CNPSR Submits Comments on Proposed Rule to Allow Concealed-Carry Guns in National Parks

June 27, 2008

The Honorable Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Re: RIN 1024-AD70 – General Regulations for Areas Administered by the
National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service

Comments of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing on behalf of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) to comment on the Department of the Interior’s (USDI) publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 30, 2008 (73 FR 23388-23390) pertaining to the possession of firearms within units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

These comments represent vast experience and background in park management and park protection. The 650 members of the Coalition are former employees of the National Park Service (NPS) with a combined 19,500 years of stewardship of America’s most precious natural and cultural resources. In their personal lives, CNPSR members reflect the broad spectrum of political affiliations. The Coalition counts among its members, former NPS directors and deputy directors, regional directors, superintendents, rangers, and other career professionals who devoted an average of nearly 30 years each to protecting and interpreting America’s national parks. Many of our members performed or managed the law enforcement function.

Because our professional experience is almost exclusively as employees of the NPS the following comments are oriented toward the impacts that the proposed rule would have on units of the National Park System. However, because the goals of the NPS and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are comparable we believe that many of our concerns apply to national wildlife refuges as well.

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW LOADED FIREARMS IN NATIONAL PARKS. IT SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The USDI has not presented any mission-based need to abandon the existing regulation and replace it with the far less restrictive proposal.

The Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1), which established the National Park Service, also established its basic mission, which is:

"The National Park Service shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (Emphasis added.)

USDI has not presented any evidence or demonstrated, in any way, the need to relax existing firearms regulations or how the proposed rule will result in the NPS being able to better achieve the requirements (highlighted above) of its legislated mission.

Predating, and fully consistent with this enabling legislation, loaded firearms have been prohibited in units of the National Park System for nearly 100 years. Current regulations that allow for the possession of firearms but require that they be unloaded and not immediately accessible were issued in their existing form in 1983. These regulations have long contributed to making units of the National Park System among the safest places in the country. They have also contributed to making our parks a place where visitors can enjoy and photograph wild animals that have learned they won’t be shot in national parks and monuments. These long-established regulations are widely understood, consistent, and consistently enforced. Very few of our members can recall even a single complaint when gun owners, including hunters, have been asked to properly store their firearms while visiting or traveling through a unit of the National Park System. Many of our members do recall, however, the many visitors who reported seeing someone with a gun during their visit to a park area. Such reports confirm visitor understanding and concern about inappropriate presence of firearms in parks.

We know that the proposed rule is the outcome of a process initiated by a very powerful special interest group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and affiliated gun-enthusiast groups. We know that it is in part a response to a petition signed by 51 U.S. Senators that contained facts and arguments for this change that were significantly false and misleading – one wonders how many would have signed a petition that was honest and accurate.

Clearly, this proposal is not based upon any detailed presentation or discussion of facts or need, but is rather an inappropriate reaction to the goals of the NRA and their followers.

2. The deference to states rationale that dominates the notice of proposed rulemaking is contradictory to the statutes establishing and guiding the mission of the National Park Service.

Conceptually, this proposal appears to be part of a political agenda to “de-nationalize” the National Park System. Background language contained in the notice proposed rulemaking states that Federal regulations should “defer” to state laws and “respect the ability of the states” to determine activities within their borders. It is an argument for change that demonstrates an alarming disregard for how our society views units of the National Park System – as a national system of uniformly managed sanctuaries of nature and culture where visitors from all walks of life come together to share a special place without fear of each other.

The deference to states rights rationale contradicts congressional intent for the National Park System. As stated in the Management Policies for the National Park Service this intent is “best described in the interrelated provisions of the aforementioned NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1), and the NPS General Authorities Act of 1970 (16 USC 1a-1), including amendments to the latter enacted in 1978.

Congress supplemented and clarified the Organic Act through enactment of the General Authorities Act in 1970. The pertinent part of that Act is:

"Congress declares that the national park system…….has grown to include superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas in every major region of the United States….; that these areas, though distinct in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage…." (Emphasis added).

Finally, in the 1978 Amendment to that law, “the Redwood Amendment” Congress added language stating:

“The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established….”

