The ban on firearms in American National Parks and Monuments; Politically Correct maybe, but whom does it protect?

The blanket ban on firearms in American National Parks arguably once made sense, as guns for self defense were generally banned from most public places. But times and the laws have changed and the rules for National Parks need to change with them. Because National Parks were created for American citizens to enjoy, not to drive political policy.

In any case the real question we have to face is: if a law, however politically correct it may sound, protects no one and actually makes the general population less safe, is that a law we want to maintain?

This National Park/Monument gun ban became outdated in 1987 when a new concept began to find approval in state legislatures; the idea of giving civilian's the right to carry concealed weapons. After all, every two bit street thug who wants a gun carries one, so why should law abiding citizens trained in firearms use be forced to leave those firearms at home when the criminals do not? Should being armed be limited to those who don't care about the law, and restricted from the hardworking person who owns guns but is not a law breaker? Particularly in the US, where ownership of arms and self defense has been a tradition since our country was founded?

Florida, in 1987, was the first state to answer these questions by passing a "shall issue" concealed weapons law, meaning no law abiding citizen can be refused a concealed carry license. More states followed and in 2008 no less than 40 states are "shall issue."

So it is a simple fact that the majority of American citizens live in states where the law allows any trained, law abiding adult to legally carry a firearm. And better than one million Americans avail themselves of this right.

In the decades since these laws have been enacted, there has not been one study that would indicate anything but positive effects. On a daily basis civilians in the U.S. successfully defend themselves or others with legally carried weapons.

While the thousands of yearly defense incidents are not enough to affect the overall crime rate, the results of them can be dramatic and save lives. Such as the armed civilians who stopped the mass murderer at the New Life church in Colorado Springs in 2007, or the two civilian's with concealed weapons who ended the rampage of a shooter at the Appalachian school of Law in Virginia in 2002. Or the countless others who saved their own lives, or the life of a family member or even a police officer, with their legally carried weapon.

So with all of this positive history, and no evidence of problems, what is the justification to take away this right at the border of a National Park? Although such parks are generally safe, murders do happen there, and in recent years park rangers have greatly upped their weaponry to include bullet proof vests and assault rifles. If park rangers feel less safe in National Parks, why shouldn't we?

My personal experience illustrates the real effect of the current ban, and it has nothing to do with making anybody safer.

Last year my wife and I loaded the kids in the Family Truckster for a short vacation through New Mexico. After reviewing the laws of both states, and knowing we would be driving through some lonely country roads late at night, I decided to take along a small revolver.

Although I would not be afraid to take this trip unarmed, since I own firearms and am comfortable with my weapons training, why would I not want to include this free insurance in case the unthinkable happens? As a family man, would I not be remiss if I didn't take every possible precaution to keep my family safe?

I didn't expect trouble, of course, but as I often say: I don't have life insurance because I expect to die, I don't have smoke detectors because I expect a fire, and I don't have a gun because I expect to be attacked. I take these precautions because if the unthinkable does happen, I want to make sure I have the best tools possible to take care of my family. I love them too much to do less.

On the drive home we decided to stop at some of the magnificent National Monuments New Mexico has to offer. Because of the archaic gun ban in effect, however, at each and every Park I had to stop to unload my firearm and lock it and the ammunition in separate boxes. Most often I would just leave them there for the rest of the day.

So we need to ask ourselves, whom did this law, this gun ban, make safer?

Did it make my family safer that I was forced to lock away the protection I already owned and legally carried everywhere but the park?

Did it make everyone else safer that my gun was locked away?

No to all of those, of course. If I and my gun were a danger to anyone, I wouldn't have cared one whit about the gun ban. That's the problems with gun laws in general, they only affect the people who choose to follow them, and those people are already law abiding and not a danger to society.

But as for my statement at the beginning, how did having to disarm somehow make the park less safe for others? For two reasons:

1. A properly holstered or stored gun is not a danger to anyone. Bullets don't just spontaneously fire, so a gun can only be discharged when it is being handled. The most basic weapons protocol is to handle firearms as little as possible. While the chances of any individual having an "accidental discharge" is virtually nil, if you have several hundred thousand people across the nation clearing and reloading weapons daily at the entrances to National Parks the chances of an accidental discharge begin to rise. So a gun is much safer left safely holstered and loaded than constantly handled to unload and reload.

2. There is the very real fact that in the highly unlikely event a mass killer does appear and start shooting your only chance of having someone fight back is if there is an armed civilian around you. Because if the history of mass shootings in this country has taught us anything, it's that the police never arrive until after the killer has had his way and committed suicide. So just like at the church in Colorado Springs, trained and armed citizens do make us all safer.

The only people this gun ban makes sense to are those who have a near clinical hatred of guns and gun owners. There are no rational arguments presented, just the "Wild West, shootouts over camping spots" rationale and supposed concerns over poaching. The former is an emotional but meaningless image that has been disproven by 21 years of history and for the latter ... the most obvious sign of a poacher is not the small handgun in his fanny pack but rather the 200 pound deer strapped to the hood of his truck.

So let's get rid of this outdated rule, this archaic ban on handguns in National Parks and Monuments that dates back to the Reagan era. It makes no one safer, infringes on the rights/freedoms of others for no reason except political correctness (as some would define it, anyway), and is unsupported by any facts or studies at our disposal. And if removing it saves just one life, while endangering no one, isn't it worth it?

And are laws that restrict freedoms without serving a purpose to protect society the American way?

Sphere: Related Content