by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

Barring a court challenge to block its taking effect, a new rule by the Department of Interior that allows the carrying of concealed handguns by licensees inside national parks will take effect in about two weeks.

Anti-gunners are furious and had threatened legal action prior to the holidays.

Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, was quoted by The Salt Lake Tribune stating, “This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades.”

Under the rule change, announced by Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty, citizens who possess valid concealed carry licenses or permits that are recognized by the state in which the park is located are essentially “good to go.”

For example, if a national park is located in Washington state, residents of states whose licenses are honored by Washington statute should be able to carry while visiting Mount Rainier or Olympic National Park.

And, according to Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino, if a state has a regulation such as Washington’s, which allows unlicensed concealed carry for persons engaged in legitimate outdoor activities including hiking, camping, fishing or horseback riding, it should apply within the national parks there.

What this regulation will not allow is hunting, target shooting or casual plinking on national park lands. Open carry will not be allowed, nor may armed citizens enter park buildings with their concealed handguns. That applies to visitor centers, ranger stations and even restrooms.

The same rule will apply to national wildlife refuges, with the exception that hunting is already legal on refuges, and that will not change. Opponents of the rule change had campaigned against it by asserting that parks would become venues for careless shooting activities.

Opponents of the original proposal were quick to react. Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, was quoted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggesting that this change will be bad for wildlife in the parks.

The rule was also opposed by the National Parks Conservation Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. After the rule change was announced, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke went on the attack, calling the change a “parting gift for the gun lobby” from the Bush Administration.

“We urge the proper authorities to use common sense,” Helmke said in a press release, “and stop this senseless rule.”

However, gun rights organizations were supportive of the rule change.

“No longer will American citizens be required to leave their right of self-defense at the gates of a national park,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “This common-sense change in regulations reflects not only changes in the laws of 48 states, but more importantly the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”

Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued a statement noting, “We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America’s national parks and wildlife refuges.”

Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a grassroots group that had also been actively pushing for the change, called the decision “a big win for gunowners.”

“This victory has been years in the making,” Van Cleave told Gun Week, “and VCDL is proud to have played an important role in expanding our freedoms.”

An assistant US attorney in Seattle, WA, told Gun Week that in the event of a self-defense shooting in a national park, the FBI would investigate. Self-defense guidelines are essentially the same on federal land as they are on state land. That is, the validity of a self-defense claim is determined under what is generically called the “reasonable man doctrine.” That is, what would any reasonable person do under the same circumstances, knowing what the shooter knew at the time?

As part of the instructions to a jury under a model from the 9th US Court of Appeals, when determining whether someone acted in self-defense, a jury would be told the following: “Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

“Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

“The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in reasonable self-defense.”