Camp-Fire? Guns Now Legal in National Parks

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Social Issues

(CBS/AP)

The fact that a new law allowing loaded guns in national parks went into effect on the same day (today) as rules imposing restrictions on credit card companies is no coincidence: In a nice illustration of the way things work in Congress, the guns bill was attached as an amendment to the (completely-unrelated) credit card legislation back in May.

The new rule allows people to carry firearms, including semi-automatic weapons, in most national parks and wildlife refuges, so long as they follow the gun laws of the state. (That could get a little complicated, as more than 30 parks occupy land in multiple states.) As the Los Angeles Times points out, that means people can now carry concealed weapons while camping in places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite.

Critics, including former directors of the National Park Service, complain that the rule marks parks more dangerous: They argue that the decision to overturn a 1983 law visitors mandating that visitors had to unload and disassemble their guns and place them somewhere not-easily-accessible increases the prospect of violence. The new rule is "a risky change that will endanger families, hikers, those who work in these places and the park rangers themselves," as a Ventura County Star editorial put it.

"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," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Associated Press.

Defenders of the new rule like David Codrea counter that the rule won't legalize murder or poaching.

"An otherwise peaceable armed citizen who gets by just fine with his guns outside park boundaries won't suddenly undergo a personality transformation once he crosses a line on a map," he argues. "And a criminal, who is not predisposed to obeying rules, won't alter his behavior one way or another."

The new rule is a reminder of how, despite Republican fears that President Obama and the Democratic Congress would set limits on gun ownership and freedom, Democrats have largely embraced traditionally-Republican positions on gun rights over the past year. The amendment to the credit card bill making the new rule passed with the support of 67 senators -- 27 of whom were Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

41 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 41 Comments


by zeyancya April 23, 2010 5:33 AM EDT: The change in federal law basically means that national park visitors must obey the federal, state, and local gun laws appropriate to the parks they are visiting. It's a sharp change to previous laws that severely restricted guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.
http://www.wildlifeworld360.com/; Reply to this comment

by Interlogger February 23, 2010 2:12 PM EST

To the naysayers, why should the constitutional right to bear arms (confirmed by the Supreme Court to apply to individuals in June 2008) end when you enter expansive, outdoor federal property--property which you help pay for?

Reply to this comment


by Berkeley-SkirtLifter February 23, 2010 5:33 PM EST: agreed.

Who doesn't feel safer in a wilderness area when armed?

by troutfishyman February 23, 2010 11:06 AM EST

Most of the people who were licensed probably carried in the parks before, but just did it discretely. Speaking from experience. The law change is a good thing.

Reply to this comment


by AOCGUY February 23, 2010 1:26 PM EST: Trout, Your comment is problematic. Most of us would agree that we should have no fear of law abiding American exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to carry a legal firearms. Your comment that some of those "law abiding Americans" may not have obeying the law up til now whether discretly or not means that they are no so law abiding. While I have no issue with the change in the law to allow firearms in National Parks, I do have a problem with people cherry picking which laws they will respect and obey and which ones they deem appropriate for someone else.


by lilbear925 February 23, 2010 10:50 AM EST: My having a gun legally in a national park is more of a deterrent to someone else wanting to rob me at gunpoint. It happens, and until now, criminals, knowing they won't meet any resistance, have centered their activities in parks not allowing the LEGAL carry of firearms. The wildlife deosn't scare me. The weird people following me up a hiking trail without their own backpack, proper clothing for conditions, or knowledge of the area do tend to make me nervous. I don't wave my gun around. It's just there if I need it. Believe me, seeing someone calmly carrying a gun on a bona fide hike may be enough to keep a crook from trying to rob me and run.; Reply to this comment

by JourneyHomeBurke February 23, 2010 10:42 AM EST

I have to admit I'm on the bubble but common sense rings out - a) people get into arguments, b) people drink on vacation - some excessively even in the woods (whether its to hunt or just camp out) - and some go there specifically to get loaded. c) People have tempers and they get worse when drinking. They get in arguments 97% of the time ridiculous, spun up nonsense not based in reality but a whole lot of frothing and rage over imagined slights and mis-communication or the rambling of an unfit mind.

I would recommend steering way clear of the loud yahoos and move your camp site no matter what time of day or night. Be very careful where you pitch your tent or park your R/V.

