As National Park Gun Ban Under Fire, Some ‘Concerns’ Need to be Discussed

Traveling with my folks as a kid, we hit quite a few state parks and even a few national parks. The Grand Canyon was cool, the Petrified Forest wasn’t what I expected, but still pretty cool, too, and Shenandoah was beautiful.

But that was back when I was too young to carry a firearm. 

I haven’t been to many national parks these days because, well, I don’t travel all that much anymore, but national parks aren’t high on the list of potential destinations because of the gun rules there. 

While the Second Amendment Foundation is trying to fight those rules in the courts, it seems some people have some concerns about guns in these parks.

The SAF’s new lawsuit has recently garnered some mixed reactions from the American public. Some pro-Second Amendment social media users have voiced that they’re in support of overturning the ban, but others have argued that to do so would be a threat to public safety.

Pro-gun rights advocates believe that the “right to bear arms” should extend everywhere in the country, including national park buildings. However, other Americans have expressed concerns over potential risks if the ban is overturned.

They say that the ban on carrying guns into National Park Service buildings is no different than carrying guns into other federal facilities, such as courthouses or military bases, where guns are not permitted on the premises for security reasons.

“It’s a federal building. They are always banned in federal buildings — including among employees — with the exception of law enforcement in the capacity of their official duties,” one person posted on Instagram, adding, “Not doing so also sounds like a great way to enable an active shooting incident without any way to intercept it beforehand. Like, currently, if you see someone with a firearm (concealed or visible) approaching the door, you can call for law enforcement support immediately based on that alone. If this passed, you could not do that, you would basically have to wait until they started shooting inside the building.”

One social media user said “I’d rather not be indoors with gun fanatics,” while others referred to the pro-gun plaintiffs as “ammosexuals.”

“Gun fanatics” and “ammosexuals.” That’s how you know you’re going to get reasoned discourse.

And sure, they’re federal buildings, but the difference is that courthouses and military bases aren’t recreational facilities. The buildings open to the public in national parks are. That does change things quite a bit.

But let’s talk about the active shooter concern for a moment.

Yes, if you see someone approaching the door with a firearm, you can call the cops. Guess what will happen? Nothing. Not fast enough at that point, anyway. These aren’t massive parking lots with miles of walking where law enforcement will be able to respond before they touch a doorknob or pull. Even if the park police are inside the building, that’s one or two officers who were already going to be the first targets of a deranged killer who has no care about their own safety.

While there aren’t active shooting incidents at national parks as a general rule, much of that is because it’s not always predictable how many people will be there. Mass killers want a high body count, and when I was at the Petrified Forest, for example, during the summer season, there were, like, three other people there besides my family. Not an attractive target, now, is it?

But the rules in place aren’t the reason there haven’t been mass shootings in these facilities. Moreover, those who want to carry out some kind of shooting won’t be stopped by a rule, even if you call the cops because you see someone with a gun.

Look, this criticism is off-base, but it’s not surprising.

The biggest thing we’ve got to do is normalize lawful gun carry. This is part of why the open-carry community is so adamant about being seen with firearms. I don’t share that enthusiasm, but I don’t oppose it because it makes sense. If everyone who carried a firearm regularly carried openly just one day per year, I think we’d show people just how many lawful carriers there are around them.

I get that some states are down on open carry, obviously, so it’s not going to happen, but we do need to normalize the idea that people carry firearms for self-defense and are responsible gun owners, responsible gun carriers, and no threat to anyone.

The people who think of us as “ammosexuals” and “gun fanatics” aren’t going to change their tune, but we don’t need to worry about them. What we need to worry about is everyone else. If they recognize that we’re not a threat, and that people they know and like carry, then maybe the push for gun control will weaken in time because too many people will know too many good guys with guns to want to see them disarmed.

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.