Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn gun measure draws fire from foes

BY JIM MYERS - Tulsa World    Comments Comment on this article12
Published: May 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — Opponents say U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn’s efforts to change decades-old rules for national parks could lead to loaded guns, even assault weapons, in some of the nation’s most sacred sites.

Advertisement

"This is a bad idea,” said Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers.

McElveen even took issue with the Oklahoma Republican’s claims that his Senate-passed amendment would not apply to monuments.

"That’s not how I read it,” he said, citing Coburn’s own language that indicates his amendment, if it became law, would apply to all units of the National Park System.

McElveen said that would include Southwest sites that are "very sacred” to some American Indians.

"To have folks with firearms there would be very disturbing to them.”

Another example of a park service site where loaded gun would be inappropriate is the San Antonio missions in Texas, McElveen said.

Coburn’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Last week, the Senate caught critics of Coburn’s efforts off guard when it attached his gun amendment to a credit card bill by a vote 67 to 29.

Insisting his legislation was not a "gotcha amendment,” Coburn claimed his proposal was to ensure constitutional rights were not being trampled by unelected bureaucrats.

"It is to say, does the Second Amendment mean something?” Coburn said.

His language would allow visitors to carry loaded guns into national parks located in states that do not bar such activity.

Why the change?
Under regulations that date back to the Reagan administration, weapons carried into parks have to be inoperable and not readily accessible.

Coburn said that left law-abiding citizens who live in states without such restrictions vulnerable to violating a federal regulation.

He said his amendment also was about upholding states’ rights and giving park visitors the ability to defend themselves against attacks — from other visitors and animals.

He cited 2006 statistics showing that the Fish and Wildlife Service and park service handled 16 homicides, 41 rape cases, 92 robberies, 16 robberies and 333 aggravated assaults.

McElveen did not challenge Coburn’s crime statistics but said what they really prove is how safe national parks really are.

He said national parks draw about 300 million visitors a year, adding crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people, McElveen said.

Crime rates, he said, are not a legitimate reason to change regulations that have their origin in a 100-year-old law that created the park service and charged with, among other duties, preserving wildlife.

McElveen also pointed out that Coburn’s claim that his amendment would help protect park visitors does not track with its actual language because it would still be against the rules to fire a gun, even at a rabid animal.

He conceded that anyone discharging a firearm in self-defense probably would not be prosecuted.

Another critic of Coburn’s amendment called on President Barack Obama to show leadership and demand that it be taken out of the credit card bill.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

McElveen said he was "shocked” by the Senate vote on the amendment, adding he would not be surprised now if House Democratic leaders left the language in the bill.

Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford





Need Affordable Health Care?
Get Affordable Health Insurance Quotes Online - Plans from $30 / Month
USInsuranceOnline.com

Refinance Now at 4.25% Fixed
No hidden fees-4.4% APR! No obligation. Get 4 free quotes. No SSN req.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com


Leave a Comment

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online

Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.


Log in below or sign up (it's free).





Let's be honest, the crime rate in National Parks is incredibly low. Law-abiding gun owners will cause very few problems regarding human on human crimes, but this bill is a bonanza for wildlife poachers. I'm sure the number signs with bullet holes will also skyrocket.
- May 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
Funny thing...Tom Coburn rails against people who add earmarks (pork) to bills, usually unrelated to the bill's topic. Here he is, excercising the virtually same thing - legislative earmarks. If Tom feels so strongly about this, why does he no craft a stand-alone law? He always wants his compatriots to put hteir spending earmarks in stand alone form.
Jay, Oklahoma City - May 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jay
OK, your in a national park and Smokey the Bear charges you. What are ya gonna do? See, we need to be prepared for this kinda thing!
Buzz Lightyear, OKC - May 18, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The opponents of CCW in National Parks persist in glossing over the fact that anyone allowed to carry in such places is already permitted to carry outside the park. Why do the so-called journalists like Mr. Myers not ask these Chicken Littles why legal, responsible, safe people would undergo a transformation into dangerous gun-toting crazies merely by crossing the park boundaries? I don't see reason in Mr. Myers' editorial misnamed as news but rather I see the tired old disproven hysteria that Paul Helmke and his crowd have been trumpeting for decades.
Chris, West Plains - May 18, 2009 at 10:15 am
To author JIM MYERS. I'm not sure where you learned journalism but you should be ashamed. Promoting statistical evidence that proves the opposite of your point is really silly writing.