It's just not a good idea to mix firearms and alcohol - in fact it's plain stupid. When alleged "rights" trump common sense you get trouble. If you are going to have guns in the Parks ban alcohol but you can't have both.

I've seen you guys with your guns (sober) waving them at rallies and puffed up like peacocks walking into sub shops in the middle of the day just itching for an excuse to use them get in an altercation over something minor - or flip your badge while off duty. Come on macho men fess up you know who you are usually un-empowered, emasculated some way or short in the pants.

If you feel the need to arm yourself on the way to a state or national park to commune with nature and get some exercise and fresh air something is way, way wrong.... if you feel the need to arm your home - you're living in the wrong neighborhood. For those of you who don't have a choice I understand.

Don't worry about access to guns when the revolution comes - look at any hot spot anywhere around the world - there are plenty of guns available they flood in to all sides. It's capitalism and the opportunist it breeds in all its glory.

The loophole at gun shows needs to be closed - how and why are you angelic law abiding citizens of the NRA against that? Hmm maybe because it's the gun manufacturers that run and fund the NRA and whip all the angelic gun carriers up into a froth through FEAR that the bogey men are coming to do what - stop you from going to work and collecting taxes. It doesn't add up when you think it through does it?

Reply to this comment


by Mortar_29 February 23, 2010 10:54 AM EST: Talk about "frothing."

by stormerF2 February 23, 2010 8:00 AM EST

Why does the local Hysterical society come out,when honest law abiding citizens get to keep their rights of self protection? Seems like they believe the criminals will obey the gun laws while murdering or raping you?

Reply to this comment


by troutfishyman February 23, 2010 10:34 AM EST: I did not see any hysteria, except from you.

by taxchurches February 23, 2010 7:30 AM EST

Well, as long as they haven't rescinded the laws against reckless endangerment, or discharging a firearm in a populated area, it is still illegal to USE the gun for anything other than a ***** surrogate in a National Park.

Boy, these gun nuts are some frightened little old ladies. If you're afraid of what's in the woods, stay out of the woods. I have seen mountain lions and bears in the wild, and have never needed a gun yet to defend myself yet. Just don't make a wrong turn coming back from the john, kids, because the frightened man in the next tent will start blasting away when he hears a twig snap.

Doesn't bother me, really. Only tourists go to parks, anyway, and they're no great loss. This law really only affects fat people in campers.

Reply to this comment


by louiville35 February 23, 2010 8:47 AM EST: LOL OK Timothy Treadwell your right. Iguess you just stick to the paths, right and then call yourself an outdoorsman.


by Mortar_29 February 23, 2010 10:56 AM EST: Gun nuts?

Man, you are a mess!

by andacar February 23, 2010 2:15 AM EST

It's clear to me that the gun advocates are determined to have their way, even if it means sneaking a rider in under cover of darkness. They already have overwhelming control in congress as it is. Now, through hysterical rants that Obama is going to take their guns away (despite there being not a shred of evidence for it), there is now no place in America where you can go without somebody else being there armed to the teeth. It will be interesting to see who is right here: I wonder what the homicide rate in National Parks will be in, say, five years.

Reply to this comment


by riflemanm16a2 February 23, 2010 4:34 AM EST: I have heard two sound bites of anti-gun comments by Obama. In one, he states he would try to make a federal ban on concealed carry if elected President. The other was during the high violence in Mexico, when a lie that all the Mexican drug cartels were getting their guns from the US was being perpetuated. He said the assault weapons ban "makes sense." What's wrong with carrying guns? You do realize that one has to submit to a full background check and give the FBI his finger prints to get a permit, right? So, A. The police will have everything they need to nail the person if he does commit a crime, and B. Someone who is intent on shooting a place up isn't going to turn around and stop because a sign says guns aren't allowed. People should be punished for crimes that have victims; simply carrying a gun is not one of them. Guns are a means of self-defense; they level the playing field so that anyone can defend himself, not just the physically strong. And violence would still take place without them. Most self-defense situations involving an armed citizen end with no shots fired anyway. In other words, they prevent violence by deterring criminals.


by AOCGUY February 23, 2010 9:04 AM EST: riflemanm16a2 - I don't know where you are getting your information but it is false. In factduring the campaign Obama said he believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms." And he voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. Sounds like a fairly conservative if not pro defintely not anti gun stance. That said, I will conce3de your comment if you can provide factul evidence that he has said something to support your position.


