by Zach Bigalke

Created on: February 25, 2008   Last Updated: February 27, 2008

Richard Simon and Judy Pasternak reported in the Sunday Los Angeles Times that the federal government is setting into action a proposal which would relax restrictions on bringing firearms into national parks across America. Citing the need for greater protection against predators both human and animal, gun-rights advocates are hailing the plan as a reaffirmation of Second Amendment rights...

But this goes far beyond the Second Amendment. When the National Park Service was first formed, bans on firearms in national parks were designed to prevent illegal and "opportunistic" poaching of protected wildlife. Even the Reagan administration, back in 1983, confirmed these abridgments of Second Amendment liberties - requiring visitors to national parks to disarm and properly store their weaponry before entering park boundaries...

The debate centers around whether or not state gun statutes should take precedence on federal lands. Currently, these state statutes are applicable to National Forest- and Bureau of Land Management-controlled areas. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), in his talking points released through his office, stated that, "While park rangers now use bulletproof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry law exists are denied the opportunity for self-defense."

Against what, exactly, are these tourists needing to defend themselves?

Having grown up in Grand Teton National Park, it is immediately apparent to me that our national parks are some of our safest locations in the entire United States. These lands are sanctuaries where both the wildlife and the humans visiting are able to live peacefully and without the disturbances of the modern world. People come to Yellowstone and Yosemite and Glacier and Grand Teton and Great Basin and all the other parks to get away from the gun violence infesting our urbanized society...

As for the idea that a firearm can prevent a bear attack, such absurdity is exactly what the National Rifle Association and other gun-advocacy groups want people to believe. The reality is that, if a grizzly or other bear desires to attack you, he WILL GET YOU...

Johan Otter, a victim of a 2005 grizzly attack in Glacier National Park, was seriously injured while hiking with his daughter. Would a firearm have helped save Otter and his daughter? He doesn't think so...

"We only had, like, half a second between seeing the bear and the impact. Most likely, if you shoot, you're going to hurt the animal.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>