Supporting VAFP

 Membership

Leading the way!

info@virginiaparks.org

The Case Against Firearms in State Parks:
Reasons for the Criminal Justice Community to Speak Out
By: Irene-Eva Ries

This document intends to address the two petitions requesting changes to Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) policies.  Specifically, the petitions seek changes allowing the carrying of firearms inside the boundaries of public land and buildings controlled by DCR by persons who are not participating in regulated hunting and who are not sworn peace officers.

"I want to carry a firearm for protection."

Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in all social settings, and during daily activities. 

The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in Virginia's state parks, and state parks in the United States generally, are extremely low.1  Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons.2

Crimes indexed by the Virginia State Police's Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within Virginia's parks tend to be drug possession, petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas3.  Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults. 

The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within Virginia, and further, Virginia's overall crime rate has dropped in recent years.  All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by the state does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever.

The Crime and Accident Correlation

There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:

1. The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms4; and

2. The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms 5.

Statistics collected by law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders.  Specifically, this means that injury, maiming and death occurs at higher frequencies because those carrying firearms may:

1. Not keep their weapons in optimal operating condition, causing unanticipated discharges or backfires, injuring or killing the operator of the weapon;

2. May not be properly educated as to the use of the weapon and all of its safety features;

3. Be more likely to draw a weapon and discharge it if startled;

4. Be perceived by the general public as a safety threat because they are armed; and/or

5. Perceived as engaging in tacit intimidation by the general public solely because they are armed, but are not sworn peace officers.

Statistics collected by Department of Game and Inland Fisheries counterpart agencies in other states reveals that hunters and poachers are the predominant perpetrators of crimes against game wardens and park rangers, and most of those crimes are committed using firearms.  It is absolutely reasonable to anticipate that confrontations between law enforcement officers and armed patrons or hunters will increase if there are fewer regulatory policies in place.

In considering the consequences for enacting either or both of the proposed petitions, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the public at large face multi-faceted problems and concerns.

Liability and Consequences:  Who will be responsible?

As the conservator of the peace on the public's behalf on public lands, the state must now also consider potential liabilities posed by armed persons on state property.  This includes addressing the concerns of all Virginia residents and visitors to Virginia as tourists. 

Essentially, the Commonwealth must weigh the rights of those who do not wish to carry firearms, and who would be in forced proximity to persons who have firearms on public lands but are not law enforcement officers (officers are under greater scrutiny and accountability to the public for their actions).  The state must consider the rights of the public, and therefore, the majority, in contrast with the minority, who insist that their rights outweigh public safety concerns, and the non-armed majority in general.

As a scholar of sociology and anthropology, it is worthwhile to note that social norms and mores work in small tribal communities because the members of small social groups are able to exert pressure to ensure members are compliant and will refrain from unacceptable behavior (crimes and taboos).  This is not possible in a large, organized and complex society with millions of members.  This is why large societies consolidate and codify social norms, through  consensus, into laws, on behalf of society to enforce those laws for the good of society.

The assertion that the public should simply trust "good, law abiding citizens" who are armed, as firearm advocates have proffered, would be genuinely laughable were it not for their willingness to insidiously and forcibly expose the public to danger. 

As a professional practitioner in the Virginia criminal justice system and former pre-trial services officer in Chesterfield County, I find the demand that the public blindly trust armed "good, law abiding citizens" to be absurd, reckless and irresponsible.

While a pre-trial services officer, I conducted home supervision visits with persons who were awaiting trial or adjudicated for felonies and misdemeanors, and I did so unarmed.  The connotation here is that my role as an officer of the court likely shielded me from potential criminal intent, but the public has no such guarantee.

If DCR were forced to change its policies and allow any person who obtained a permit to carry a weapon onto state lands, who would be held accountable if a park patron were injured, killed or the victim of a crime perpetrated by another park patron?  While such an incident would be prosecuted as a criminal matter, this could also potentially involve a civil suit against the Commonwealth of Virginia for negligence by failing to ensure the safety of the general public. 

What will happen when state parks hold public events, and park visitors enter public property armed, and then become engaged in a confrontation with other patrons or a law enforcement officer during a crowded event?  Will law enforcement officers be out-gunned in terms of firepower, and die trying to intervene in a dispute, or defend an unarmed patron?

What will happen when visitors from other states and countries realize that they are being exposed to armed park patrons without their implicit consent?  How will these visitors reasonably know if armed park patrons are, in fact, truly "law abiding citizens?" 

As Virginia statutes prohibit convicted felons, convicted domestic violence offenders, and persons with standing protective or emergency protective orders issued by a magistrate to possess firearms, who will be monitoring whether there is actual compliance by armed patrons?

The request that the public simply relinquish its feelings of security, safety and well-being to armed citizens, carte blanche, is ludicrous, especially considering the public would have no guarantee that persons who obtained a legal permit in the past are still legally eligible to possess a firearm.

