allowed, Taylor would NEVER have been in possession of a gun, ever, and would be disgusted that the argument for them has come up with her name in connection.
P.S. Once a clueless idiot liberal went to a national park and FELT very SAFE! The next morning a big bear ate'm.
P.P.S. You also missed the self evident fact that the Fort Hood tragedy happened because the base (thanks to military gun banner thinking that military personnel trained to fight a war CANNOT be trusted to carry sidearms) is a de facto gun free zone. Hassan, like ALL murderous cowards, knew that and exploited it. Finally, and too late,he was shot and stopped by the heroic police officer WITH A GUN. Keep on enlightening us, clueless. You just keep on proving what you are.
The National Park Service itself 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.
Admittedly, over a huge amount of territory, but still not by any means a safe haven in my humble opinion.
I am strongly opposed to this change in the law. I, like Todd, have logged hundreds of days hiking, camping and backpacking in National Parks. I too have never felt the need to carry a gun. This is not about second amendment rights, it is about political power. Crime in Parks is very low compared to just about anywhere, and the introduction of guns into the mix is unlikely to decrease it further. It is very likely to increase poaching as rangers will no longer be able to stop individuals they see carrying guns (even hunting rifles!) into the backcountry! They will have to wait until an animal is dead. There are many places that loaded guns are not allowed: airports, schools, govt. buildings. This is common sense, not a violation of rights. I am very disappointed that this was signed into law by a democrat president. It will be very interesting to watch the crime trend in parks over the next year or two. My guess is that it will more closely match that outside of the parks. A shame.
"Even if she'd been allowed, Taylor would NEVER have been in possession of a gun, ever, and would be disgusted that the argument for them has come up with her name in connection."
But if they WERE allowed, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. We respect Taylor's right to lay down her life for her beliefs more than she believed in our right to decide to defend ours.
Frank Noyes, do you even bother to read any of the comments or the article itself? Because you "feel" you do not need to carry a firearm, do you also "feel" you have the right to have your fellow Americans disarmed at the point of a government gun? When you state that you again "feel" the crime rate will match more closely what is going on outside of the parks, do you mean you "feel" it will go down like it has been for the last 20 years? What is wrong with you?
We have had four presidents assasinated, all with guns. Six others managed to survive assasination attempts. All were surrounded by the most heavily armed, best trained, protection forces the world has known. I personally have known a family that owned a small grocery store and kept an arsenal of weapons on themselves and behind the counter, who were gunned down to the last in a robbery. They may, or may not, have survived if they hadn't tried to use them. One thing is clear: guns do not prevent crime. If I am an armed criminal, and I know that there is a good chance you are carrying, I am never going to give you the chance to use your weapon. Period. There was a cartoon recently showing a terrified man huddling in his camper while his little son pleads with him to go see Old Faithful. "Not until they let me take my guns with me!" he cries. I understand paranoia and fear; but I'm more likely to die in a car crash on the way, than in a crime while at the park. Should I just stay home?
Frank doesnt seem to remember that guns were banned illegally and is not a law. It is a rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process — these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right back in the 1930's, and modified in the 1980's!
Frank also seems to adhere to the lame causality theory that if you are armed, therefore you are guaranteed to committ a crime. That being true in Franks world, if he loves children, any children, Frank is therefore a pedophile, or a woman who is equipped to be a prositute is automatically a prostitute right Frank?
Of course Frank has mass quantities of data from all those states that enacted concealed carry, carry in restraunts, carry on campus to prove his position, ooopps, not, never has, never will!
As for bears, some direct Alex to some pepper spray and bells for his tennis shoes so the rangers can identify his remains in the grizzly scat by smell and the tinkling bell's
Hey Frank, even two of your heroes, Ludwig & Cook admitted on page 10 of their DOJ study in 1997, that the range of occurences for defensive gun uses was 1 in 1,800 or 1 in 100 as described by Kleck & Gertz in 1995.
In todays population that means using the anti's occurence rate ewuals 165,000 plus DGU's your anti experts agree exist. Logically if those people didnt have a firearm to defend themselves as you desire, one could agree that the violent crime rates for that year would apply. In 2008 FBI UCR data, 9,484 homicides by firearms subtract 616 justifiable homicides and 1,688 suicide survivors from 70,000 firearms injury reported to the hospital. That would mean almost 30,000 more injuries, and almost 3,500 deaths if those people didnt have a gun, using your own anti gun experts information & government data.
