CLEARING UP THE CONFUSION
National Park Gun and Mountain Bike Rules Not Affected by Obama’s Freeze
It's the status quo for both contentious rules, but for different reasons.By Bill Schneider, 1-26-09
![]() |
|
On January 21, a few hours after Barrack Obama walked into the Oval Office for his first day on the job, he issued a freeze on all “midnight rules,” last-minute administrative actions of the ongoing Bush administration. But his executive order did little to freeze the confusion over the impact of his action, such as the real and immediate affect on rules allowing loaded, concealed guns in national parks and park administrators more flexibility to allow mountain biking in national parks.
Today, I talked to Philip Selleck, the man in charge of regulations for the National Park Service (NPS), and here is the true impact of the “midnight freeze” on these two controversial administrative rules.
First, the gun rule. “It (Obama’s freeze) doesn’t affect the gun rule,” Selleck explained, “because that rule went into affect before the new administration began. They can’t pull the rule back. There is no authority to do that.”
That means the Bush administration gun rule, which was implemented on January 9, is still in affect.
“That doesn’t mean it won’t change,” Selleck cautioned, referring to lawsuits filed by park advocacy and anti-gun groups to overturn the rule. A judge could approve an injunction to suspend it or the Obama administration could launch a new rule-making process to change or scrap the gun rule, which would require several months to complete.
The mountain biking rule is also unaffected by Obama’s freeze, but for different reasons.
The Federal Register has published the final gun rule, which allows it to be implemented, but only the proposed mountain biking rule. This means the NPS is still collecting public comments on the proposed rule. Sometime in the future, the NPS and the Department of the Interior will review public input and send the final rule to the Federal Register for publication.
“So nothing has really changed,” Selleck explained, “except new people will be reviewing the comments and then preparing the final rule.”
This all means the mountain biking rule is still not in effect, just as it was when Bush moved back to Texas.
Obama’s new team could decide to significantly change the mountain biking rule, just as Bush’s team could have, and since many key positions in the Department of the Interior haven’t even been filled, this rule will simply sit there until the new officials get around to reviewing public comments and writing the final rule, which will also take months.
The key point for these two rules and many other swept up in Obama’s action is: The freeze--or “a re-direction,” as Selleck calls it--only stops rules that have been sent to the Federal Register but not published. Final rules already published are still final and in effect, and proposed rules under review are still under review won’t be unimplemented without the Obama’s administration’s approval.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
No, he has been busy securing the rights of terrorists. And now, attempting to disarm law abiding citizens.
Truly disgusting the contempt this elected official has for the rights of man.
-Todd
http://www.mtbhub.com
I consider being able to visit my nation's national parks without the fear of some gun-wielding "sportsman" accidently (or intentionally) discharging it a great boon to citizenship and national security. I've never seen a terrorist. It's the irresponsible, backwoods "law-abider" that makes me uneasy. Those are all over the place.
I am guessing the real war in the woods between hikers, hunters, equestrians and mountain bikers may be getting a little bit more dangerous, now. I am sure glad I live in Canada, eh.
I guess I've had better luck. I've never had problems with armed and law-abiding citizens.
I occasionally travel alone on a motorcycle. I carry a handgun with me. In 25+ years, I've never had to unsheath it, but "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." The reality is, in our remote wide-open spaces (national park or not), you're ultimately responsible for your own safety and well-being. The Rangers can't be everywhere.
I can promise my fellow citizens that my gun won't be "accidentally" discharged. And it will only be intentionally discharged if I reasonably fear for my own life or safety, or the life or safety of a fellow law-abiding citizen. If you can adhere to those same guidelines, I WELCOME you to carry a loaded weapon!
President Obama has so far impressed me as a thoughtful, deliberate man, and perhaps not as easily ideology-driven as many denizens of D.C. I would sincerely hope (a word he loves!) that he'd let the new policy stand, at least for awhile. If it turns out we have parks that are overrun with trigger-happy Neanderthals (as grimly predicted by the naysayers), the policy can always be revisited.
(Remember that "Assault Weapons Ban"? Relaxing THAT ill-conceived policy turned out to be a tempest in a teapot, and I'm confident the gun-totin' parks visitor rule change will be another non-event.)
Okay... somebody else's turn!
(-;
If the "irresponsible, backwoods "law-abider"" makes you "uneasy", maybe you should carry some self protection?
Or would you rather continue to be a coward?