The park ranger told us that he asked the supervisory park ranger whether he could take the IT specialist to the range to shoot. According to the park ranger, taking the IT specialist to the range would improve the relationship between the rangers and other MNP employees. The park ranger said that the supervisory park ranger approved his request and that he converted his M-4 to fire in fully automatic mode, allowing the IT specialist to fire the rifle in fully automatic mode at the range. He also allowed the IT specialist to shoot his Government-issued .308 rifle and shotgun.
The supervisory park ranger, however, denied that he allowed anyone other than the park rangers at MNP to shoot the fully automatic rifles. He said that he knew that the park ranger had allowed the IT specialist to fire one of the new rifles in fully automatic mode at the range, but he was not present when that occurred. The supervisory park ranger said that he felt that the park ranger should not have allowed the IT specialist to shoot the rifle since the park ranger was not a firearms instructor.
SUBJECTS
1. Supervisory Park Ranger, MNP, NPS.
2. Park Ranger and Armorer, MNP, NPS.
DISPOSITION
We provided this report to the Director of NPS for appropriate action.
During our investigation, we developed concerns over the control and approval of purchasing controversial and aggressive law enforcement equipment without significant controls, policies, oversight, and justification. We issued a management advisory to the NPS Director with four recommendations to help NPS put in place policy and procedures for control and oversight of the purchase of tactical law enforcement equipment. NPS responded that it generally agrees with our recommendations and has taken action to strengthen policies and controls governing equipment purchases.
13
