Easing gun ban
could reduce crime
in national parks

THE USUAL suspects are clamoring  to save us from ourselves and impose their myopic vision as the federal government prepares to loosen restrictions on firearms in national parks.

At the outset, let’s all agree that this is not 1965 and our national parks and forests — along with our cities — are not safe anymore, in large part because of liberal policies that tend to breed criminality. Statistics seem to bear that out.

“The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults,” the Los Angeles Times reported in a story about the possible rule change.

Some would argue that in comparison to crime statistics in some urban regions, those numbers are not that bad — unless you just happen to be one of the statistics.

As it stands now, firearms must be . . .

(cont'd from front page) unloaded and stowed when taken into national parks, making those areas, for all intents and purposes, gun-free zones for the convenience of the bad guys. Remember, criminals for decades have not obeyed gun bans, in parks or anyplace else. It is part of what makes them criminals. The National Rifle Association started the ball rolling to ease the rule, and half the Senate supported the move.

One suggestion, and an entirely reasonable one in our view, has been to have the parks comply with the concealed-carry regulations of the states they are in — as they do now on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land. A good solution and none too soon.

“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,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Reaction to the Senate’s attempt to change the rules has been predictable and hysterical. The nannies on the left, the same folks who predicted gunfights at every street corner as they opposed concealed-carry laws, now are predicting those same laws in national parks will make them less safe. You would think they’d learn, but they apparently cannot.

“No one is safe — humans or wildlife — with this proposed revision,” huffs The Seattle Times. The Sacramento Bee warns the proposal is “dangerous.” “Keep parks free of firearms,” says USA Today. It will change the parks’ character, other opponents say. And on and on.

The naiveté of those who oppose the notion of Americans defending themselves is astonishing. There already are guns, drugs, meth labs, criminals, smuggling, rapes and murders in national parks. The criminals are even killing rangers.

How in the world can allowing ordinary Americans to defend themselves in those circumstances do anything but change the parks’ character for the better and make us all safer?

This is a change that is needed and long-overdue.