by Skykevver February 22, 2010 11:32 PM EST: Pardon me, but your slant is showing. There?s nothing like clear, even handed, objective reporting on an event or issue. And this is nothing like clear, even handed, objective reporting. To start off, why does this report need to add a clarification that the new rule allowing people to carry firearms in national parks includes ?semi-automatic weapons?? Perhaps there is something more ominous sounding about ?semi-automatic weapons? than say ?legal firearms,? or ?legal guns.? If there is truly a need for clarification, why not really clarify, for example making it clear that illegal firearms such as machine guns, automatic assault weapons, or guns with noise suppressors (silencers) are not included? Or clarify that semi-automatic weapons, muzzle loading weapons, single shot guns, and revolvers are all included? It seems a little obvious to me that including ?semi-automatic weapons? is intended to add to the perception of danger?the implication being that allowing guns in national parks is dangerous, even more dangerous because ?semi-automatic weapons? are allowed, too.
There are principally two sides to the issue: anti-gun and pro-gun. Would objective, unbiased reporting print 131 words presenting the anti-gun viewpoint and 50 words presenting the pro-gun viewpoint? Maybe those on the pro-gun side of the issue should be grateful their viewpoint was presented at all.
In a cbsnews.com article published on December 21, 2009, reporting a ?remarkable decline? in violent crime to the lowest rates since the ?60?s, out of 665 words in the report there was not one mention of the surge in gun ownership since the Obama administration took office. While there was much ?Experts?scratching their heads? and guessing reported, the article completely ignored one potentially viable explanation, at least in part for the decline, that there are now more citizens and households armed with protection against criminals who would commit violence against them, and the irony is that the surge in gun purchases is largely attributable to fears that the Obama administration would enact gun-control legislation demanded by the anti-gun lobbyists.
?FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged.? ?Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply.? (Christian Science Monitor)
It is a documented fact that burglars and other violent criminals are more afraid of armed homeowners than the police. (BBC News, Joyce L. Malcolm, 15 Jan. 2003, et. al.)
If it isn?t already obvious, I am an advocate for Second Amendment rights. If this comment gets published by the editor I will be amazed. I DO believe in having laws that prohibit criminals and mentally unstable individuals from owning or carrying guns. I also think it is acceptable to require those who wish to carry a concealed weapon in public to demonstrate they can handle the gun safely, shoot with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and are educated on the laws governing the use of lethal force in self-defense, as long as those laws are do not discriminate against minority population, race, gender, political orientation, religion or creed, geographic location, economic circumstance, or any other protected group. I am not asking for reporting that is biased toward my viewpoint. But is it too much to ask that my side of the issue be given equal respect?; Reply to this comment


by bread57 February 22, 2010 10:41 PM EST: This is a classic situation. An effort is put forward to increase the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, and anti-gun Chicken Littles tell us how passing the latest concealed carry legislation will cause blood to run in our streets, balloon the crime rate and turn every road rage incident (or in this case, a walk in the woods) into a shootout. Then, when the legislation is enacted, there's no increase in crime whatsoever. There hasn't ever been any increase in crime after the passage of concealed carry legislation, and there's not going to be any, now. That's because law-abiding citizens--the only citizens who are given concealed carry permits--don't cause crime.

Since 1986, 40 states have legalized concealed carry for their law-abiding citizens. In 3 of them, crime remained unchanged, and in 37 of them, crime went down, often at rates of decline that exceeded that of their region or the country as a whole. In not one single state did crime increase after the passage of concealed carry legislation. None. Zip. Moreover, the crime rate has been steadily falling since 1991, even while the number of guns in the U.S. has increased astronomically and the number of concealed carry states have grown. Concealed carry states have lower rates of violent crime than non-carry states. And the rate of criminality among concealed carry permit holders is almost non-existent. Do you think that's true of the general population? Trust me, folks, the guy you WANT in the next camp over IS the guy with the concealed carry permit.

The idea that guns, or easier access to guns by law-abiding citizens causes crime is a failed one. It belongs on the ashheap of history. It isn't true. It's never been true. It's never GOING to be true. Any insistence to the contrary is done out of fear and ignorance.

What IS true is that guns in the hands of violent, criminal predators DOES cause crime. THAT'S where foes of gun crime SHOULD be focusing their efforts.; Reply to this comment