These laws impose very high standards on the Secretary of the Interior. In fact, these standards are much higher than those established in similar laws guiding management of the National Forests and federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. In many instances they are higher than required by various states for stewardship of respective state parks. And, almost certainly, they are higher than any established for the category of “similar state lands” referenced in but not described in the proposed rule. In promulgating its regulations pertaining to resource protection and visitor use in park areas over the years, the NPS has consistently restricted the possession of weapons, including firearms, because of the likely adverse impacts on park resources and the enjoyment of those resources and values by visitors. These regulations were established and have been maintained on a national basis for decades in order to assure a single and consistently high standard of resource and visitor protection in all park areas. There is no indication in the proposal that abandoning current regulations in favor of assimilating regulations for carrying loaded firearms in respective state parks or similar state lands would perpetuate this consistently high standard required by federal law.

True, there is a long history of NPS cooperation with state and local governments. The NPS has adopted applicable state laws pertaining to the possession and use of firearms at limited times and in certain park areas, but only to provide for consistent federal and state management and regulation of certain specific activities authorized by Congress, such as hunting or trapping, with the broader national regulations applying in those park areas at all other times. And there are sections in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, where state regulations are assimilated and made applicable in parks, i.e. motor vehicle and boating regulations. However, such assimilation of state rules has invariably been made at the initiative of park professionals and based upon mutual benefit to local authorities and park purposes. When there has been a conflict of interest between the NPS and traditional state prerogatives – most notably in policies and practices concerning wildlife management – the courts have on more than one occasion cited the Property Clause or the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution in finding that the goals of the federal government must prevail. The proposal to assimilate state park or similar unit of state land concealed carry rules in NPS areas offers no rationale suggesting that enactment of this new regulation will result in any benefit to the management of units of the National Park System. Rather, logic and common sense suggest that it will result in derogation of park values, which is prohibited by law.

The NPS statutory authorities for rulemaking that are cited by USDI in promulgating the proposed rule are all intended to facilitate the management and protection of park areas for the purposes specifically articulated in the NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C.1 et seq.). At best the proposed regulation would complicate, not facilitate, the management and protection of units of the National Park System. More likely, the proposal, if enacted, would significantly hinder the management and protection of units of the National Park System.

The USDI’s argument that states should be provided with authority to establish firearms regulations in units of the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems just as they do on other Federal lands – the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are cited as examples – is irrelevant and contradictory to the proposal itself. There are stark differences, based upon federal statute, that distinguish resource protection goals and standards on these other federal lands. As the proposal acknowledges, units of the National Park System are different. More significantly, the proposal does not call for adopting the firearms regulations that states establish for other federal lands in units of the National Park System. Rather, it proposes that units of the National Park System assimilate the rules that each state has established for their respective state parks, or any similar unit of state land.

By proposing a haphazard state-by-state approach to regulation of firearms and relegating a significant aspect of the protection of resources and values in units of the National Park System to the vagaries and inconsistencies of state law, USDI is abdicating its stewardship responsibilities.

3. The USDI has failed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prior to issuing the proposed rule.

On May 27, 2008, The Coalition delivered a letter to Assistant Secretary Lyle Laverty concerning the failure of the USDI to comply with the provisions of NEPA. One purpose of that letter was a request that the Department modify the established comment period to accommodate NEPA requirements. We concluded in that letter that the proposed concealed firearms rules will have significant impacts on the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge Systems and that those impacts require substantive analysis consistent with NEPA and all applicable policies and practices established to implement this law. I have enclosed a copy of that letter and ask that it be attached to and made a part of these comments.

Moreover, USDI has provided no evidence that it has carried out any required consultation related to potential impacts of the proposed rule on endangered species or on historical resources, as required by the Acts cited above.

