FINAL VERSION STORNGER THAN PROPOsED RULE
Bush Comes Through for the NRA on National Park Gun Rule
Bush administration fires parting shot, allowing visitors in most National Parks to carry concealed, loaded guns.By Bill Schneider, 12-05-08
 |
|
 | |
|
As expected (and as predicted), the Bush Administration has officially loosened up rules governing taking guns into national parks.
The final rule is, according to opponents, significantly stronger than the rule proposed earlier this year. The final rule allows visitors to carry concealed, loaded guns into wildlife refuges and 388 out of the 391 national park units in 48 states.
As originally proposed, the rule would apply only to states that allowed concealed, loaded guns in state parks, but the final rule expands it to any state allowing concealed gun permits, but only for people with concealed carry permits. The rule essentially allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in most national parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law.
The administrative rule overturns a Reagan-era rule requiring firearms to be unloaded and not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.
In an Associated Press story, Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.
He also said that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), which led efforts to weaken the rule, hailed the change. “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,” said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.
The rule also restores the rights of law-abiding gun owners and makes federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox added.
However, four nonprofit organizations, including the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) and three groups representing current and retired park employees, strongly disagreed with the new rule, saying it will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
“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, in a joint press release sent out by the four groups today.
“This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk,” Wade said. “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.”
According to a press release sent out by the four groups, the Bush Administration received almost 140,000 comments, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal to allow loaded guns in national parks.
“With this decision, many state parks across the country will now provide a more protective environment for wildlife and visitors than national parks—once the safest place for families,” blasted Bryan Faehner of NPCA. “Furthermore, this decision undermines the ability of national park professionals to manage the parks and runs counter to the overwhelming majority of Americans who wrote in opposition to allowing loaded firearms in our national parks.”
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before President-elect Barrack Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.
To read earlier NewWest.Net postings on this issue, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
And here's another thing to consider. Not all national park experiences are Mom and Dad and the kids and the dog strolling along an interpretive path within sight of the visitor center and the picnic area. Some of us like to go out to the backcountry, and I mean waaay out in the boonies, where there is no cellphone signal and no calling for help if trouble finds you. A firearm can mean the difference between life and death out there.
“This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk,” I promise not go running through the parks shooting everything I see.
"runs counter to the overwhelming majority of Americans" 140,000?
So do these people honestly believe that all gun owners are criminals? Or do they just need the feeling of power they must get from taking away people's rights?
Yet Nevada Barr, a popular park ranger/mystery novelist, writes about crime in the parks all the time.
http://natureblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-self-defense-rules-for-national.html
This is the United States of Paranoia where it is considered appropriate to keep ones pecker concealed...
"Yet Nevada Barr, a popular park ranger/mystery novelist, writes about crime in the parks all the time." Sounds like SOMEone lives in FormulaFiction Fantasyland.
I doubt much there will be a wave of poaching and ranger shootings. But in urban park areas, or in parks next to cities where pot farms and other nifty whatnot are sprouting despite the flathats' vigilance, there IS an issue of crime and a lack of timely enforcement.
That NPCA flackie Faehner seems to forget that crime rates are fairly low on other federal jurisdictions such as USFS,, BLM and USFWS yet firearms use is accepted and even encouraged. And yep, there are pot farms and other whatnot on those grounds but you hear very little from these agencies about calling for a blanket firearms ban. More practical? Better perspective? Could in be because the agencies' missions are far broader than that of the parkies? Probably.
Well, we'll see if the Obamacrats do their thing. And I'd like to lay on odds that the new NPS director will sprout from the ranks of Bill Wade's acoylites?
Good luck trying to defend yourself against a bear or mountain lion with a handgun. Honestly, there are several studies which show that bearspray is a much better tool against bears, and it has been legal all the time. As to mountain lions, you probably won't even see them before it is too late. Fortunately, mountain lion attacks are extremely rare.
Chas C. Clifton: "People opposing this new rule will try to argue that national parks are safe without guns. Yet Nevada Barr, a popular park ranger/mystery novelist, writes about crime in the parks all the time."
I'll raise you a Harry Potter: People say that all magic is illusion. Yet J.K. Rowling writes about wizards and witches all the time.
By the way, even though I don't like this rule change, I think it is not a big deal, and sensible people shouldn't spend too much time and energy on fighting it. If it makes gun lovers feel safer to have their toys accessible at all times, so be it. Aside from this psychological effect it will probably have no impact at all.