Look at the home page for RKBA and count the succesful DGU's in Operation self defense since mid September, uh Frank, can you count?
Jarhead seems to forget that the current rules were signed into law by Ronald Reagan, that flaming liberal, anti-gun pinko.
Regarding bears, there has only been one bear-caused death in Yellowstone in the past 23 years. In nearly every case maulings have been attributed to someone being stupid; violating common sense rules, getting too close for a picture etc. I can pretty much guarantee that one dead bear in a National Park will get this law repealed.
As I said, paranoia and fear is not the life I choose for myself or family. It will be very interesting to see what the future brings. Hopefully you guys are all right and everything will be fine. Somehow I doubt it. I am willing to agree to disagree for now and see what the future brings.
BTW, one thing that I never do on these forums is hurtle insults (idiot boy Alex, uh Frank, can you count?). I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and has a right to express it. I assume that Mr. White would agree?
“Only a fool would wander around unarmed in areas known to be natural habitats for predatory creatures. Come to think of it, I’ve always felt much safer in the woods.”
Subjective Observer
Frank says:"I'm more likely to die in a car crash on the way, than in a crime while at the park. Should I just stay home?"Probably,but you should definitely stop blogging your foolish liberal clueless world view opinions as if they are facts worthy of any consideration by others.If you could begin to learn just a little about firearms,self defense,constitutional rights,etc.,then you likely wouldn't make statements such as this overly repeated lib blither:--"Crime in Parks is very low compared to just about anywhere, and the introduction of guns into the mix is unlikely to decrease it further.It is very likely to increase poaching...{blah blah libpuke}".And you might begin to know how foolish(idiotic)you sound to the many who are not so clueless as you. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that,by definition,you are unable to assimilate and process information(learn anything) or you wouldn't now be a mindless blogging liberal.Give it up.Go get a righteous job.Marry Alex. Anything but this!
Daniel White. I enjoyed reading your post. Since you make your comments as much a personal attack on me as in addressing the issue, allow me to respond. First, your characterization of anyone who is willing to consider modest restrictions on gun carry to be anti freedom, anti gun, anti Second Amendment is false and it is precisely this thinking that further divides the vast array of people who own guns in this country. The prohibition on guns in Yellowstone has been in effect for many decades and was re-validated in the 1980s by none other than Ronald Reagan.
A couple of questions: I have lived in the West near Yellowstone National Park for almost a quarter century, and have hunted in the adjacent national forests for nearly as long. I also began my career as a violent crime reporter in Chicago. Don't lecture me about safety and threats, real or imagined, posed by crime. There is a vast difference between Chicago and Yellowstone. And to my point, point out statistics....
more from Todd Wilkinson 2. Point out statistics that show an increase in violent crime in Yellowstone and Grand Teton over the last 25 years. The fact is, you can't. What is more alarmist, predicting that more gun presence in Yellowstone and Grand Teton will result in more wildlife being killed or telling three million visitors who go there annually that unless they carry guns they shouldn't feel safe? Moreover....
from Todd Wilkinson 3. I am not saying that there are some urban parks and preserves along the southern border, say, where carrying a firearm isn't valid as a form of protection. But those threats do not exist in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. The original law was meant as validating licensed bearers of concealed weapons permits. Fine. But why carry rifles and shotguns into Yellowstone where there is no hunting season and no sport shooting. Why not carry a sidearm? Finally, as to the argument that some have promoted here that "if just one life is saved, it will all be worth it," which of course cuts both ways:
from Todd Wilkinson 4. This is NOT an anti-gun observation, but the Ft. Hood example is pointless. Fort Hood was a military base where there are more firearms per resident than almost anywhere else. Guns did not stop those first 13 victims from being killed. As to the suggestion that tourists carry guns in Yellowstone and Grand Teton to guard themselves against the mythical violent criminals (which, for the last 10 years have not existed), here's a question:
Todd Wilkinson 5: Here's a question. One could also note that homicides have been committed in churches, at funerals and weddings, at high school and professional sporting events, in hospitals, on college campuses and at nightclubs. Are you also suggesting that, in order to be safer against criminals and terrorists, churchgoers, sports fans, and students should also carry rifles and shotguns at those venues? If not, then why in Yellowstone? If yes, then it's going to make for an even livelier discussion. I like your blog, Daniel. Open friendly honest discussion is what it's all about and I, as a fellow gun owner and Second Amendment defender, enjoy what you are trying to do.