4. The proposed regulation will result in more shooting at, injury and killing of park wildlife.

Based upon our considerable experience working in park areas we firmly believe that enactment of this regulation allowing for loaded firearms in units of the National Park System will lead to more shooting at wildlife. Many members of our Coalition recall incidents where park visitors loaded a gun they had with them and fired at animals that they incorrectly perceived to be a threat to them. In one instance, a man fired a .22 caliber pistol at a black bear that was simply standing on its rear legs to look around. The bear was not killed by the small caliber bullet and became a significant danger in a crowded campground until a park ranger arrived to kill it. In fact, many national parks and monuments throughout the country are world renowned for their highly visible populations of black and grizzly bears, wolves, cougar, bison, elk, deer, antelope, coyote, alligators, crocodiles, etc. These are intelligent animals that become habituated to the presence of people and tend to live their lives among park visitors in a non-threatening manner. More and more, however, urban and suburban-based visitors have little experience in nature and have little knowledge about the behavior of such wildlife. And they often bring to parks a well developed mindset that these are dangerous animals. Such preconceived ideas are false. With very few tragic exceptions, human interactions with these animals are among the high points of a visitor experience, and non-threatening to either species. Yet we have too often seen a situation develop where a jittery, inexperienced, and excited visitor - who might be carrying a firearm under this proposal - could “trigger” a result that could be fatal to the animal, themselves, or nearby visitors. Shooting a large animal with a small caliber handgun (the kind most often authorized by concealed carry authorities) will almost certainly injure rather than kill the animal; the result is among the worst nightmares for rangers and park managers.

Our members also recall instances where the combination of a trophy animal and easy access to a loaded firearm in the hands of an impulsive individual can result in lethal consequences.
Equally significant, the current regulations are a critical and effective deterrent to poaching of wildlife for trophy, meat, or commercial purposes. Under existing rules park rangers can contact anyone observed with a weapon and have the regulatory tools to ensure that loaded firearms are not easily accessible to those who might intend to kill park wildlife. If enacted, the proposed rule will result in more planned, opportunistic, or impulsive injury to or killing of park wildlife.
Attacks by wild animals in park areas are extraordinarily rare; and all studies indicate that handguns are an ineffective defense should such an attack occur. Nevertheless, the firearms interests and other advocates for this proposal assert that loaded firearms are needed to defend against attack from large predators and bears. At first glance, this argument may seem like a no-brainer. After all, aren’t guns made to kill? In fact, all evidence suggests that shooting at a charging animal invariably escalates the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury or death to the human or the animal. The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a charging animal, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves has but a slim chance of deterring with a gun an attack by a large and rapidly moving animal. For example, law enforcement agents with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have determined that individuals who use a gun against a grizzly bear suffer serious injury about 50% of the time. But those who defend themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those who were injured experience shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries.

5. The proposed regulation will adversely affect public safety and visitor enjoyment of park resources and park values.

By any measure, under current firearms restrictions, units of the National Park System are widely recognized and valued as among the safest places in the country. NPS statistics indicate that a visitor’s chance of falling victim to violent crime is approximately one in 708,000.

The USDI has not articulated a single instance in which this proposal would enhance these qualities. In fact, based upon the extensive experience of Coalition members, the opposite outcome is a certain result – enactment of this proposal would degrade public enjoyment and safety throughout the National Park System.

Parks are places that bring together an infinite variety of people, each with his or her own background and lifestyle that influence how they choose to enjoy their stay in a park. For example, campgrounds are places where hundreds of visitors gather in a limited space to sleep, cook meals, and enjoy nature and the company of their companions. And, rather often, campgrounds are also places where visitors drink too much beer and enjoy varied decibel levels of music. One of the enduring duties of park rangers is to be sure that inevitable conflicts in how people enjoy such places are resolved as quickly and peacefully as possible. Many of our members recall dealing with such incidents during their work as field rangers. We fear that the presence of an immediately accessible loaded firearm could far more quickly escalate such tension between parties into a much greater threat to public safety. Especially, the presence of loaded firearms can change the nature of alcohol-induced disagreements in campgrounds, picnic areas, parking lots, or concession lounges from a shoving match or fistfight to a major threat to public safety. Again, the USDI proposal would do nothing to prevent such incidents or reduce the frequency of their occurrence. Rather, common sense strongly indicates that enactment of the proposal would dramatically increase the level of violence when they occurred.

6. The presence of loaded guns will have a chilling effect on the levels of trust and social interaction among park visitors.

