Recently proposed changes in federal regulations would allow the carrying of concealed firearms in some national parks, something which is not currently allowed. Specifically, the proposed regulations would allow the carrying of firearms if state law would allow the carrying of firearms in state parks. While this is a step in the right direction and should be supported, changes in federal regulations should go even further and allow the carrying of firearms in national parks even if state law would restrict or prohibit the carrying of firearms in state parks without regard to state law.

While the proposed rule change is based in part on a desire to respect principles of federalism, “states’ rights” are only half of the federalism story. The other half is that federal power and authority may be appropriately used to protect the federal rights of individual United States citizens. This fact supports reducing or eliminating restrictions on the carrying of firearms in national parks on two separate grounds.

First, individual U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to restrict the federal government from infringing that right. To the extent that current federal regulations infringe the right to keep and bear arms on land controlled by the federal government, the Department of the Interior has a duty to change those regulations based on the Second Amendment, regardless of state law.

Additionally, the 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War so as to make the federal Bill of Rights applicable to the states. One of the central purposes of the 14th Amendment was to overrule state laws that restricted the possession and carrying of firearms by making the Second Amendment apply to the states. This was done because most early state gun control laws were enacted in Southern states as a means of disarming black people so as to render them defenseless and more easily controlled and oppressed. The 14th Amendment was intended to overrule state gun control laws so as to allow blacks (and all citizens of the United States) to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, regardless of state law. Given the history of the 14th Amendment, principles of federalism do not require the federal government to respect state laws that prohibit or severely restrict the carrying of firearms for self- defense. Arguably, the 14th Amendment creates an affirmative duty for the Department of the Interior to actively stomp on such laws where it can, such as in national parks.

These arguments are not merely academic. This is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the Appalachian Trail, which is a single unit of the national park system. Even though it is just a path or trail over the mountains and through the woods, it is treated as a single national park just like Acadia or Yellowstone. While the Appalachian Trail may be only a few feet wide at points, it is about 2,000 miles long and extends through many states from Georgia to Maine. Many of those states have radically different laws regarding the carrying of firearms.

The AT runs through some very remote areas where the ability to call for and quickly receive emergency help is limited or totally nonexistent. At the same time, there have been a number of instances where hikers have been murdered, raped or otherwise assaulted. For a person hiking the Appalachian Trail, the benefits of being able to carry a firearm for self- defense are obvious. Yet, under current regulations, a law-abiding person is not allowed to carry a loaded, functional weapon. The proposed changes in federal regulations would allow an AT hiker to carry a firearm in some states, but not in others, even though the hiker is in effect walking through a single continuous national park.

While the proposed rule changes would be a step in the right direction, a better and more uniform approach would be to allow the carrying of firearms for self-defense throughout national parks without regard to state laws.

Brad Macdonald practices law in Bangor.