NY Times on National Parks Carry Rule

This Friday the Grey Lady had a surprisingly even-handed look at the proposed rule change for concealed carry within US National Parks. The article lead with a link to the NRA and quotes from Chris Cox, their chief lobbyist. They also noted that the other large federal landlords are currently governed by state, not federal, law - a widely overlooked fact when this subject is debated.

Beyond this, I have a few small complaints. First, the article was preceded by a close up photo of a Bison and the description: Supporters of a plan to allow concealed weapons in parks say it would make people feel safe. But critics see danger to animals like bison in Yellowstone. I know the Bison is an iconic image of the Parks system, but I feel like this is meant to trigger the heartstrings and fears of opponents. The rule change is being proposed not to endanger animals, but to defer to state power and the rights of law-abiding citizens. Perhaps an image of two young women backpacking far from the protection of crowds and law enforcement rangers would have accurately framed the debate. Even if in the future a concealed carry permit-holder were to fire on an animal within a park, that unfortunate event would dwarf the number of animals that poachers, who ignore the current ban, take with all too much frequency.

Finally, the article ends with a pair of quotes from a supporter and an opponent of the ban. The opponent, Chris Bergquist, states:

It’s a bad idea. It’s more tempting to use it if you have it, on wildlife. They’ll think they’re far enough away no one will hear it and they can get away with it.

This sort of talk is very reminiscent of the "blood in the streets" and "Wild West shootout" lines that were throw about in every state when concealed carry was initiated. Again, fear and emotion trump logic. To believe this you must work under the false assumptions that 1) every concealed carry holder will become lawless once they possess a firearm outside the home, and 2) poachers and other criminals magically follow current bans.

Overall, kudos to a paper that is not know to be friendly to gun rights issues for showing both sides of the story. Let's hope that the logical side prevails.