In his Book, Islands of Hope (1971), Park Historian Bill Brown wrote that national parks can be characterized in several ways: as sanctuaries of nature, as landmarks of history and culture, as places of contemplation, discovery, and adventure. But he added another quality, an ambience of shared sociability and pleasure in these welcoming, neutral grounds.

Clearly, our National Park System manages special places where a long history of safe experiences inspires visitors to trust each other. One assumes that the stranger approaching on a remote trail, or sharing a campground, or simply seated nearby at an interpretive talk, might share common values. Inspired by that feeling of safety and trust, park visitors have the confidence to engage in casual conversation, or even continue such a conversation and find new friendships.

Can anyone believe that such feelings of trust and confidence won’t be diminished, or simply abandoned, when the same visitors encounter someone packing heat? What will become of the positive social interaction that is so prominent in park areas when visitors see firearms, or even come to believe that the person sharing a trail, campground, picnic area, restaurant, or just a special place is carrying a loaded firearm?

7. The proposed regulation will increase the likelihood of vandalism to cultural resources and park facilities, including signs.

A stated goal of the proposed regulation is that units of the National Park System will be more like other federal lands, specifically our national forests and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, with respect to firearms possession. Sadly, the consequences of this position can often be seen whenever we venture deep into these more remote and isolated federal lands. Signs and other structures are often mutilated with bullet holes. Should this regulation be enacted and provide easy access to loaded firearms in park areas, there will be greater potential for likeminded gun owners to similarly mutilate park facilities and – worse - our priceless cultural heritage, especially in the more remote areas of parks and monuments.

For example, the priceless prehistoric petroglyphs at Petroglyph National Monument already show evidence of being used as “targets” by lawbreakers firing guns at them. How will this proposed regulation not increase the likelihood that there will be more of this kind of wanton disregard for these artifacts; or for the many monuments in our nation’s revolutionary and civil war areas?

8. The proposed regulation would jeopardize the safety of National Park Rangers and adversely affect the manner in which they interact with park visitors.

Authorizing concealed and loaded firearms within park areas would needlessly, and for reasons totally unrelated to the NPS mission, make the responsibilities of a National Park Ranger significantly more complex and hazardous. Park rangers are highly trained federal law enforcement officers who are authorized by Congress to perform protection and related visitor service duties throughout the National Park System. Their jobs are extremely complex and demanding. Depending on duty station they must handle many of the same law enforcement, public safety, and social challenges faced by police officers and fire and rescue personnel in any small or medium-sized community. In addition to protecting people from the actions of other people, park rangers assigned to law enforcement duties must also take on the added responsibility of enforcing numerous federal laws and regulations designed to protect the natural and cultural heritage for which parks have been created.

All of the concerns and examples of incidents described in # 4 and #5 above involve potential threats to the safety of park rangers responsible for responding to and investigating such incidents. This USDI attempt to provide for loaded firearms in parks would certainly lead to a greater number of incidents involving brandishing or even use of firearms, circumstances that inevitably place the lives and well-being of park rangers at greater risk.

The duties of the park ranger are made even more complex than those of a typical law enforcement officer by the nature of parks themselves. As described above, parks are places where most visitors are outside their comfort zone – they don’t have the same intuitive knowledge about the rules or expected behavior that they have at home or at work. We also appreciate that many have come to learn about park resources and values. So a principal duty of every ranger, including those assigned to perform law enforcement duties, is education and information. A park ranger is expected to initiate friendly contact with visitors, not only when violations are observed, but far more often to simply help visitors enjoy and learn about the park. By creating the potential for visitors to be carrying a concealed loaded firearm in park areas, the USDI threatens to insert an additional complexity and potential threat into the dynamics of a visitor contact. In a time when the NPS is encouraging all park rangers to engage in more frequent positive interactions with visitors for resource education and similar purposes, the USDI proposal, if enacted, will cause a barrier and deterrent to achieving mission-based objectives.

9. The potential for inconsistency and confusion in the administration of this proposed rule is virtually unlimited in its scope and complexity.

