Gun law change won't aid Glacier

The Department of Interior intends to reconsider gun restrictions in national parks that have been in effect for 25 years, and in some parks such as Yellowstone, for more than 100 years.

Where did this come from?

There has been no public clamor for a change in the policy. Maybe folks have grumbled about the requirement to keep guns stored and unloaded inside park boundaries, but it certainly has not been a burning issue at Glacier National Park.

The truth is, it is an issue driven by the National Rifle Association's lobbyists in Washington, D.C. While we support most of the NRA's positions, there simply is no screaming need for visitors to carry loaded guns in Glacier National Park.

There have been no crime waves in the park and visitors have bear spray as an effective means of defense against grizzly bears.

Active and retired National Park Service rangers have been vocal in their opposition to the change. There indeed could be unintended consequences. Gun-related accidents involving people and wildlife, it seems, are probably more likely than the scenario of a gun-toting visitor deterring a violent crime in the park.

We say that with confidence because violent crime in the park is exceedingly rare. We cannot even recall an instance of a major assault in Glacier in recent history.

So that leaves the potential for guns to be used as self-defense against wildlife, particularly Glacier's grizzly bears. Well, bear spray has proven to be an effective, non-lethal alternative for deterring a bear attack.

Yes, there have been maulings involving people who were carrying bear spray but were unable to reach it in time. But in those surprise encounters, it's also unlikely there would have been different results if the victims had been carrying a gun instead of pepper spray.

There have been no instances of bears charging through a mist of pepper spray undeterred, something that can happen if a person doesn't get a kill shot from a handgun. And that's one of the main intents of bear spray - to deter but not kill a threatened species.

Rangers have correctly pointed out that a huge number of park visitors come from urban areas and are often completely out of their element in a place like Glacier. Those folks, with handguns in hip holsters, certainly can produce unintended consequences for wildlife if not other park visitors.

We're well aware of the NRA argument that "gun free" zones invite criminal activity. Again, Glacier isn't overrun with crime, much less violent crime.

The NRA also has the principled position that it's simply unconstitutional for the government to restrict the right to bear arms. But that's not how the Supreme Court sees it: there are many laws that have been upheld that apply specific gun restrictions.

Gun rules in national parks will seem a paltry matter later this year when the high court will consider a case challenging the complete ban on gun ownership in Washington, D.C.

For the government to completely deprive a law-abiding person from the right to own a gun certainly is unconstitutional.

But guns are not banned from national parks; they are not confiscated at entrance stations. They just have to be stored and unloaded. That seems reasonable and prudent.