Poor Frank, no I didnt forget about Reagan, no politician is perfect, nor did I state or infer in any way shape or form that to be true. So what is your point?
You choose to ignore facts, well two can play this little game. Show us the legal process and proceedure of how unelected bueracrats "legally" convert rules into laws circumventing both state & Federal laws? Please provide a copy of those rules as well Fed.eral Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / Rules and Regulations ref. pages 74966-74969.
Poor Frank, still hasnt provided government supplied data and facts to support your chicken little ramblings of their will be blood in the woods, you never do. I however provided evidence that firearms do save lives, which you havent refuted.
As for risk, refer to a 2006 Wisconsin government study of crime rates resulting in concealed license holders ://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf. This ranged from .01-.8% for the multiple states.
Cont
One final comment: I got a huge chuckle out of the animal images!
Those that were rejected were for all reasons, not just violent crimes, unless of course you have the data to prove otherwise, nope you dont.
You refuse to support your position with facts, or acknowledge said facts when they are presented or to use in working towards a real solution on issues. Such hardheaded stubborness is either ingornace or willful and intentional disregard, a common trait among the rabid anti gun crowd.
Mostly intentional, as evidenced by your responses.
What use is it to be polite to a person who is in such denial that they will never change their agenda/position even when hard facts are presented? Answer, none at all. As a rule, you dont contribute to logical or reasonable conversation on the issues.
If you cant handle that, you are free to choose not to frequent a blog site where your bullshit is called out on a regular basis.
Jarhead, You write, and I quote: "What use is it to be polite to a person who is in such denial that they will never change their agenda/position even when hard facts are presented?" Are you making reference to me or you? You then proceed to make foul-mouthed personal attacks. You know nothing about me. The issue is not me. The issue is THE ISSUE. I'm not opposed to people with concealed weapons permits carrying sidearms anywhere they like. But we're talking about rifles and shotguns in Yellowstone. I wrote: "Homicides have been committed in churches, at funerals and weddings, at high school and professional sporting events, in hospitals, on college campuses and at nightclubs. Are you also suggesting that, in order to be safer against criminals and terrorists, churchgoers, sports fans, and students should also carry RIFLES and SHOTGUNS at those venues? If not, then why in Yellowstone? If yes, then it's going to make for an even livelier discussion.
ya let the anti-gun nuts come to alaskan parks , and run around with-out guns, it would be good , the bears would love it. we would to, as there,ed be less commist trash to deal with.
Hi Todd Wilkinson. I'm glad you liked the composite image, I had fun putting it together.
It doesn't matter how many decades the ban was in place, it is still wrong. Ohio banned concealed carry for 145 years and I was right there helping get ccw passed because they were wrong to ban.
I'm not telling people that unless they carry guns they shouldn't feel safe. I'm saying that prohibiting people who want to take responsibility for their own safety from carrying guns is the wrong response and insinuating they're doing so only to poach is insulting. I also disagree with your logic that because you don't feel the need to carry one nobody should. If you don't want to carry, that's perfectly fine with me. Just don't make the choice for me.
And yes, I think law abiding citizens have the right to carry a firearm nearly everywhere, including churches, funerals, weddings, sporting events, schools, nightclubs, etc. I understand that you disagree that one is needed, just don't choose for m
Dan,"insinuating they're doing so (carrying a gun) only to poach is insulting." I agree. The vast majority of gun owners are upstanding citizens, absolutely agree. But to say that "law abiding" folks should be able to carry just about anywhere is also insulting, because we all know that every single criminal, every single mass murderer, was a law abiding citizen right up to the second they decided not to be. A person who wigs out unarmed might hurt themselves, someone who wigs out with a gun is very dangerous. There are many cases where cwp holders have broken the law, for example, though most do not. Is it not an infringement of MY rights not to have ANYWHERE gun free, just as it is not to have anywhere smoke free?
