U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn gun measure draws fire from foes
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
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.
Related Topics:
Crime, Domestic Policy, Political Policy, Politics, Robbery, Gun Control, Cultural Institutions and Parks, Parks and Historic Sites


Prev




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).
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.
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