My experience with the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Service's Integrated Justice Program (IJP) enables me to comment professionally that, unfortunately, Virginia's present state criminal justice databases do not automatically transfer information, and that it is possible for a person who has a permit to carry a firearm to be suddenly disqualified because of a conviction or issuance of a protective order.  Additionally, law enforcement may remain unaware of this fact until said person has a confrontation with law enforcement officers.  As the state is presently experiencing severe budget cuts resulting in the loss of state employees and reduction in personnel, is the state prepared to have its law enforcement officers stop each incoming patron to ascertain whether an armed patron is actually eligible to continue carrying that weapon?

Policies in Other States

To date, there appears to be no other DCR counterpart agency in forty-nine states (with the possible exception of Alaska) and federal territories that allows firearms onto state park lands (outside of hunting weapons during hunting seasons, in specified and regulated areas, and by persons with a valid hunting license).

Are state officials and legislators genuinely prepared to expose the public to the risks presented by firearms and take responsibility for all the ensuing consequences, such as increases in crimes against other park patrons and law enforcement officers?  Why should Virginia race to become a modern "Wild, Wild West" state wherein shoot-outs are possible, and law enforcement officers could be legally out-munitioned? 

In closing, let me summarize why the presence of firearms carried by persons other than law enforcement officers is a dangerous and reckless position:

1. Escalation in seriousness and frequency of crimes in state parks, resulting in injuries and deaths;

2. Inability of law enforcement to determine present eligibility of every armed park patron to carry a firearm, which would unduly tax state resources;

3. Increases in destruction and/or maiming of flora and fauna;

4. Inherent loss of tourism and visitations to state parks by the general public and visitors from other states and countries due to compromised feelings of safety and security, and the perception of intimidation felt by the unarmed public caused by those who do carry weapons;

5. There is an absence of statistics or data supporting the necessity of firearms for self-protection in state parks.

As a criminal justice practitioner, I do not support these petitions and question the actual motives for the submission of these petitions, cautioning state officials to consider that an armed person is, by virtue of force, more able to commit a crime.  This cautionary research should not be underestimated or dismissed.  I urge you to summarily reject both petitions in favor of maintaining public safety and security.

Bibliography

2002 [Associated Press].
"Boards update parks' gun bans."  The Washington Times, October 27, 2002.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20021027-9812434.htm

2002 Branigin, William and Irvin, C. Woodrow.
"Boards Uphold Ban on Guns In N.Va. Parks: Fairfax, Regional Authorities Defy State."  Washingpost.com, Saturday, October 26, 2002; Page B01.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20200-2002Oct26&notFound=true

1999 [credit to author].
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths in Salt Lake County during 1998," provisional data synopsis by author from citation: Source: Bureau of Epidemiology, Salt Lake Valley Health Department. http://www.slvhealth.org/html/cs/html/firearminjuries.html

2002 [credit to author].
"Va. Campaign to Allow Concealed Weapons in State Parks."  Article synopsis: local news.   JoinTogetherOnline, August 15, 2002.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/
reader/0,2061,553427,00.html

2002 [credit to author].
"Virginia:  Guns in State Parks."  Article synopsis:  petition descriptions.  FreeRepublic.com, December 1, 2002.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798706/posts?page=11

2001 [credit to author].
"Study Finds Park Rangers Facing Increased Violence: Fugitives are drawn to isolation of parks, putting rangers at risk."  National Parks Conservation Association Magazine, November/December, 2001.
http://www.npca.org/magazine/2001_issues/
november_december/news3.asp

2002 [credit to compiler].
"Authorities investigate three bald-eagle shootings."  York News Times, March 15, 2002.
http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/031502/
neb_0315020011.shtml

2002 Faler, Brian.
"Assaults Increase On Parks Workers:  Incidents With Rangers Rise 900 Percent."  The Washington Post, August 30, 2002; Page A21 Section: A.

2001 Kilgore, Jerry.  Attorney General of Virginia.
Official release on statue interpretation.  Letter to General Assembly Delegate Black.  01-080.

CRIMES AND OFFENSES GENERALLY: CRIMES INVOLVING HEALTH AND SAFETY - OTHER ILLEGAL WEAPONS.  CONSERVATION: PARKS AND RECREATION - STATE PARKS - GENERAL PROVISIONS - DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION.

Synopsis: Person with concealed weapons permit is prohibited from carrying concealed weapon onto property within territorial scope of Virginia State Parks Regulations.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/media%20center/Opinions/
2001opns/01-080.htm

1996 Holbrook, Stett.
"Sea lion shootings anger park officials."  Half Moon Bay Review, May 22, 1996.
http://www.montara.com/HMBReview/General/
96.05.22.gen.deadseals

1996 Linsalata, Phil.
"Camping Safety: Crime rarely visits state parks."  The Detroit News, June 12, 1996.
http://members.aol.com/femnet/det696.htm

2000 Stine, Maria.
"State Parks Forming Gorge Watch." The Outlook, March 11, 2000.
http://www.volunteersinthegorge.org/press/march1100.htm

Other Institutional and Proprietary Sources:

Officer Down Memorial Page.  Search and reference materials.
http://www.odmp.org/

Virginia State Police, Incidence Based Reporting statistical data; annual report inference.

1. Copyright 1996, The Detroit News.

2. The Washington Post and National Parks Conservation Association.

3. Virginia State Police.

4. Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc.

5. Ibid.

If you feel as we do, we invite you to join in our efforts