Guns In Our National Parks: Part IV
May 27, 2008
I have been following the recent debate about allowing guns in our National Park System. I have made a number of posts over the past couple of months on this issue. Being an Outdoors and Adventure writer, I have tried to take the middle road with a few hints along the way of where I stand. I have also offered up space to those whose opinions differ from my own.
One thing I really hate though is finding a website or blog that I have read over the course of the past year, who decides to make a very public and political jump in the complete opposite direction that I have. National Parks Traveler has been a great site for some very useful information related to our National Park Service-with great histories, articles, and ongoing news items related to our parks. So then, why go political, and why go with this issue?
For the quick answer, I would have to guess that the National Parks Traveler blog has a pretty good following. By all means it IS WAS a good site! I have used it on more than one occasion as a quick-point reference when writing about issues pertaining to our National Parks. I am sure many others have, as well.
By the look of a few comments on the site, it looks like National Parks Traveler may be losing the support of not just myself, but many others. When it pertains to politics, all of us have our own opinion. When those politics are brought forth in a public area, such as a website or blog, there is that chance of alienating a segment of the population that has been reading. There is no question that there will be a shake-down with this site.
While going through and doing my usual blog-run at the end of the night, I came upon this headline:
“Concealed Weapons Don’t Belong In Our National Parks”
Then I noticed the site and had to take a second look. Glad I did. Sometimes you don’t gain true meaning by a title. On this case, though, you get it pretty clearly.
Kurt Repanshek, the man behind the National Parks Traveler blog, is a former Associated Press writer. He doesn’t work for the National Park System, nor does he imply that he does. In his latest post (with the title found above), Kurt issues up a personal letter to Secretary Kempthorne. Here are just a couple of the statements being offered in the ‘letter’.
So why is it necessary to rewrite regulations that already allow gun owners to transport their weapons through our parks? True, those regulations require that the weapons be unloaded, broken down, and stored out of easy reach, but is that unreasonable? From here it seems as if only the self-righteous NRA, ever anxious to boost its membership, feels that the only safe national park is one where the visitors are armed and ready.
And of the Second Amendment:
Mr. Secretary, in arguing for this change of regulations, the NRA and more than a few of its members would have you believe that their 2nd Amendment rights are being trampled by the national park regulations. Really, Mr. Secretary, this isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue. No one is trying to deny folks the right to carry arms, although you couldn’t tell that by listening to the NRA. Nor are you denying that weapons can be prohibited in federal buildings, or that states – if they choose – can decide to prohibit them in the national parks within their states.
So this isn’t a 2nd amendment issue. If it’s anything, it’s a states rights issue. But where in federal law does it say that the states should make decisions about how national parks are managed?
There, you get the jest of it. Kurt Repanshek also goes on to mention that the Interior Department is in the midst of a “Public Comment” session, where input is being asked of the public on this very issue. He asks that if you haven’t made your voice heard, that you had better do so before the June deadline.
I would really be interested in hearing a rebuttal to the message that National Parks Traveler is offering up on it’s latest posting. Perhaps Michael Bane, or that of Steven or Tom Remington (President and Vice-President of U.S. Hunting Today Magazine, respectively) or even that of the NRA, itself. I am actually kind of upset, now, that I have supported Kurt’s site for quite some time, without knowing his political position, unfortunately, now I do know that position and will be taking him out of my Links page.
Many newer readers to this site are stopping by through my recent affiliation with both, The Outdoor Bloggers Summit and Skinny Moose Media. Both of these affiliations support hunting and fishing, as well as a general enjoyment of our great outdoors. Even throughout these two networks, there may be a few differing opinions on this issue, but I would love to hear some of your voices concerning the Guns in National Parks saga.
I am taking the first stand and deleting the National Parks Traveler from my Links page. If politics are an issue, then to each their own, but likewise, I also have a choice in what I support and the message that I bring. If you are big enough to make the stand, more power to you, Kurt, but likewise, our support will likely go to where our beliefs are, and it’s not at National Parks Traveler.
Perhaps Kurt needs a few more comments from our side of things. Go read the article and leave your thoughts. If it helps, mention that I sent you. As well, Kurt did offer up one light of encouragement. That encouragement comes in the form of opinions that are still being listened to from the Interior Department until June. If you believe strongly on this issue, as I do, I highly recommend heading over THERE and voicing your opinion. It still isn’t to late to make a difference!
More Reading Material From The Adventurist on this issue:
From The Adventurist Vault:
Written by Jason A. Hendricks · Filed Under Gun Laws, Guns in National Parks, Second Amendment |
First off I want to thank The Adventurist, for the opportunity to post this comment. I have been researching and keeping track of this issue for quite sometime.
While there are always 2 sides to every issue, sometimes it is difficult for some people to take the side of one or the other. I prefer to research both sides and analize the issue from each side of the fence, so to speak. As a conservate, I tend to take a neutral stance.
