By Michael
Collins
Ventura
County Star
February 9, 2008
WASHINGTON
— Russell Galipeau looks at the current ban on loaded guns
in national parks as a perfectly sensible way to keep public
lands as the safe, scenic treasures they were intended to be.
"We want people to be able to come there, be inspired,
relax and learn," said Galipeau, superintendent of
Channel Islands National Park. "And if there is a segment
of our population that becomes intimidated because people are
there with guns, then that starts to erode that sense of place
and relaxation.''
Gun-rights advocates in Congress, however, are pushing to
overturn the federal ban, arguing it's confusing and often
results in otherwise law-abiding citizens getting charged with
a crime for simply transporting or carrying a loaded weapon.
"We think it would make good public policy," Andrew
Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association,
said of lifting the ban.
Forty-seven U.S. senators, including Republicans and
Democrats, sent a letter in December to Interior Secretary
Dirk Kempthorne asking him to repeal the ban, which has been
in place for more than a quarter-century.
'A patchwork of gun laws'
Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is pushing
legislation that would rescind the ban and allow state laws to
govern whether loaded weapons should be permitted in national
parks. Coburn's legislation is in the form of an amendment to
a broader federal lands bill. It had been expected to come to
the Senate floor next week, but its future was in doubt Friday
because of a disagreement between Coburn and Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
The ban, established by the Reagan administration in 1983,
doesn't prohibit guns outright in national parks. It does,
however, require that firearms be unloaded and stored in the
trunks of cars or other places where they are not readily
available. The regulation also applies to lands managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but not to national parks in
which hunting is permitted.
Regardless, Coburn and others say the restrictions against
loaded weapons are unnecessary, violate the Second Amendment,
leave park visitors unable to protect themselves and put park
rangers at risk of assault or other crimes.
What's more, many states allow gun owners to carry concealed
weapons with permits. Those laws vary from state to state,
however, and the federal ban on loaded weapons in parks just
adds to the confusion, Arulanandam said.
"Right now, there is a patchwork of gun laws," he
said. "Within a state, you will have laws and policies
governing different lands, and I think it is prudent to have
one standard policy across a state."
Harder to protect icons
Supporters
of the loaded-gun ban say there would be even more confusion
if Congress rescinds the federal rule.
Many federal parks straddle multiple states. Death Valley
National Park, for example, sits in both Nevada and
California, and the two states have dramatically different gun
laws.
Nevada has no state restrictions on the sale or possession of
military-style semi-automatic assault weapons or
large-capacity ammunition magazines ranging up to 75 rounds.
The state also doesn't require criminal background checks on
all firearm sales.
California, on the other hand, restricts the sale of all
semi-automatic assault weapons, such as semi-automatic
versions of AK47s and Uzis. The state also limits magazines in
excess of 10 rounds and requires universal background checks
on all firearm purchases.
If the federal ban on loaded guns in parks is lifted, visitors
to Death Valley would be subject to different state laws
depending on where they are in the park.
Because there is no formal state line through the park, it
would be hard for visitors and park rangers to know which
state law applies, said Laura Loomis, deputy vice president
for government affairs for the National Parks Conservation
Association in Washington.
Lifting the federal ban also would make it harder to protect
icons like Mount Rushmore or the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area against terrorism and would increase the
possibility of deadly conflicts between competing park users,
such as bikers and hikers, Loomis said.
'It is a poison pill'
The ban
also has been an effective weapon against poaching and drug
dealing in national parks, Loomis said. If it's lifted,
poaching would likely increase, she said, and the number of
charges that can be brought against drug dealers would be
considerably reduced.
At Channel Islands, the restrictions have never been much of
an issue, Galipeau said.
"We have found that in most cases, people who transport
guns to parks have not had any objection to unloading guns and
putting them in their trunk," he said. "They haven't
seen it really as a problem.''
Galipeau said he could not recall any cases in the past year
in which someone has been cited for bringing a loaded gun into
the park. Occasionally, boaters who have been traveling long
distances may wander into the park with loaded firearms.
"But what's different is they are in their vessels and
they are not in plain view," Galipeau said.
"So a lot of times we don't know they actually have
weapons on their boats. And those who decide they are going to
shoot at tin cans or birds, we have law enforcement who can
handle that.''
Both California senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and
Barbara Boxer, oppose lifting the federal ban.
"I strongly oppose Sen. Coburn's amendment, and I will do
everything I can to resist it," Feinstein said.
"This amendment is unnecessary, it is a poison pill, and
it poses a threat to public safety. The current policy works,
and that is why it is supported by parks groups and law
enforcement. It would be a mistake to allow loaded guns in our
national parks."
Contact Michael
Collins
|
