I have to admit, the new decision, allowing concealed weapons in national parks in accordance to state concealed weapons laws, is disappointing but not surprising. The current administration has been licking the boots of the NRA for quite some time now, so why should the protection of national parks be looked at from a different point of view?

The NRA sees national parks as places with dangerous wild animals that need to be controlled and dangerous criminals that need to be shot. Which is funny considering that, despite the immense stupidity of people who try really really hard to piss off the wildlife, national parks have remained the safest places in the entire United States. Without guns.

So far, journalistic comment has been negative, and public comment has been, in accordance with the American Cowboy mentality, joyous. Now we can all protect ourselves in places where we were all safe to begin with! Yay!

The problems with allowing such carry laws are numerous. Firstly, almost 100% of the people I have talked to about this law don’t understand that it applies SOLELY to handguns. They’re thinking rifles, hunting weapons, weapons that can actually kill a bear. When they talk of protection, they say, oh well now I can protect myself against bears. This is an entirely ignorant statement, as 1) you still CANNOT bring loaded shotguns and rifles into parks and 2) shooting a bear with a handgun will only piss it off and cause it to eat you. So immediately, we see an increase in animal attacks by people shooting at animals who would have left them alone otherwise. Because people panic.

Second, guns are still illegal in federal buildings, and people don’t know that. A Visitor Center may be in a park, but it is still a federal building, and people will be bringing guns into such buildings without realizing that they could get thrown in jail for it, permit or no. Confusion abound.

Third, parks barely have enough money to police as it is; adding guns into the situation just makes people tenser. It will only be a matter of time until a LE ranger wanders into a campsite at night and gets shot from a trigger-happy, jumpy, and scared tourist. I’ve also heard people saying things like, “Well they need to be punishing the people who commit the crimes, not everybody.” Which is a fine statement to make, except the park service is already stretched too thin. They can’t afford to arrest and punish the people who commit crimes. Who is going to pay for this? Gun owners? Should there be a hefty gun-owners tax to make sure we have enough people out there to look for the bad guys? That may not be such a bad idea… In addition to that, park rangers are already some of the most harassed and attacked LEOs in the country; I’ve seen some arguments with rangers that I’m pretty sure would have ended in a shoot-out had the civilian had a gun. Good thing he can have one, now.

Speaking of money, where will our parks find the money to re-sign everything? They don’t have the money to maintain the signs they have, let alone create brand-news ones with PARAGRAPHS of political jargon about who can carry what where. Nobody will read them, leading to even more confusion than before.

To add to the confusion are these two fun caveats:

1) The concealed weapons ruling applies to national parks even in states that do not allow concealed weapons in state parks, which is more than a fair few. This could cause several problems in places where state parks abut national parks, generally allowing a free-flow of visitors from one to the other. Most visitors, though they may know they are traveling between a state and a national park, have no clue where the borders are. I know several rangers who may be scant as to that knowledge, as well.

2) Finally, what happens in parks that span state lines? And what happens when those states have differing concealed weapons policies? Who is going to pay for all that fencing and all that signage? Who is going to take the time to explain to visitors that now state lines matter?

This isn’t a case of “law-abiding” people being allowed to carry guns everywhere. There is a standard that has been adhered to that national parks are gun-free places where people can roam without fear of begin shot on purpose or by mistake. Plenty of “law-abiding” people break the law with their concealed guns. People are shot every day over trivial conflicts, and now we can add “who was at the campsite first” to the list. And now that people are allowed to carry guns in parks, what can they do with them? Can they target shoot, as they can in national forests, as long as no one is around? (I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that most people who are pro-gun toting in parks have no idea what the difference between a national park and a national forest is.) The actual legislation, in fact, doesn’t even address this question, which makes me aware of how haphazardly it was put together in the first place.

I agree with the statement by several people that concealed weapons are now meant to replace the use of common sense in national parks. Parks are safe. I’m not a big girl, and I’ve never felt threatened by ANYTHING inside a national park, well except that one time that elk during rut chased me to my car. I guess I could have shot it. That would teach it. And then it would gut me for trying.My point is not that people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns. Just that with the lack of funding for pretty much anything useful in national parks and the mass confusion about what’s really going on coming from a generally confused American public, allowing people to carry guns in parks is a bad idea. I’m not worried about the crazy people who are out to break the law anyway. You’re right, they will bring guns into the park regardless. I’m more worried about the “law-abiding” citizens who, upon being faced with stressors and situations they have never been faced with before—such as coming face-to-face with a bears or watching wolves hunt down an elk right outside their car windows—panic. I’m worried about that one guy who hears something go bump in the night at his campsite and ends up shooting a ranger because he thought he was a bear. I’m worried about the family man who, upon seeing a wolf approach his car while covered in blood from a hunt, panics and shoots the wolf. I’m worried about the guy who, while out hiking, comes across a bear that under normal circumstances would wander off harmlessly, but because this hiker has a gun and shoots at it in panic, it attacks and kills the guy. It’s because I’ve seen people panic like this in places like Yellowstone and Grand Teton and Glacier and Denali when no guns are present, and that’s bad enough, though it usually ends peaceably. You put firearms into that situation, and suddenly people are in danger. Adding guns to national parks just puts more stress on people, and unfortunately very few Americans are aware of the actual difficulties and problems and situations facing the National Park Service and its already-exhausted staff.