Concealed Carry in National Parks - a good thing

After years of discussion, the rules for concealed carry in national parks have been changed for the better. They're just like national forests now - you can carry a weapon for protection.

As a Libertarian, I think with the exception of a correctional institution, concealed carry is a good thing. It allows individuals to have the ability to defend themselves if they so choose.

Prohibition of concealed carry is a prohibition of choice, and a prohibition of self-defense. Both of those prohibitions are wrong.

America is about freedom of choice, and an armed people are a free people. Know arms, know freedom; no arms, no freedom.

Let's first understand the concerns about concealed carry in national parks, then let's examine the facts without all the hysteria.

Concerns About Concealed Carry in National Parks

I'm looking at an editorial opinion from the Miami Herald that was reprinted in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle under the heading RESTORE THE FIREARMS BAN IN NATIONAL PARKS. It blames the Bush administration for caving in to the demands of the NRA.

It's a lot of general alarmist propaganda, but here are the arguments against national parks concealed carry as near as I can identify them.

• the new rules are harmful
• they do damage
• no one associated with our national parks wanted the gun ban lifted
• most of the respondents during the public comment period opposed lifting the gun ban
• carrying firearms into these national treasures makes no sense
• the weapon ban has worked well all these years
• the concealed carry ban has reduced poaching and kept the level of violence between people to a minimum
• these lands and the people who visit them are now at greater risk

Let's Hear Some Truth and Common Sense

First of all, firearms are not banned from national parks. You can take them into a national park, but they must be unloaded and disabled. The new rules allow concealed carry permit holders to engage in concealed carry in national parks, if they desire to do so.

The editorial opinion talks about visitors now "packing guns" and the fact that there are over 500,000 people in Florida licensed for concealed carry. The writer hopes to conjure up images of 500,000 people roaming around national parks in Florida just looking for a reason to whip out their weapons and start blasting.

The whole issue of allowing concealed carry in national parks isn't something that was cooked up at the end of the Bush administration -- it has been in the works for years. It is simply applying age-old rules for national forests to our national parks.

Concealed carry is allowed in national forests, so how is it that national parks should be so different? Each has trees, bushes, animals and visitors -- and criminals ready to prey upon animals and visitors.

Apparently the writer believes that handguns (the preferred concealed carry weapon) are ideal for poaching. Clearly the writer isn't a hunter and doesn't know anything about hunting. Only a tiny fraction of hunting is done with any type of weapon that can be considered concealable.

No Safer with Gun Restrictions

The idea that national parks are safe places because of gun restrictions makes about as much sense as saying that Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. are safe places because of their firearms restrictions. Yeah right!

The idea that concealed weapons pose a "greater risk" in a national park ignores statistics that clearly show more guns equals less crime and a lower severity of violent crime. There is a clear relationship between places with high violent criminal activity and places with the greatest restrictions on firearms, and often they are one in the same.

Let's remember that laws are for the law abiding. Firearms restrictions don't deter criminals because it isn't their intention to follow laws in the first place. Laws stop criminals about as much as stop signs stop cars.

Firearms restrictions only offer a safer environment for criminals to carry out their activities against the law abiding. Gun free zones aren't crime free zones - they are only places where criminals have greater confidence of operating among disarmed victims.

Avoiding Disaster

I know of two examples where a single armed man deterred criminal gangs of 3 and 5 members each, simply by showing the criminals approaching the campsite that there would be a price to pay. In each case, the man was camping with his wife in a remote area of a state park, and the campsite intruders approached in a manner that clearly indicated planning for a malevolent act.

In both of these situations, no police report was made because no crime was committed. So, we have no official record that law abiding citizens with firearms used them in a legal manner to avoid disaster in a state park.

What difference would it make if the potential victims were camping, fishing or hiking? Aren't they entitled to self-defense from those who would do them harm? Of course they are.

All the opposition to concealed carry in national parks by government officials and the public mirrors similar opposition to concealed carry laws across the country. Our experience shows clearly that violent crime has gone down because responsible citizens have been better prepared to take care of themselves.

In addition, all the predictions of gunfights over traffic accidents and blood in the streets has not materialized. The blood in our streets is still confined mostly to large metro areas where drug deals are common.

Nevertheless, some people cling to the belief that banning concealed carry in national parks has created bliss and reduced crime of all sorts. The truth is simply that criminals will be criminals and they typically don't hang out in national parks, but sometimes they do.

The idea that bans on concealed carry in national parks are responsible for these places being safe is merely an illusion. As for my associates that encountered criminals on the prowl for vulnerable targets in state parks, they know that there is no reason why something like that can't occur in one of our national parks.

So Where do You Stand?

If you agree with the Miami Herald opinion writer that bans on concealed carry in national parks have "worked well all these years", then I would invite you to imagine yourself back on September 10, 2001 saying that the policies and actions of our intelligence and investigative services have "worked well all these years" protecting Americans. I suppose you'd be right...for a little while.

Those who desire to be prepared to defend themselves should be allowed to do so. As Larry Elder so clearly pointed out, gun control proponents "have blood on their hands," and no one knows this better than the criminals and their victims.

Concealed carry in national parks is a good thing, just like it's a good thing almost everywhere else. As a Libertarian, I fight for your freedom, at home, at work, and in our national parks.

Done with Concealed Carry in National Parks, take me back to Gun Control