At the outset of this initiative the National Rifle Association and those who support their goals trumpeted increased consistency and easy understanding as a rationale for permitting loaded firearms in units of the National Park System. Even cursory analysis has indicated that this argument is not only false but patently absurd. Even so, the USDI continues to offer this indefensible speculation in the notice of proposed rulemaking, asserting that ”we believe that adopting the state standards for the possession of firearms on federal lands will promote uniformity of application, better visitor understanding of requirements, visitor safety, resource protection, and increased cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officials.” However, no evidence or common sense rationale is presented to support these pie-in-the-sky fantasies. It appears that these words are the invention of politically appointed staff that has no professional experience managing and protecting units of the National Park System. In fact, and based upon the 19,500 years of experience accumulated by members of the CNPSR, it is clear to us that the opposite is true, and the USDI has not identified and not acknowledged the great many adverse effects that enactment of this proposal would create.

The park-by-park challenge of researching, interpreting, and maintaining currency concerning firearms rules in state parks and similar state lands would be a significant and time-consuming burden on park staffs that are already suffering from severe erosion of park budgets over many years. Then there would be the ongoing challenge to communicate these firearms rules to park visitors. Obviously, the act of communicating such rules would be a further reminder that parks are no longer sanctuaries free of the potential for gun violence that they wish to leave behind. The following list identifies just some of the worst of these areas of confusion and inconsistency:

A. Concealed carry regulations vary from state to state, within states, and within state park systems.

Supporters of this proposed rule repeatedly assert that 48 states now have authority to issue concealed carry permits. In fact, only 28 states provide for concealed carry of firearms in all or portions of their state parks. Each state independently determines whether or not concealed weapons are permitted in all or portions of their state parks, and regulations vary widely – and change frequently. A vote of the state legislature, a decision by a governor, or even an interpretation of a state law by the courts or a state park director, would change firearms rules in all applicable units of the National Park System. In any of those instances, the National Park Service would have no authority over a key regulation in the NPS managed areas of that state.
Firearms rules also change within state parks based upon location and season. For example, The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism has determined particular zones within their parks in which concealed weapons are not allowed. The South Dakota State Parks have determined that uncased firearms are not allowed at campgrounds and at seven specific named parks.
The proposed regulation also includes language that would oblige parks to assimilate firearms rules for “any similar unit of state land.” The USDI has offered no explanation about how and how much this additional authority might expand the impact of this proposed rule for units of the National Park System. It seems possible that virtually every state, including those 22 where loaded firearms are not currently authorized in state parks, contains some type of state-owned land where loaded firearms are permitted and that gun enthusiasts can argue is “similar” to state parks. The true scope of this proposal would have to be resolved by detailed analysis of all such state-land authorities. In fact, this somewhat obscure add-on to the proposed rule may well become the “big gorilla” that expands the scope of this proposal into every state.

B. State firearms laws and reciprocity agreements are complex, vary widely, and frequently change.

The proposal asserts that adopting concealed carry rules applicable in state parks and similar state lands would be easy to understand and consistent. Consider the following points made by a few state authorities. They merely scratch the surface of complexity, uncertainty, and confusion that would result from enactment of this proposal.

(1). From the State of Wyoming website: “ State firearms laws and reciprocity agreements are subject to frequent change, and furthermore, are subject to court interpretation.” “It is extremely important for all concealed firearm permit holders to be aware of the requirements and laws of all reciprocating states. The permit issued by your state does not supersede any other state’s laws and regulations. Legal conduct in your state may not be legal in the state you are visiting.”

(2). From the State of Florida website for concealed weapon permit information: “The Division of Licensing constantly monitors changing gun laws in other states and attempts to negotiate agreements as the laws in those states allow.” “BE ADVISED: Because gun laws are subject to change or different interpretation by state courts, we recommend that non-resident Florida licensees call or write licensing authorities in the states in which they will be traveling.”

(3). The Attorney General’s Office of the State of Alabama has indicated that Alabama will honor both resident and non-resident Florida licenses. However, the Alabama Attorney General notes that there is some uncertainty as to the limits of Alabama’s reciprocity law as it pertains to non-resident licenses.

(4).The state of Montana recognizes concealed weapons carry permits from 40 other states. Six states – Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, are not recognized because those states require NO background checks for a concealed carry permit.

