Senate Votes to Allow Guns in National Parks

The U.S. Senate passed an amendment Tuesday by a 67-29 vote that will allow visitors to carry loaded firearms inside national parks and wildlife refuges. Offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Senate Amendment 1067 would prevent the secretary of the Interior from promulgating or enforcing any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and the possession of the firearm complies with the law of the state where the park or wildlife refuge is located.

The amendment is attached to H.R. 627, which would amend the Truth in Lending Act.

The text of Coburn's amendment explains the background of this issue: Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, states that, except in special circumstances, U.S. citizens may not 'possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges' of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Bush administration issued new regulations that would allow firearms, and those regulations took effect Jan. 9, 2009, but a Washington, D.C. federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on March 19, 2009, to prevent those regulations from being implemented or enforced.

The amendment says "Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . should not be infringed."


In a statement posted on his office Web site, Coburn cited 2006 data from the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service: 16 homicides (including one manslaughter charge), 41 rape cases (including two attempted rapes), 92 robberies, 16 kidnappings, and 333 aggravated assaults. "These offenses only include homicides and other crimes handled by national park and refuge law enforcement, but don't account for the homicides and crimes other law enforcement agencies processed," the statement said.


Share this Page


Comments

Mon, Jul 18, 2011

The amendment had is own vote, with its own record as to who voted for what: how that is dodging accountability is pretty much a stretch..


Mon, Jul 18, 2011 VT

Why do you have to start name calling? I suppose as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights that you believe in it's OK. You know what they say - In an emergency where seconds count the police are minutes away or in the case of Fed parks hours or even days away.

Mon, Jul 18, 2011

More idiotic pacification of the gun nuts as can be easily seen by the obvious fact that they had to sneak it in as an amendment to the "Truth in Lending" legislation so Senators wouldn't have to be accountable for such stupidity.

Mon, Jul 18, 2011

How this ended up on here two years later I'm not sure... I have gone through, cumulatively, about 25 hours of state-mandated instruction, three qualifying sessions, Three FBI background checks, State police background checks, had my fingerprints run six times, and countless hours and thousands of dollars' worth of personal practice and training in order to safely and legally carry a weapon if I feel the need to. You people are going to tell me that MY carrying a weapon to defend myself, my family, and others if needed is a threat, and it's "dangerous" for me to have a weapon? The qualifications I had to meet to carry a weapon are actually significantly tougher than the qualifications to be a peace officer in this state (who also get to carry guns). People need to get a grip and realize that peaceful citizens who want to defend themselves are not a threat, but an asset. "Idiots" drunkenly shooting guns will still be subject to arrest on reckless/dangerous conduct charges: on the other hand, my having a pistol in a backpack or other concealed, safe location does absolutely nothing but improve my safety and yours: if you ever see it, you will be extraordinarily glad I brought it.

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 Great Outdoors VT

It's the principal as a law abiding citizen to have that right. What if I were hunting and crossed some invisible boundry and now I am a criminal! What if the law said no freedom of speech in Federal parks?

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 Mountain Hiker

How about the people who have been killed in National Parks by HUMAN predators? Aren't they allowed to defend themselves? Don't think that doesn't happen. If someone has taken the time to train themselves with a firearm, gone to the expense of doing so, and went through the process of becoming licensed to carry a concealed weapon, they are NOT irresponsible drunks! Get a clue, people. In today's world, you NEED to be able to defend yourself - whether you are on the streets or in the National Parks. I know, I know. Can't we all just get along? Some cannot, and they must be stopped! :)

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 Everett

I have been a safety professional for over 30 years and carrying concelled cary for 7. Never removed a weapon from a holster other than on the range, etc. yet. I haven't been hit on the head yet by a falling tool, etc. either but I continue to wear my hardhat also. Both are safety equipment from my view point. Hope I never need either. I think some of you need to develop a better class of friends and acquantences who value self responsibility and accountability. The drunk who would fire off a weapon in a park would be more likely to hop in the car to go get more beer. Which is more dangerous? Using your logic, we need get rid of cars!

Mon, Jul 11, 2011

hey, I've got an idea, lets go into the national park and drink. Getting a little bored? I know let's pull out our guns and do a little target practice. Ooops, who knew someone was hiking over there...sorry!

Mon, Jul 11, 2011

Guns dont kill people. Idiots with guns kill people. Also, what about protecting ones self from attacking animal, such as a bear?

Mon, Jul 11, 2011 Back Pack

I have use the National Parks for hiking, camping and back packing for 40 years all over the US and Virgin Islands. I have never felt the need to have a gun, even when facing a black bear or mountain lion. This is another case of stupidity wining over common sense, and big political money buying the Senator from -fill in your state name here.

Mon, Jul 11, 2011 green gas airsoft guns http://ww2airsoftguns.org/airsoft-guns/green-gas-airsoft-guns/

Allowing guns on national park? It is dangerous! Why are they thinking to let them bring or have a gun? ...

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Follow Us

OH&S is on Twitter.

Join OH&S Magazine on SafetyCommunity!
Join us on SafetyCommunity!

Upcoming Webinars

2/29: GHS will happen…are you ready?
We invite you to attend this webinar to see how GHS is being used today in several workplaces to enhance worker comprehension and safety.

3/14: 10 Webinar Best Practices. Step-by-step guide to executing a winning webinar
By attending this webinar about webinars, you will learn the what, why and how’s of this exciting, collaborative marketing tool.

Spotlight

For February, OH&S puts the spotlight on:

Poll

OSHA Region 6 Administrator John Hermanson says the agency assessed the maximum statutory fines, a total of $21,500 for four alleged serious violations, against a small Oklahoma grain company in connection with amputation injuries suffered by two teenage workers. Does this case demonstrate the need to increase the amounts OSHA can issue in penalties?