Given that concealed carry permitholders are 200 times less likely to murder and 12 times less likely to commit any crime (source: MI CCW permit office), I see it as completely reasonable to support CCW permitholders' right to self-defense in National Parks. And also given that citizens are 5 times less likely to shoot a bystander than cops are (source: Kleck), I'm more nervous around the park rangers who are packing than any citizen with a carry permit.
Frequently those trips - which are mostly "sightseeing" in nature - take me through national parks. Nights of camping and "cheap motels" are involved. Yes - I carry it (loaded but not "quick-draw accessible") across state lines, through national parks, etc.
The only exceptions have been when I ventured across the northern border into Canada; I didn't want to risk a border-crossing confiscation, and I will NOT lie to the authorities and tell 'em I'm not packing, if I am. (I never get asked, but that's just luck, I s'pose.)
In 30+ years of such adventures, I've never fired a shot. My philosophy is, "Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." And, law or no law, if I do someday have to fire a shot, it'll be because I have a more immediate and urgent problem than whether or not I'm legally carrying a gun. Just the same, it'll be nice if I'm not technically breaking the law when I venture through national parks in the future. Mr. Schneider and other fellow law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from me.
bikeboy
- NRA Life Member
- Concealed Carry Permit Holder
- Good Guy
It's good to have the protection, but for some reason, the anti gun crowd thinks that because we carry guns, we won't hesitate to take a human life. (I can't figure that one out). I hope I'm never in a situation like that again, but if I am, I hope I still have the right to defend myself if need be. When you've honestly feared for your life and feared you would have to kill someone to keep it, you get a very clear idea of where you really stand on the second ammendmaent.
Any day now the King of England is going to invade our National Parks.
All this law did is to restore a person's rights under state law. If I, as a concealed pistol license holder, have my right to carry recognized in my state, then why should a substantial part of that state be off limit to me? Does my need for self-protection suddenly disappear when I enter a national park?
Crime is growing in national parks, whether it's illegals crossing the borders in a park, druggies setting up and guarding marijuana plots, meth labs, etc. I'd like to see the government get serious about enforcing laws against this behavior so I don't have to worry about it while out in the parks, but in the meantime I don't want to have to worry about being killed because I happened to walk down the wrong path, or drive to the wrong parking lot.
It has been proven that concealed pistol license holders are among the most law-abiding folks in America. These people, and myself among them, do not pose a threat to others... unless, of course, those 'others' attempt to commit violent crimes against ourselves or others in our presence. So, why is anyone upset about them being armed in a national park? The only reason I can think of is an irrational fear of weapons.
Defend the 2nd Amendment (or at least the NRA's interpretation of it) as much as you want, but keep the heroism out of the discussion.
Sheesh, how many copies of Red Dawn have you guys worn out?
Tell me, bright boy, does Wyoming/Montana/Idaho all have the same Concealed Carry laws and respect each others' permits, since Yellowstone itself crosses the 3 states? Which ones will be valid in the National Parks? Will someone from a state that doesn't have CC ability be able to CC in National Parks?
And good luck getting rid of the "misguided" people like myself, a CC carrying gun owner. Your assumptions are ridiculous. I just dislike those that give normal gun owners a bad name, such as the "gun nuts" that measure their manhood by the size of their gun and are a threat to society with their desire to be "heroes" at the merest available chance.
http://www.doi.gov/issues/NPS_FR_PDF12-9-08.pdf
State boundaries still apply, of course, even if the park spans multiple states. MT, WY, and ID of course recognize each others' permits.
If the state recognizes concealed carry without a permit, the national park is the same.
If the state recognizes open carry of firearms, the national park is the same.
If the state recognizes another state's permit, that permit is valid in the park. People can hold CC permits from states they do not reside in.
I don't see how this is so hard.
And in my local Democratic Party, we managed to boot two anti-gun precinct chiefs, and two anti-gun committee chairs. I'm told this happened all over my state. Simply put, yes we can get rid of the misguided anti-gun people bringing down the Democratic Party, and we are doing so.
Lastly, many women have concealed carry permits. Do they also "measure their manhood by the size of their gun"? I would suggest you stop letting sexist prejudices creep into your words.