(5). From the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Investigation website, we learn that the State of Utah has reciprocity with 17 states. In addition, there are 16 other states that recognize the Utah concealed firearms permits; however, Utah does not recognize permits from these 16 states.
Some states simply do not have the statutory authority to establish reciprocal agreements with other states.

Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. However, a person from Vermont cannot carry a concealed weapon in other states because Vermont does not offer permits to its citizens allowing them to carry their weapons in other states. Alaska, by contrast, does issue permits and so its citizens can carry concealed weapons in 33 other states so long as they have a permit – that they don’t need at home in Alaska.

C. Qualifications necessary to acquire concealed carry permits differ widely among the states.

Another incorrect assertion by the USDI is that concealed-carry licensees are all law abiding citizens. In his Guest Opinion pieces, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne is quoted as saying: “While state authorities vary, all of them have mandatory minimum age and criminal background check requirements and the lion’s share have permitting systems that include residency requirements, fingerprinting and firearm safety training as prerequisites to permitting possession of concealed firearms.” This statement is not supported by facts. In fact, the requirements of the states vary widely and tend to have very limited requirements in terms of training and other safety provisions. A study in Texas found that between January 1, 1996 and August 31, 2001, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 5,314 crimes, including murder, rape, kidnapping, and theft. Another study in Florida revealed that in the first six months of 2006, more than 1,400 individuals licensed to carry concealed firearms in that state had pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 of them had outstanding warrants, 128 of them had active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six were registered sex offenders.
Furthermore, additional studies indicate that background checks in many states are perfunctory and inadequate, and that ex-felons are often granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.
There is evidence that in some states, some licenses are issued to individuals who do not even need to demonstrate competence using a real weapon.
Based upon this limited review of state concealed carry statutes, there can be no guarantee whatsoever that people who might be authorized by this proposed rule to carry loaded firearms in units of the National Park System are adequately screened and trained.

D. Some units of the National Park System extend into two or more states.

Some 60 park areas exist in two or more states; many have differing concealed carry laws in their state parks or similar state lands. For example, Nevada permits concealed carry of loaded firearms in their state parks (although we haven’t yet learned about any Nevada rules on “similar state lands.” And California does not authorize concealed carry of firearms in their state parks (although we haven’t yet learned of California rules on “similar state lands.”) This means that Death Valley might have two sets of concealed carry regulations. North Carolina and Virginia likewise differ, which similarly impacts the Blue Ridge Parkway. And Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have different rules for their state parks (although, again, we haven’t yet learned of how these states regulate firearms on “similar state lands.”). So Yellowstone National Park might have three sets of concealed carry regulations. The USDI has failed to analyze and prepare regulatory means to resolve these conflicts in state rules and regulations for such park areas.
Finally, in addition to long-established consistent rules that prohibit possession of loaded firearms in units of the National Park System, the federal government has addressed the challenge of differing and inconsistent state regulations in other laws and regulations. For example, 18 USC 926A, mandates such a consistent approach regarding interstate transportation of firearms. In this law, Congress requires that: “Not withstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle.” (Emphasis added.) More than in any other land jurisdiction in the United States, including state parks, national forests, etc, national park areas are places people visit while traveling from state to state. Existing park regulations fully complement existing law regarding interstate transport of firearms.

10. The proposed regulation could result in authorizing the possession of concealed firearms in both Federal (NPS) facilities and concession facilities in parks.

Language in the background section indicates that “the proposal is not designed to authorize possession of firearms in federal facilities….” It goes on to make a very vague stab at defining such facilities by suggesting that such federal facilities in parks might be identified in a fashion similar to how the USFS and BLM apply state firearms regulations to their management units. However, the USDI has provided no information or legal analysis as a basis for these statements. If they are based upon a federal statute USDI should have cited it, or reconciled the provisions of existing federal law with the proposed regulations to assure, in fact, that present authorities to prevent possession of firearms in federal facilities are retained.

Currently, the NPS relies on the provisions of 36 CFR 2.4 to restrict the possession of firearms in park areas, including the facilities (both federal and non-federal) within them. However, the proposal would eliminate such management authority, and does not replace it in the proposed regulation.

