I’m sure the debate will last much longer.

On April 30, the Department of the Interior proposed changing current regulations to allow people to carry a concealed firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge if the individual is permitted to carry a concealed weapon and is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state in which the park or refuge is located.

It will be at least several weeks after the comment deadline before a decision is announced, said Chris Paolino, a department spokesman.

People on both sides have been sending the department their thoughts.

Among them is Lawrence A. Lang of Port Angeles. He was a law enforcement officer with the National Park Service for more than 30 years.

“National Park areas are clearly safer because of regulations and enforcement on possession and use of firearms. There are no grounds to believe that allowing the general public to carry firearms will in any way provide general improvement of public safety within National Parks,” he wrote.

On the other side is Lindsay Trittipoe of Richmond, Va., a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

“I have a concealed weapons permit for the personal protection for myself and my family. I would like to take my family hiking in national parks, but think it is insane to do so without personal protection. … If it was strictly my decision, I would allow both open carry of firearms in all federal national parks and refuges, period,” Trittipoe wrote.

From my viewpoint, there is no need to change the existing law.

Among their arguments for change, proponents say visitors should be allowed to protect themselves and their families.

Proponents want you to believe that violent crime is a problem in national parks. It’s just not true, based on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. In 2006, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national parks visitors. At Mount Rainier National Park, the rate is miniscule 0.42 per 100,000. Compare those to Tacoma’s rate of 1,041 violent crimes per 100,000 people. I’m much more wary driving through parts of town than I ever am walking a trail at Mount Rainier National Park.

Backers of the change also say the rules should be consistent for all federal lands to eliminate confusion for gun owners.

The rules are pretty clear cut right now. Guns can be carried on national forest land. They aren’t allowed on park or refuge land unless the weapon is broken down or not easily accessible. That seems quite straightforward.

A follow-up statement from proponents is that it’s difficult to know when you are on national forest or national park land.

How is it any less confusing than having to know the guns laws for different states when a park extends beyond a single state’s border. Would it not be equally confusing to be in Yellowstone National Park that spreads across Wyoming, Idaho and Montana where the gun laws might differ?

Having watched this debate and listened to people from both sides, I fail to see the need to change the rules at this time.

Jeffrey P. Mayor: 253-597-8640

jeff.mayor@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/adventure

TO COMMENT

The proposed change can be read at www.doi.gov. Written comments will be accepted through Monday. You can submit comments, which should be identified by the number 1024-AD70, by going to www.regulations.gov and following the instructions for submitting comments.