Senate OKs Loaded Guns In National Parks

(CBS/AP)  The Senate has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns - including semi-automatic weapons - in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which would restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded weapons in national parks.

The relaxed gun rules, introduced on January 9, allowed visitors to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns were required to be unloaded and locked away, such as in a car trunk.

In March U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked the rule, calling the Interior Department's rule-making process "astoundingly flawed" and said officials failed to evaluate (as required by law) the possible environmental impacts of allowing loaded weapons into the parks.

The Obama administration accepted the ruling, saying that the Interior Department would conduct a full environmental review.

Sen. Coburn then attached the gun amendment to an unrelated Senate bill imposing restrictions on credit card companies.

To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators - including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year.

The credit card bill passed 90-5 Tuesday. The measure now goes to the House, where approval is expected.

Reid Spokesman Jim Manley said the Senator is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans.

"The rules that apply to our federal lands are felt acutely in Nevada, where 87 percent of the state's land is managed by federal agencies," Manley said.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which sued to block the Bush policy, called the Senate vote reckless. The group called on President Barack Obama to demand that the gun provision be stripped from the credit card bill.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke. "The president should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Helmke and other critics, including environmental groups, park rangers and the Humane Society, say the Coburn amendment goes further than the Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded handguns in national parks and refuges. The measure would allow individuals to openly carry rifles, shotguns and even semiautomatic weapons on ranger-led hikes and campfire programs at national parks, the groups said.

Coburn said the gun measure protects every American's Second Amendment rights and also protects the rights of states to pass laws that apply to their entire state, including public lands.

"Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of their states," Coburn said.

Last year seven former directors of the National Park Service - including the Bush administration's first park chief - signed a letter opposing a relaxation of gun restrictions in parks. The former park officials said the stricter regulations had helped make national parks among the safest places in America.

But the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates pushed to loosen the gun rules.

[Kirk_wa]

I am not a gun owner. I do however have the right and freedom to own and carry a gun. when you take away the rights and freedoms of the law abiding people, you leave only criminals and law breakers with firearms. most people who have a state issued or a federal permit to carry a concealed pistol, or those with hunting permits are law abiding people. They can not have a history of criminal behavior or mental illness. So my question is if my family and I are walking in the park (Federal, State, or neighborhood) and some junkie or robber, or rapist tries to harm or kill myself or a member of my family who is going to defend them? are the law enforcement or game department or the F.B.I. going to protect us? Yes if a drunk redneck, poacher, or anyone is commiting a crime with a weapon (any weapon) they should be punished. In most states it is illegal to carry or use a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. So you can burn a flag but don't you dare defend yourself or your family.

[billorights]

The insertion of ?concealed carry? into this topic is a red herring which is obviously being used by some to create confusion.

Each of the states already has laws in place to which determine how and where a firearm may be carried or transported within the state.

The problem, which this new legislation corrects, was that federal laws, applicable to federally controlled wilderness lands and national parks within these states, superseded the state laws pertaining to firearms. This new federal legislation will allow existing state firearm laws to control possession and use of firearms in national park and wilderness areas within the state.

[tamericanpie]

Good idea. It should have never been illegal anyway.

[solothinker]

"Visitors to national parks should have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of their states,"
I agree with this, you can never be too careful. The fact is you will never be able to take every gun out of civilian hands. You need to protect yourself and your family when unfortunate incidents arise. I would also hate to be hiking down a trail and a mountain lion decides to join the party and all I have is a walking stick.

[erasmus111]

hey erasmus...at the 1:24 post you talk about YOUR criminals as though it applies to us here in the USA.

Ever hear of knives? They kill more than guns do... are used to kill, pardon me..

Posted by ralpherus at 3:31 PM : May 20, 2009

My POINT is that if you didn't have guns, then your home invaders wouldn't have had guns and your burglars wouldn't have guns etc. Everyone here does not have guns, so therefore it's harder for the bad people to get guns. They can't just break into anyone's house and get one. Know what I mean?

And as for knives, most people would use a gun before a knife. Guns are very easy to use. Less messy. You just stand and shoot. In most cases where a gun was used, I would bet that if there wasn't a gun, they would not have chosen to use a knife. And in the cases of these mass shootings, I could probably guarantee they wouldn't even attempted to use a knife.

[ralpherus]

There will be a whole lot fewer crimes successfully carried out without many intended victims prevailing over their attacker! YAY.

[ralpherus]

Yawn, noloyalisti.

[noloyalisti]

There are going to be a lot more accidental shootings because of this ridiculous excuse for "freedom"

"Oh, my bad, I thought it was a bear" or "man I just ran out of beer and I need more and you have them" or "what do you mean Mr. Ranger it is time to vacate the campsite"

[ralpherus]

hey erasmus...at the 1:24 post you talk about YOUR criminals as though it applies to us here in the USA. They don't. You are mistaking nonsense for arguments with facts... 1:26 post- I used exclamation points yes, all caps, no. use your eyes kid. Chitown- you are plain and simple a LIAR. (cap'd that for emphasis) back to erasmus at 2:23- you forget- gus can defend from ANY attack, not only by gun. Ever hear of knives? They kill more than guns do... are used to kill, pardon me..

[julesarcher1]

I think Smokey better stay hibernating this spring . . .