Those who have a concealed weapon permit should be allowed because they have earned that privelege. Others carrying a gun in a park, to me, are up to no good purpose. In short unless there is a hunting season in the park leave the gun at home.
gp in whitehall
http://www.fishcreekhouse.com
But instead, people like you just put up your little walls, ignore them and keep dreaming of being Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn.
I tried to give a bit of perspective. Liberal Democrats are afraid of people like scott and you. Try to get elected without their money sometime. Your posturing and your braggart ways about your weapons doesn't go over well at all. The NRA is seen as a group that would rather have open gun fire than sit down and discuss the studies and research and see if something can be done about gun violence.
Maybe you shouldn't be too worried about kicking Democrats out, and be worried about keeping yourself in.
I think that Democrats that are afraid of guns should indeed be booted from the party if they attempt to legislate based on that fear - just like they should be booted for legislating based on homophobia or a desire to see abortion illegal. The next steps are controlling all state precinct chairs and changing the state party platform, then hooking up with other states and getting the national platform changed.
There is also a national network of pro-gun Democrats that have the goal of taking as many fellow Democrats shooting as possible, in an effort to get as many Dems educated about guns as possible before the next election cycle. So far that's going pretty well.
So far, I see my efforts as opening people's minds and tearing down walls on the way to forming a more liberal, progressive mindset towards firearm policy in the Democratic Party. So far it's going pretty well.
And I believe that liberal fear of gun violence is well founded in numbers and the bravado attitude of anti-gun control extremists, especially urban high-density liberals that deal with gun violence on a steady basis. I recognize it as a knee jerk reaction, but tooling around in a jacked up 4x4 with the Rebel Flag and a bumper sticker that says "Gun Control is using both hands" is not the answer. It makes the anti-gun control extremists look like violence waiting to happen and encourages gun control advocates, at least unconsciously.
Gladly.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
This study represents the most comprehensive study of gun laws *ever performed*. Here's what they said:
"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."
If there was a correlation, bet your knickers they would have found it and published it. Correlation isn't causation, but lack of correlation does imply lack of causation.
"And I believe that liberal fear of gun violence is well founded in numbers and the bravado attitude of anti-gun control extremists, especially urban high-density liberals that deal with gun violence on a steady basis."
Funny. In the multimillion person city I live near with liberal and progressive gun laws, violent crime is pretty mild. I'm an "urban high density liberal" and I think our liberal CCW laws are pretty fine.
"I recognize it as a knee jerk reaction, but tooling around in a jacked up 4x4 with the Rebel Flag and a bumper sticker that says "Gun Control is using both hands" is not the answer. It makes the anti-gun control extremists look like violence waiting to happen and encourages gun control advocates, at least unconsciously."
On my compact fuel efficient car, I have the equal rights "=" bumper sticker, a "no war for oil" sticker, a Sierra Club sticker, and an NRA sticker. Does my car look like "violence waiting to happen"?
Most anti-gun control extremists aren't like you, and the image that most people have of those extremists isn't anything like what you described, and until that image can be softened and remolded into a more genial and understanding form rabid gun owners going to be fighting an uphill battle.
"The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. "
So their suggestion of implementing high-quality research is indicative that there is a lack of causation? Maybe that's what you wanted to read into it, but that isn't what they said.
And I see no evidence that "This study represents the most comprehensive study of gun laws *ever performed*." is in any way true (nor can it be judged as false) because of a lack of evidence.
Oleg Volk in particular is doing much to grind down this stereotype, his site is olegvolk.net. Go take a look. I used to be pretty pro-gun-control, but Oleg's site opened my eyes to my own prejudices and biases that I thought were normal. Instead, I found that a lot of gun owners were just like me - young professionals who live in the city and don't own pickup trucks with Republican bumper stickers on them.
However, I think one reason for gun crimes is a culture that promotes gun ownership as a virtue (or as a duty, as some gun nuts claim). The weapon of choice for criminals in the US is a gun, and that is partly a cultural issue. I have lived in large cities in Europe, and they certainly have violent crime and murders as well. However, most of the criminals (or at least the kids in gangs) there have knives at worst. In my view, the push for gun control is an attempt to change the culture, a campaign for cultural disarmament.
Any single law or rule won't change much at all, as long as the cultural attitude towards guns remains the same. In a way, even though I'd prefer changing this attitude, I feel that the pro-gun advocates are more honest in this discussion. Have guns and gun violence ever been an issue in national parks? I certainly haven't heard of any incidents.
