Must be a misprint-White House favors CC in Nat'l Parks??

Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,728
Likes
348
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...post/main4805192.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories

White House Defends Loaded Guns In Parks
Justice Dept. Blocks Attempt By Gun Control Lobby To Turn Around Late-Issued Bush Rule

(Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Washington Post Staff writer Juliet Eilperin.The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

The three groups seeking to overturn the rule - the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees - have argued that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also argue that the new policy could deter some visitors, such as school groups, from visiting national landmarks.

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

"Secretary Salazar believes the Department should put forward its legal arguments in defense of the rulemaking procedure, and allow the courts to reach a conclusion," Lee-Ashley wrote in an e-mail. "In addition, in order to ensure that the actions of the government are based upon the best information, Secretary Salazar has directed the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, under the auspices of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, to undertake a 90-day review of any environmental considerations associated with implementation of these rules and to provide him a report on the results of that review."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said in an interview that he did not understand why the new administration was defending a rule that embodied "bad policy and bad procedure."

"It is hard to tell who is calling the shots on this at this point," Helmke said. "You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past."

You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past.
Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign
Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks. We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."

Bush's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, Lyle Laverty, pushed for the policy change, according to documents disclosed as part of the ongoing case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In an Aug. 22 letter to the directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, he wrote, "This proposed rule is one of my top priorities."

But Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall and National Park Service Director Mary A. Bomar, both Bush appointees, informed Congress shortly before the rule was finalized that they opposed allowing concealed weapons in refuges and parks. "After careful review of our records and actions, we believe that the existing regulations provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System," Hall and Bomar wrote House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.) in a Nov. 9 letter.

The national park system has a relatively low rate for crimes or for attacks by wild animals. In a July 31 letter that Bomar wrote to a Reno resident inquiring about the new rule -- which was unearthed during the proceedings -- she stated that in 2006 there were more than 270 million visits to the national park system and 384 violent crimes. In the course of more than 1.3 billion visits to the system since 2002, she added, there have been two reported fatalities and 16 serious injuries caused by "encounters with non-domestic animals."

By Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin
 
Hmm. The 'Environmental Impact' study does cause a twinge of concern. While I fail to see any reasonable impact CC in the parks could have on the environment, studies pretty much show whatever the person who commissioned it wants to hear.
 
So does the lack of gun free zones on our streets or business prevent people from shopping there.

Crazy people. I'm one who won't go there unless I can carry. I'm glad there are no National Parks in NH.

I hope if they overturn the ban there is a huge spike of crime in these areas; if they make it clear people can't carry there and are defenseless.
 
even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

this is how Obama and his administration will kill the ruling, but still look like pro-gun douchebags. "WE are for CCW in National PArks, but it is an environmental hazard. Sorry guys."

I am still angry at my fellow man for thinking this guy was good for our country.
 
this is how Obama and his administration will kill the ruling, but still look like pro-gun douchebags. "WE are for CCW in National PArks, but it is an environmental hazard. Sorry guys."

Lets hold the bus for a moment, this is the first gun item the WH is touching, so lets see where it goes and what tone it sets.

I do agree on the Environmental portion, its a slam dunk if they apply it here.
 
White Mountain National Forest...doesn't that qualify as a National Park?

As you stated, National Forest, not National Park. National Forests have always fallen under 'state laws' except for Federal Buildings.

So it's legal for me to carry in the White Mountains, just not into ranger stations.
 
What environmental hazard? Do CCW owners have a larger *carbon footprint* than non-CCW owners?

Dumb.

I don't know about you, but when I'm packin' heat, I just have to "mark my territory", no matter where I am. If I don't pop a few rounds into the nearest tree (or parking meter) then I get the shakes.
 
We'll throw you a bone here on something that doesn't affect most of the population whatsoever and hope that you start to trust us enough to stop paying so much attention.
 
What a lot of jumping to conclusions!

Contrary to what you might see in the headlines, there is much lower risk to a new administration to confirm and continue the policies of the previous one than to overturn them willy-nilly. And civil service employees (who do not change with the election) are a reservoir of expertise and history. Rules like this go thru a multi-step approval process and in most cases there has to be a reason to go through it again.

There is always the chance the environmental business could lead to a ban on lead bullets.
 
What environmental hazard? Do CCW owners have a larger *carbon footprint* than non-CCW owners?

Dumb.

I think they mean from people illegally taking wild animals. But like a ban would stop them in a first place? OH YEAH! I forgot, MORE LAWS = BETTER GOVERNMENT.
 
You guys are looking at the 2A implications here, I think the reality lies elsewhere...

That is the precedent of everyone Presidents perceived right to bypass the legislative process as he walks out the door which they feel they must protect so that they might use themselves[rofl]

I'd like to say I am joking, but the sad truth is that I suspect this is EXACTLY what they are really defending here... M.A.D. of this regulatory manipulation process...
 
Back
Top Bottom