by Stephen E. Wright

Created on: May 05, 2008   Last Updated: December 07, 2008

Twenty years ago civilians were generally banned from carrying firearms for self defense in most public places. But times and laws have changed and the rules for National Parks must change with them. Because National Parks were created for American citizens to enjoy, not to drive political policy.

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This National Park/Monument gun ban became outdated in 1987 when state legislatures began giving civilian's the right to carry concealed weapons. The logic for this movement was simple: If every street thug who wants a gun carries one regardless of the law, why should law abiding citizens be forced to leave their firearms at home? The effect of bans on concealed carry was that being armed was limited to criminals because law abiding citizens who owns guns follow the laws.

Florida, in 1987, was the first state to pass 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."

The majority of American citizens live in a state where the law allows any trained, law abiding adult to legally carry a firearm. And 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.

And the results of civilians taking responsibility for their own protection are dramatic. 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 (vs. Virginia Tech, where guns were banned and the results were far different). Or the countless other armed civilians 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 for legal civilian firearms carry, what is the justification to take away the right for armed self defense at the border of a National Park? 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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>