Gun-toting in national parks

It was said many years ago, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." A controversial gun-toting issue is being tossed around like a hot potato lately. Specifically, the regulations pertaining to carrying a firearm in Glacier and other national parks are at the forefront.

Today, 48 states, including Montana, have laws that issue permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self defense. Most states, including Montana, allow citizens to carry guns in state parks. But let's not confuse what is allowed in state parks vs. national parks. Currently, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands' policies mirror host state firearm laws while national park lands and national wildlife refuges have different policies.

Chris W. Cox is chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). Cox wrote this week that the words "national park" invoke peaceful images of wholesome families spying wildlife, frolicking among wildflowers. But today, your national park experience may include a stick up, a rape or even worse, he said. Cox cites a Washington Post report saying that in 2005, violent crimes in our national parks included 17 homicides, 49 rapes or attempted rapes, 68 robberies and five kidnappings. He said it is troubling that national crime rates plummeted while crime rates escalated in our parks.

It was a good decision by the Bush Administration, and a majority of the U.S. Senate — including both Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester — to review firearms policies on national park lands. It's a good idea to review a policy before a change is made in it, not just because there is pressure to make a change for sake of conformity.

Cox says that the NRA applauded the review effort for two reasons: It is reasonable for individuals and families enjoying our parks to have a means to defend themselves, if they chose to do so; and the NRA believes that sportsmen who enjoy going afield should not face a confusing national patchwork of regulations, governed by different agencies and bureaucracies.

Cox says that from a practical standpoint, a revision of these rules will provide uniformity across the nation's federal lands and put an end to the confusing collage. I agree.

Opponents of conformity argue that a change in policy will result in increased poaching, and Cox says that that is a hollow argument. He says that BLM, USFS, state parks and other government lands that currently allow firearms are not sanctuaries for poachers. Poaching is illegal and will remain as such.

Some say that allowing firearms to be carried in all national parks will result in more gun-related accidents. If statistics pertaining to national parks that allow guns are an indication, chances are that there won't be a rise in harm by firearm. But if there are more guns in parks such as Glacier won't there me more danger to visitors?

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. They do not reflect changes in state laws over the past 25 years with respect to carrying firearms. In December of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense.

According to Cox, why should the NPS have legal authority to prevent you from protecting you or your family? When there is conformity between state and national park regulations in terms of carrying firearms, it will be up to you whether to arm yourself when you go into a national park. It's going to make families visiting Glacier and other national parks nervous — and knowing that carrying a gun is legal could very well result in a downturn in visitation. With fewer visitors there will be a negative effect on our local economy.

Cox says the NRA has always maintained that there's plenty of wild in the wilderness, both animal and human, that can endanger law-abiding hikers, anglers, campers and bird watchers. You enter national parks at your own risk, and the National Park Service is not obligated to protect you, he said. Perhaps carrying a firearm can save your life if you're charged by a grizzly. But then again, is the best defense to carry a rifle and hope you have time to aim and fire, or keep pepper spray at hand and use it instead?

Joe Sova is managing editor of the Hungry Horse News.