National parks concealed carry

[GratefulCitizen]

Score one for the 2nd.

http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/12/05/new_rule_lifts_ban_on_firearms_in_national_parks

[greenberetTFS]

Score one for the 2nd.

http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/12/05/new_rule_lifts_ban_on_firearms_in_national_parks

GC,

Thats great news,finally we get a break. However BHO will kill it, I'm afraid once he gets in office. We know his feelings on guns...........:rolleyes:

GB TFS :munchin

[kgoerz]

Was this an Executive Order that can be rescinded by BHO as soon as he takes office. If so you have to wonder if the Bush Administration is going to pass a few more like this. Forcing BHO to show his true Liberal colors when he takes office. Sounds like something old Carl Rove would do:D

[Defender968]

Finally, it's made no sense to not allow law abiding citizens to carry in parks, it just kills me that you have idiots like Bill Wade who clearly haven't got a clue fighting it. I'm sure the only public he is speaking of are his tree hugging no bath taking pinko hippy freaks.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades,"

I do agree that B0 will likely overturn this immediately upon being sworn in, though I do hope Pres Bush puts a few more pro 2nd amendment presidential orders out, so the rest of the country who hasn't been paying attention will have tangible proof that B0 is anti 2nd amendment.

[ksgbobo]

That is nice to know, because there are a group of people that live in the Osceola National Park here in Florida, and like to wreck havoc every once in awhile on people visting the park.
I never understood the reasoning for not allowing a person to carry in a park. You are far from help from any kind of attack, be it two legged or four legged.

[GratefulCitizen]

Was this an Executive Order that can be rescinded by BHO as soon as he takes office. If so you have to wonder if the Bush Administration is going to pass a few more like this. Forcing BHO to show his true Liberal colors when he takes office. Sounds like something old Carl Rove would do:D

I believe it was a "rules change" by the normal method.

Several weeks ago there was an article written by a liberal that bemoaned how difficult it (and others) would be to reverse because of the method by which they were changed.

Hoping the lib was right on that point.

<edit>

Here's something that addresses the difficulty in reversing the rules change:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4400/

[Sten]

From http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

We do have some support in Washington.

On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

[TOMAHAWK9521]

Carry a sidearm in the national parks out here in the Rockies can definitely mean the difference between life and death. Mountain lions have become a lot bolder around people. Off the top of my head and can think of at least 3 instances here in CO where a child was attacked and killed within eyesight (less than 50m) from the parents. The cats don't just happen along and see something easy to kill. They stalk their quarry and wait for the best chance to strike. People who come to visit Rocky Mtn Ntl Park or Mesa Verde have no idea about the very real threat from wildlife. Granted, this isn't Alaska but folks must remember that when you go out into the high country in CO, you are entering the food chain.

[Ret10Echo]

Environmentalism Over the Second Amendment
by Rep. Rob Bishop (more by this author)
Posted 05/06/2009 ET

In January, I praised changes to the National Park Service regulations that allowed law-abiding Americans the same right to carry concealed weapons inside our national parks as they have outside of the national parks. Reversing a clear violation of the Second Amendment, the Department of the Interior changed their regulations whereby National Park Service (NPS) lands would be governed by state concealed firearms laws.

For all the reasons I articulated in my earlier commentary, this decision was a welcome change. Coming on the heels of the District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s draconian gun laws, one would think this would be a fairly easy issue for those tasked with upholding and enforcing our nation’s laws. Sadly, it seems personal political beliefs are ruling the day.

On March 19, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided to grant an injunction against these new regulations going into place. Most interesting is Kollar-Kotelly’s reasoning and what she refused to consider when arriving at her decision. Astonishingly, in Kollar-Kotelly’s 44-page opinion, there is not a single mention of the Second Amendment. Not one. Not a single mention of whether or not the Heller decision is relevant. In a case involving the federal government essentially banning the right to bear arms, this wasn’t even an issue. Even though Kollar-Kotelly notes one of the main reasons why NPS gun regulations were changed concerns “self-defense,” she never addressed whether Second Amendment rights might be violated.

Instead, Kollar-Kotelly decided that an injunction should be placed on the new regulations because of environmental concerns. More specifically, she found the Department of the Interior had used an “astoundingly flawed process” in creating the Final Rule on the NPS gun regulations because it did not do full blown environmental analysis on allowing concealed weapons in national parks. The process Kollar-Kotelly is demanding before allowing concealed weapons in national parks is called NEPA review (NEPA stands for National Environmental Policy Act) and was originally intended to have federal review of large scale projects, such as bridges, timber sales and dams.

Unfortunately, activist judges and environmental groups have turned this very regulation that was intended to protect our Federal lands into something that stops any activity from occurring on them. NEPA was never intended to be used for decisions that change regulations of a purely civil liberties nature, like allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. In one opinion, Kollar-Kotelly made our Second Amendment constitutional rights subservient to environmental regulations.

Without realizing it, Kollar-Kotelly revealed a great deal when she decided also that there is an “absence of significant harm” to anyone other than the Department of the Interior if a preliminary injunction was allowed. What about the dozens of unarmed people who were raped, robbed or murdered last year on our national park lands?