Not because I am a coward or afraid of a good debate, but because I can see a good arguement for both sides and can understand the concerns about the outcome of this issue.
There are pros and cons on the issues and pros and cons on the solutions to these issues. I think this is a great responsibility of the lawmakers, and the people should be able to give them feedback to help them with the decisions and laws they have to make.
Yes, it is our right to carry arms, and there has been many times I have encountered danger in the outdoors due to wildlife, and Illegal activities, and a gun was the deterant to prevent any harm coming to me and my family. (pros)
Law abiding citizens in fact will honor the laws and not have guns in state parks.The criminals will not obey the laws and thus,endangering the lives of innocent people.(cons)
These are not all the pros and cons but just a couple.
My opinion (notice I said Opinion) is that we have the right to carry arms, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others and effect their safety,or infringe on their space. Here again will the criminals who carry arms respect the rights of safety of others? Will they obey the laws put into place by the lawmakers? I doubt It.
Therefore, it is a very tough job for lawmakers to make the laws and then when they do,
the outcome of these laws, will undoubtedly have unpleasant outcomes sometimes. It is easy after the fact to condemn the decisions of those lawmakers. If we could see ahead it would be easier to make these decisions. There are always exceptions to the rules.
I think that everone is intitled to their own OPINION , and should not be condemned or prejudiced against because we don”t agree. (another constitutional right) Freedom of speech. We should let our lawmakers hear our opinions and then let them make the decisions.Then we are morally obligated whether we like it or not to obey the rules they implement and then let them enforce the laws, when the criminals do not.
I do not have the answers, or the solutions,but then again who really does? Which ever way we go , the solution will not protect everybody.
Hey Kenny,
Thanks for stopping by and expressing your views on this issue. You have brought up some good points. Do you think that people are having a hard time trying to see both sides of this issue? I understand both, fairly well, but that is because I have been following this pretty regularly here on The Adventurist. We have our gun lovers on one side of the fence, we have law enforcement and NPS on the other, with a fair mix of Outdoors lovers, who fall in the middle–I think that the whole picture is very often not well represented from both sides. Everyone has their own agenda and trying to round up the troops for their cause–How can we get by this and offer up the information to inform the public with, when both sides are so heated? Do you think this hurts the debate?
Just thought I would throw out a few questions..haha. I am also interested in hearing from anyone else on this issue, as well. Perhaps with a few thoughts, I can round up another post, and make a little more sense out of all this. What do you guys think?
There are really 3 sides to this issue,in my opinion,and observations.
1> gun rights activist
2>anti- gun activist
3>law enforcement and NPS
I think the the outdoor lovers falls in these 3 catagories.
Yes it is an emotionally heated debate, but most debates are.
We need to remember that opinion is exact just that (our opinion)! When we try to make others agree with us, then it stops being an opinion, It becomes an infringement on the rights of others to have a different opinion.
How do we as Journalists present all the views? I think that is easy, DO NOT take sides! We should be unbiased mediators. I am not saying we don’t have the right to an opinion, just that our stance should be neutral,and TRY to keep the peace!
We should state the facts as accurate as we can and then let people openly express their views and opinions. We then can gather the facts and summarize, a graph, if you will, to show how the majority of people feel. Then present these facts to the LAW makers and let them represent the majority, as by the laws that they have made, obligates them to do!
Debate is healthy and allows us to represent the views of our readers, which we should encourage them to speak out. But the readers should respect the views and opinions of others, and not revert to name calling or slander, which is another violation of their rights.
I love your posts and the comments on this issue, it is going world wide and many outdoor related blogs are joining in. The trick is how to post on these types of issues, without taking sides. See ya later Jason.
“How do we as Journalists present all the views? I think that is easy, DO NOT take sides! We should be unbiased mediators. I am not saying we don’t have the right to an opinion, just that our stance should be neutral,and TRY to keep the peace!”
Kenny, I can see the point you are trying to make. I read once of, it might have been Larry King, anyways, he mentioned that he always tries to take the opposite side of what people expects him to say. It is a controversial route, but it does spark the conversation.
I also feel that as outdoors writers we all have a responsibility to bring these issues to light. I do think though, at times, we do have a responsibility to show where we stand, as well. I have wrote a few editorials that were deemed controversial, but sometimes that is the only way to get people to react. Good or bad, it does bring people to discuss what is on the table–
Obviously the issue of guns is never going to go away. If it isn’t with the National Park Service, it will be with some other organization. To be honest, I am not sure what all the fuss is about. You don’t see these groups going after the local fisherman, who, in a way, are hunting as well. Guns can kill people, but so can boats… on a personal level, I think all of this has more to do with people just not being educated on both sides of the issue. I can see both. I can understand both, but if a bear or a drunken loony were to come after me or a member of my family, I still lay my best bet on a gun. How long would it take to track down, then get a Ranger or Warden to the area in a real emergency? That right there is part of the problem my friend. Thanks for commenting.