Sec. Kempthorne Proposes Concealed Carry In National Parks

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne is proposing a change to current gun bans in our national parks. The existing restrictions require that guns be unloaded, locked up and not easily accessible when in a national park. Kempthorne’s proposal would allow concealed carry for anyone licensed as such and the rules of gun possession would follow the rules of the state which the national park is in. This proposal follows along the path after a letter, signed by 51 U.S. Senators, was sent to Sec. Kempthorne asking him to amend the laws restricting gun possession in national parks.

The Associated Press is reporting that Kempthorne thinks the proposal would keep visitors safe.

“The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority for the Department of the Interior,”………………..”while continuing to maintain important provisions to ensure visitor safety and resource protection,”

Just what exactly does this mean? This comment, not supported by any other clarifier, doesn’t tell us if Kempthorne’s concern for safety is that of the armed visitor, the unarmed visitor who is now going to be in some kind of ill-perceived danger or both. Part of the lie that is always pushed by the left wing gun haters is that when you arm a lawful citizen the rest of society is now in some kind of danger that didn’t exist before.

Bill Wade, chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, says it exactly so in this comment.

“This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it,”

I am somewhat disturbed from Kempthorne’s statement because I see that he too is alluding, at least to some degree, that by proposing this “compromise” he is also ensuring that unarmed visitors and park resources will remain safe. If that is what he is implying, I find his statement disturbing and uninformed.

The antis, which include Sen. Feinstein of California, are trying to convince other lawmakers that this proposal would be too confusing and that the permit holder wouldn’t know what laws apply depending on what state they are in. She also says law enforcement will get confused. Really?

“This change makes no sense. It would create an incoherent, ineffective and inconsistent patchwork of policies,”………”So which state law would apply at Death Valley National Park?” she said. “This sort of inconsistency would be an open invitation to poachers, would be almost impossible to enforce and would seriously place public safety at risk.”

Death Valley National Park encompasses parts of California and Nevada. Let’s get this straight. Under current laws, a concealed carry license holder is responsible to know which states are reciprocal in honoring a permit. The license holder is also responsible to know the laws that govern gun ownership in whatever state he is in. None of that will change. Feinstein and others are attempting to deliberately confuse the issue probably because they don’t understand the existing laws.

She is also suggesting that law enforcement agents in California and Nevada, or any other state for that matter, aren’t smart enough to know, understand and enforce their own gun laws. If that is true, we have some pretty inept cops out there. I don’t buy into their spin.

It is also laughable that Feinstein suggests that by allowing a lawful citizen in possession of a valid concealed carry permit into a national park it “would be an open invitation to poachers”. Be real! That is the most illogical statement anyone could make that is not supported by any kind of data. It’s plain ridiculous.

And as all gun haters do, they lie to the public using scare tactics to say that allowing lawful carry places the rest of the public in danger. This simply is not true and there is no data to support that claim. There is however data from studies that indicate it may make it safer for the general public and ample studies that show it has no affect one way or the other.

What gets lost often in these debates is the right of an individual to protect themselves. The AP states that Bill Wade and other critics of the proposal say they have data to show that national parks are one of the safest places to be. They even go so far as to say the chances are greater that you would be struck by lightening than be violently attacked in a national park. And by their reasoning therefore, you as an American citizen no longer have a constitutional right? Just because data show parks to be safe is that reason to strip me of my rights?

Should we turn this around and use the same logic and reasoning on other rights. What are the odds that you or anyone you know are going to become the victim of someone’s cruel use of their right to freedom of speech? I’ve lived for nearly 56 years and have only been searched by police one time. With those odds why do I even need a right to free speech or the protection from illegal searches and seizures? I must live in a safe place where people are only sweet talking.

This is just more utter nonsense from the left.

Let it be known that I am not in agreement with Kempthorne’s proposal but it is a move in the right direction. As long as we can move toward the full restoration of our constitutional rights, I will support that with the hopes that some day we will return to a land of the free and home of the brave once shared and supported by all Americans.

With this new proposal the public has 60 days to offer comments. Click this link for instructions on how to do that.

Tom Remington