Every day in National Parks in the southwest Park Service, employees have to be accompanied by heavily armed escorts to perform wildlife research because we have ceded large portions to criminals and drug cartels. How about the harm from harassment of law abiding citizens who happen to have a legal concealed weapon and take a road managed by the Park Service?

The Obama administration is currently “reviewing” the overall rule change and has decided not to appeal Kollar-Kotelly’s injunction. This is a poor, illogical decision. The complete absurdity of not even weighing the effect that a gun ban in national parks would have on concealed weapon permit holders is astounding. And contrary to the law.

Every case in which injunctive relief is granted requires the judge to assess the balance of interests. In this case, when Kollar-Kotelly found the absence of harm to anyone -- intentionally ignoring law abiding armed citizens -- she made a serious legal error, which the Obama administration compounds by making Constitutional rights secondary to a bureaucratic review. That action illustrates how we have become so consumed with the minutia of government that we fail to see the real issue. We should not forget that the purpose of national parks is to be seen by all Americans. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the liberty of all Americans. The Second Amendment is a right for all Americans.
Narrow minded judicial interpretation that puts bureaucratic busy-work ahead of the best interests of all Americans does not ennoble this country nor does it improve our lives. It is time to refocus on the true purpose of government. The national park service correctly reversed a bad policy, and it should not be subject to judicial whim.

Mr. Bishop, a Republican, represents Utah's 1st Congressional District.

[Utah Bob]

As a former park police officer I can tell you that the myth of parks and wilderness areas being sanctuaries is just that, a myth. Law enforcement is spread so thin that a citizen has very little chance of being protected. The wildlife is not the problem. The two legged varmints are. Meth labs, human and drug smugglers, robbers, rapists and murderers have the upper hand. I am outraged at this latest attempt to deny Constitutional rights!:mad:

[grog18b]

Wonder what the "environmentalists" are concerned about... A couple of criminals getting lead poisioning? The judge granting the injunction should be held accountable for her actions.

[Sigaba]

Some good news. Source is here. (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090520/NEWS15/90520086&template=printart)

May 20, 2009

Congress votes to allow guns in national parks

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In a stinging defeat for gun-control advocates, Congress has voted to let people carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The House approved the measure, 279-147, today — one day after the Senate acted.

A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, which essentially restores a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks for two months earlier this year.

The vote was a bitter disappointment for gun-control advocates, who watched as a Democratic-controlled Congress handed a victory to gun-rights advocates that they did not achieve under Republican rule. Many blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law.

“The NRA is basically taking over the House and Senate,” said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun-control supporter. “If the NRA wins, the American people are going to be the ones who lose.”

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., disputed that. “The fact is American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape,” Hastings said.

Hastings and other Republicans said the bill merely aligns national parks and wildlife refuges with regulations governing the national forests and property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

The GOP called the current policy outdated and confusing to those who visit public lands, noting that merely traveling from state-owned parks to national parks meant some visitors were violating the law.

A majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposed the gun measure, but enough Democrats voted for the bill that the final tally in both chambers was not close.

Democratic leaders decided not to remove the gun provision after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was able to insert it into a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Lawmakers and aides said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to President Barack Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.

“There’s a lot of momentum to get this done,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, R-Ariz.

Grijalva, chairman of national parks subcommittee, opposed the gun measure, but said the “sense of urgency from the White House” to get the credit card bill approved, combined with the NRA’s clout, were impossible to overcome.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which has fought the gun rule in court, blamed Obama and Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“If they wanted to stop this, it seems like they can,” Faehner said before the House vote. “It comes down to whether or not they are willing to keep parks safe for the American people or kowtow to special interests like the gun groups.”

Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, said the group pushed for the gun measure but did not threaten anyone over the vote.

“Obviously this is an issue that affects our membership,” Cox said. But to claim the NRA sets the agenda in Congress “misrepresents the role that NRA plays in the process, he said.

Cox also disputed a claim by the Humane Society of the United States that the gun bill would lead to an increase in wildlife poaching in national parks.

“The NRA is opposed to poaching and always has been,” he said. “We’ve supported enhanced penalties for illegal activities including poaching. The Humane Society has zero credibility when to comes to Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
I am uncertain how Americans lose by having their civil rights protected.

[Utah Bob]

The NRA is basically taking over the House and Senate,

I can think of worse scenarios.;)

[swatsurgeon]

May 2008
Does Appalachian Trail killer strike again 27 years later?
The Roanoke Times reports that a man who befriended, then killed, two hikers on the Appalachian Trail in Giles County 27 years ago may have returned to the same section of the trail and shot and wounded two fishermen Tuesday night.

Giles County investigators said Randall Lee Smith, 54, of Pearisburg, Va., is suspected in the shootings at the campsite off Lions Den Road near Dismal Creek, just more than two miles from Wapiti Shelter, where Smith committed an infamous double murder in May 1981.


I treated all 3 patients...the two that were shot and the shooter. National parks have a law enforcement response time that is likely a lot longer than residential areas...being armed is a responsible act and hopefully full support and enactment of the law to allow firearms is occuring.

ss

[GratefulCitizen]

Score one for the 2nd and the 10th.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51543

[Utah Bob]

Florida State Parks ended their ban on firearms in 2005. There have been no problems since then.