I said above, feel free to collect guns, to fire them safely and to hunt with them. But when the NRA or some other fringe group is your main focus in life? That might be an indicator of obsessive tendencies. Make it a hobby, not a lifestyle.
There is a much smaller percentage of gun owners today, and the trend appears to not be stopping. Gun owners, nationally, are a minority, and like all minorities the extremists seem to be the ones that define the image for the entire group.
What does need to stop is this overwhelming fear of an Obama administration creating law that increases gun control. First off, Republicans have a fillibuster capability. Second off, there really is no indication that this fear is justified, but just like the general public's fear of guns, it won't stop easily. Third, the executive doesn't get to make new laws, and signing statements are not law, despite what the Bush Regime has done in an attempt to set up a unary executive.
Ignoring the hero-wanna-be people on the anti-gun control side is a mistake, in my opinion. They give the impression they are waiting for violence so they can just respond in kind. I believe that this kind of attitude encourages escalations in violence, but there really is no way to measure that.
I do think that non-felons owning firearms is part of American culture and should stay that way. I don't see it as a duty, just like it's not a duty to protest against wars, but people should be free to exercise it when they choose. Owning a firearm does put you in a position to better appreciate American history, culture, and politics, and for that it is commendable.
Jay, I think that any data coming out of the CDC that has good research behind it should be considered against a very strict test against the 2nd Amendment. We have the ability to administer an annual lie detector/truth serum test against the entire population of the US. Such a measure would undoubtedly reduce violent crime, and would solve many crimes. Yet we do not, because we hold the right that would infringe on (the 5th Amendment) so highly. We should similarly hold the 2nd highly, as infringing on one constitutional right necessarily damages all the rest.
And I really like your last point about an annual truth test. Wow, what an invasion that would be. Gulp. Thank God and our Founders for the WHOLE Bill of Rights.
Finally, JLB, I'll disagree a little about whether it is a duty to exercise a right. I think it is. In the absence of exercise, of course, you have an absence of strength. Atrophy.
You have a duty of sorts to protest the war, and it would be my duty to provide arguments in support. Not that I want to get into that, but there is an issue there that deserves discussion as to the right course, the consequences of each....
Imagine how polite our discussion would be if we were, say, at the rifle range.
Obama can do quite a bit to infringe on gun rights without going through Congress at all, such as executive orders to ban imports of ammo and gun parts, directing the BATFE to ban certain "non-sporting" arms, and disbanding the CMP. All of these could be done easily by the executive branch.
I think that universalizing the "duty to exercise a right" prima facie breaks Immanuel Kant's principle of "ought implies can". That is, we cannot have a duty to exercise a right if doing so is impossible. For example, do I have a duty to exercise my right to not have soldiers quartered in my home (3rd amendment), or exercise my right to be free of search and seizure (4th)? At the moment, I cannot, because I do not have soldiers entering my home to be quartered nor am I being searched.
Therefore, the most universalizable way to say it is "we have a duty to defend our own rights and the rights of others, even if our own rights are not being infringed upon at the moment." Thus, those that do not own guns (or even hate and fear them) have a duty to defend my right to own them, just as I have a duty to defend their right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure should they ever run across a crooked cop. We all hang together.
Savvy?
Skinner: Where were you when the rights of gays were taken away in California? Were you actively defending their Constitutional right? Or is it only the rights that you want to defend that are worthwhile?
In the past, the rifles that have been part of the culture to own have been the military rifle of the time or close civilian equivalent. These include the Mauser bolt action rifle, m1903 Springfield, the M1 Garand, the M14, the M1 carbine, and the M4. Of these, the M1 Garand, m1903, and M1 carbine were made in such vast numbers that civilians can still purchase them directly from the US government at surplus for quite reasonable cost. A semi-auto civilian version of the currently used M14 and M4 can be purchased easily from any of several dozen manufacturers.
On the handgun front, the standard issue m1911 pistol was sold to Americans at surplus for quite awhile until they ran out. The M9 Beretta is current issue, but you can buy one from one of several manufacturers.
Lastly, most if not all hunting bolt action rifles are direct copies of (at the time) state-of-the-art military rifles.
Therefore, it's quite reasonable to and natural to assert that culturally, American firearms have been military individual weapons or close equivalents.
Does that help?