As predicted, the guns-in-national-parks issues has created both "aiieee, it's the end of the world!" vaporing and some bureaucratic re-thinking on the Park Service's part.
Parks officials are also scratching their heads about how the new rules will affect enforcement of laws on things like gun permits, which vary widely and will still hold sway even on federal park lands, and wildlife poaching. Some people believe that the change will be immense, others that it will not be noticeable at all.
Put me in the second group of "some people": I doubt that there will be much change at all--except possibly in parks along the Mexican border.
The second linked story, from the New York Times, makes some mis-steps:
The National Parks evoke equally deep emotional feelings — about place. Setting aside specific spots for the celebration of nature, or history, or spirituality, is an old tradition — as old as the Second Amendment.
Let's see: Bill of Rights, ratified 1791. Yellowstone National Park, our first, created in 1872.
At least some reporters are beginning to understand what the law will do--and not do:
Colorado, like other states, also recognizes concealed weapons permits from some states but not others. A permit issued in Texas or Pennsylvania is valid in Colorado, for example, and would thus eventually be recognized in Rocky Mountain [National Park]. But a permit holder from California or New York would still have to leave his or her guns locked away, because permits from those states are not recognized here.