Given the absence of such information in the proposed rule we can only presume that the aforementioned language regarding possession of firearms in federal facilities is based upon provisions of 18 USC 930. This law does, in fact, prohibit the possession of a firearm in a federal facility, but with certain important exemptions, and only under certain conditions. There are several significant challenges if USDI is depending on the provisions of this statute to prevent the possession of loaded firearms in federal facilities where they would otherwise be allowed under state law in the rule proposal.

First, 18 USC 930(d)(3) specifically exempts from the general prohibition “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” (Emphasis added.) Under the USDI proposal it could easily be argued that hunting and any other purpose authorized under state law to carry a concealed firearm would be, by definition, a “lawful purpose” and therefore satisfy the terms of this statutory exemption. Because the proposed rule eliminates current regulatory authorities to prohibit possession of firearms, and does not replace them, there may be no lawful means for park managers to prohibit a person carrying a loaded firearm from entering its facilities, including the buildings where park employees work.

The second challenge pertains to the possession of concealed firearms in other park facilities. How does the USDI envision the prohibition of loaded firearms in the wide variety of hotels, restaurants, lounges, gift shops, meeting rooms, and other facilities that are operated by park concessioners and various park partners? 18 USC 930 (g) defines a federal facility as “a building, or part thereof, owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.” (Emphasis added.) The aforementioned facilities do not meet this criterion and therefore do not qualify as a Federal facility. If this proposal were enacted there would be no remaining authority in the proposed rule, and the provisions of 18 USC 930 would not apply. It appears, again, that USDI staff has done insufficient analysis and that the scope of the proposed rule would be much broader than indicated in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The third facility-related problem is that 18 USC 930(h) requires that any prohibition of firearms be “posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility.” The current NPS firearms regulation at 36 CFR 2.4 provides for park managers to restrict firearms in facilities and elsewhere without the onerous signing requirements. Does the USDI really intend that the NPS and F&WS must post signs at each public entrance to administrative buildings, visitor centers, historic buildings, restaurants, lodging facilities, etc, etc, etc, prohibiting possession of firearms? Does the USDI envision the presence of metal detectors, guards, and other security devices established to protect federal employees, concession staff, and park visitors at countless entry points to buildings throughout the National Park System? What an ugly and chilling message to park visitors!

11. The notice of proposed rulemaking is inadequate as a basis for decision-making.

As stated repeatedly in this comment letter USDI has failed to develop and present the most basic conceptual elements upon which new regulations should be designed. There is no statement describing an NPS mission-based problem to be solved. There is nothing in the proposal to indicate that the intent of the regulation is to serve the statutory goals of the National Park Service. Discussion of impact to parks is limited to totally unsupported statements that predict a litany of happy consequences; however, such claims are accompanied by no evidence or defensible rationale and simply don’t rise to the lowest threshold of common sense.
Technically, the proposed regulation is woefully incomplete, poorly constructed, and fails to comply with long-established practices and standards of writing such documents, for example:
The proposed rule is very inconsistent in terms and words used to describe basic elements of the regulation.

In several ways, it creates substantial confusion by failing to establish the scope of the proposed rule. For example, the term “any similar unit state land” is open-ended; it can include any numbers of categories of state lands. In fact, it is this term rather than the more limited category of state parks that may ultimately define the scope of this proposal. And USDI makes no attempt to define it.

Long experience tells us that any rule that is so incomplete, vague, and poorly written will result in confusion among enforcement rangers, the public, and ultimately the courts. Many of these procedural shortcomings can, of course, be remedied by someone with professional expertise in writing regulations.

However, the overall message that is sent by publishing such a hastily conceived and poorly written document cannot be fixed as easily. The absence of any credible effort to connect this proposal to the achievement of the lawful purposes of the National Park Service provides the reader with the inescapable conclusion that the USDI cares more about short-term political success than about the integrity of the parks they are sworn to protect. Such a message is a tragic legacy for this or any Administration.

We urge USDI leaders to demonstrate courage and pride, and make a decision that is right for the national parks and wildlife refuges and also for the goals and ideals of the thousands of employees of the National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service who carry out the vital missions of these bureaus. This proposed rule should be withdrawn without further delay.