Look at some of the comments here. Are these the law abiding, good citizens we want lugging weapons around our children in National Parks. Are they the example you hold to the world? You make an intelligent, educated arguement. Not all gun advocates are as reasoned.
In the interest of your sensitive feelings, I will be polite and call you disingenuous, Frank, rather than the far more descriptive word.
I don't give a damn how you "feel", but does your wife know you don't care for her enough to take responsibility for her safety absent a government agent who you would hire to do for you, what you are afraid to do for yourself, or her?
I wouldn't dream of telling you to arm yourself if you don't want to. Hell, I haven't carred a firearm in decades, but you don't get to make that choice for me. No more than I get to tell you what you must do.
The difference between us is I wouldn't hire armed men to make you do what you have a right not to do, while you would hire armed men to make me not do what I have a right to do.
You're not a very nice man. But as I have learned you are probably unaware of your bad moral character, if you are the least representative of others who spew the same lame crap.
Frank writes "Is it not an infringement of MY rights not to have ANYWHERE gun free, just as it is not to have anywhere smoke free?".
(a) Show me where that right is acknowledged as a right in the Constitution. Your wishes aren't rights at all, they are just your feelings (again).
(b) By your feelings then , Do others have a "right" to have a "Frank Free Zone"? Your feelings seem to be for this.
There are ways toprotect yourself from bears and cougars- strong pepper spray is very effective- in many cases better than a bullet. I have the option to carry both and pepper spary would always be my choice. And why ban weapons on military bases but not Nat'l Parks? Gee if its not safe to allow them on military bases- who can you trust
some show their ignorance of bears with their comments. A gun does not make you safe from bears.
With that ignorance more will be shot as those who do not know will shoot at any bear who may be bluff charging or just in their vicinity. Pepper spray is a safer alternative for all.
mike3003 right try it with the bear comeing at you with the wind in your face, fact is the right gun will stop a bear ,so go ahead get ate by a bear,
mike, sam, by all means go ahead and rely on pepper spray if you wish. Nobody is telling you not to do so. But you do NOT get to tell us where to place our reliance. Further, it is our right, we were born with it, our constitution enumerates and guarantees it safe from infringement, it is the only right in the bill of rights which has an "absolute" prohibition against government infringement.
You have the right to use pepper spray. You do not have the right to tell me I can't use arms .
Daniel: As a point of historical fact and reference, Yellowstone was created, in part, to serve as a refuge from market hunters who were decimating wildlife in the later half of the 19th century. The impetus for the federal Lacey Act, which all sportsmen know, was born in Yellowstone. During the 20th century, the prohibition on tourists bringing rifles and shotguns into Yellowstone was imposed and re-ratified in response to persistent poaching problems. Some can argue that all gun owners will be responsible citizens and, with their freedom to carry, will refrain from shooting park wildlife. Rangers hope that will be the case, but they have a suspicion the new law will lead to increased poaching incidents as well as unnecessary wildlife killing. They could be wrong. Fortunately, statistics in the months ahead will settle this debate, in addition to demonstrating whether or not there are positive or negative implications for park visitor safety.
mike3003 ya you think im ignorance to bears , ha ha right sure, im from ak and wouldent trust a spray can to stop st--, it appers you would, your down fall, as for my right to bare,arms you havent no say in it, but please come to alaska and put your trust in your spray can ,,,
Frank says,
"But to say that "law abiding" folks should be able to carry just about anywhere is also insulting, because we all know that every single criminal, every single mass murderer, was a law abiding citizen right up to the second they decided not to be."
No, Frank, some of them were law abiding right up until they decided to become a murderer or some other less severe form of criminal. However, many people when they kill, maim, assault, etc are already not among the law abiding. The bulk of crime is committed by recidivists; often ones with long rap sheets that cause people to say "Why wasn't he in prison?" when they get arrested for murdering someone. The number of people who just suddenly snap and go from upstanding citizen to killer is relatively small compared to the number of people that make a career out of crime.
Todd, National Park carry was legal for a couple of months early in 2009, before a Clinton appointed judge struck it down over false environmental concerns. Was there an increase in poaching of wildlife during that time frame? In fact, was there a single negative outcome? Anything?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!