Obviously, from the point of view of the potential victim, 1 in 100,000 is an extremely strong case to carry protection anywhere. That statistic alone is very convincing because even in a target rich environment like a national park, the only human individuals safe from gun toting criminals would be law abiding gun toters.

I have never heard anyone put forth a convincing argument against carrying guns for personal safety. There are none. The least powerful argument comes from groups like retired park rangers. When one has a gun pointing at them, who cares what a retired ranger thinks. That is the funniest argument I've ever heard. Almost like a Far Side joke.
, Chicago Area - May 18, 2009 at 7:22 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
John, Norman...you illiterate wretch.. if you had read that this soldier 'stole' the weapon he used your mind could expand to incorporate the fact that the availability of weapons in a war zone are very possible. If you ever served your country in any way what so ever (which I doubt) then you might possibly understand what a useless piece of Americana you are. No wonder I keep you on ignore unless I catch the side bar. Nevermind. Useless windbag.
Sallie, Del City - May 17, 2009 at 2:05 pm
To bad those 5 soldiers killed in Iraq last week by a fellow soldier did not have the right to carry weapons around. Oh, they did? Nevermind.
John, Norman - May 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
Jay, I almost forgot about those "vile Mexican gangs" that are "constantly getting caught operating pot farms in National Parks". That is a chronic problem, so to speak. I heard that is you take a puff of marihuana you start injecting heroin very soon thereafter. Please protect us from this menace, Jay. The police and park rangers are incapable. Vigilantes are what is required - brave Americans who are not burdened with excess intelligence, armed only with their narrow-minded views and an AK-47.
Archie, Longun - May 17, 2009 at 12:30 pm
All US citizens should be able to carry anywhere they want. Remember, vile Mexican gangs are constantly getting caught operating pot farms in National Parks. Do you think they give a hoot about our gun laws?
Jay - May 17, 2009 at 11:46 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jay
I thought that the original intent of this measure was to stop the problems of a legal concealed carry person from having to be illegal just from crossing a border line into a National Park while travelling or on vacation. And while thinking that the crime statistics are not severe enough to warrant legal concealed carry try asking the families of the 16 murdered what they think.
- May 17, 2009 at 10:56 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore
That really shouldn't shock you, Wayne. Liberals don't want you to have guns. You might be able to protect yourself.
Jon, Edmond - May 17, 2009 at 12:48 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jon
Amazing the opponents of Coburn's amendment can only argue their point from one of emotion vice one of data, facts and logic. Helmke is an idiot. He equates allowing those law abiding citizens given a permit to carry a gun AFTER proper training and background checks are going to be pointing AK-47s at families? That's his argument? Simply devoid of any basis in fact. We're trying to protect parks from those who follow the law?

Helmke and McElveen know very well the only people currently carrying guns in National Parks (besides Rangers) are the criminals. They don't follow laws so any law created isn't going to have one iota of positive impact on criminals and guns in National Parks. The only impact it WILL have will be allowing people to protect their families from said criminals.

22 Rangers are assigned to cover more than 2 Million acres of backcountry in Yellowstone or 1 Ranger per 91,000 acres. Think they can protect everyone? Metropolitan police can't, why do we think park police can?

It doesn't take more than a cursory search to reveal the number of violent attacks that occur in National Parks. Helmke and McElveen seem to think allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their rights more freely is somehow ludicrous? I don't think the Founding Fathers thought so. If a law abiding citizen is given a permit and entrusted to carry a weapon, where he/she carries it does not change the nature of the individual. Passing the law as proposed will not have any measurable negative effect on crime or safety in National Parks. It can only have a positive effect and Helmke thinks that's bad? Let him cite some real data to the contrary and I'll be on board with him. Until then, he should save his emotional and fictional hyperbole for his website.

Mountain Lion attacks: http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks_nonca.html
Bear attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade

384 Violent crimes in National Parks in 2006
Wayne - May 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    News Photo Galleriesview all