PDA

View Full Version : National Park Carry in Peril?


azredhawk44
January 21, 2009, 11:16 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

Obama has stopped all pending Bush regulations that haven't been finalized.

One of those is National Park Carry. Of course, it's just pending "review." Just to see if it's really legal and within policy.

Let's see if Obama's administration wants to deliberately rile the 2A crowd on this one. He previously paid lip service to "State's Rights" and home rule, so we'll see if he follows through on this one.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.

"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.

The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.

Midnight regulations have been heavily used by recent former presidents, including the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George H. W. Bush, and most recently, the Republican George W. Bush.

Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks and prohibiting medical facilities from receiving federal money for discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse to assist with abortions or dispense contraceptives based on religious grounds.

Federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major regulatory changes become law, so some presidents try to publish new major regulations to ensure they go into effect before the new president's inauguration on January 20.

kayakersteve
January 21, 2009, 11:22 AM
Wait for more bad news each day, I'm sure.

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2009, 11:27 AM
Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks

This is blatant misinformation. The 60 day waiting period on National Park Carry ended and the law went into effect on Jan 9, 2009 therefore it is now the law not "pending" legislation.

kayakersteve
January 21, 2009, 11:30 AM
The Brady bunch is specifically asking for Obama to repeal this "REPEAL NEW RULES ALLOWING CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS...............3-4" from their website ( http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/politics/obama-transition-memo.pdf ). I wouldn't count on this one lasting!

BlueTrain
January 21, 2009, 11:33 AM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods. Go to George Washington National Forest, just a stone's throw away if you feel at risk. It is legal and there are even a couple of shooting ranges.

Al Norris
January 21, 2009, 11:50 AM
As mentioned, this regulation (National Parks Concealed Carry) went through all the necessary hoops (vetting process) and is now law. Pres. Obama can not simply rescind it by executive order. There are I's to be dotted and T's to be crossed. Since the regulation went into effect before he took office, he would have to follow the proper procedures to rescind an active regulation.

The only way this process can be aborted is by Congressional Legislation, since the process was by Congressional authority to begin with.

BlueTrain, just how does a concealed firearm "spoil the reason?" You aren't gonna know, one way or another.

kayakersteve
January 21, 2009, 12:06 PM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.

That is one of the most self-defeating statements I have heard about CCW - WHY NOT carry where you are legally allowed to??? I wont be tramping around or causing a civil disturbance; I'll be doing the same thing you are = ENJOYING THE PARK. The difference is, that if some knuckle head decides to attack me on a remote trail, I WILL be able to attemtp to defend myself and family. Please, rethink this thought - I'm sure you were having a brain fart

Mike Irwin
January 21, 2009, 12:10 PM
Lord knows that there has never been a crime in a National Park, like a murder (the triple murder of the three women at, IIRC, Yosemite some years ago?), robbery (there was a robbery at the Manassas Battlefield National Park a couple of years ago), or other kinds of crime.

Criminals are very good about respecting the law and not carrying a gun into a National Park or committing crimes there.

Might get them into trouble, don't you know.

Don P
January 21, 2009, 12:25 PM
Not to mention the 2 college students killed in the Ocala National Forrest

johnwilliamson062
January 21, 2009, 01:00 PM
national parks have very lower number of LE for their size and a massive amount of drug trafficking. They are no safer than anywhere else.
What about Big Bend National park? Right on the border, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and soon to be gun trafficking if some of this legislation is passed. That is the place I feel most in danger as LEO are at times days away.

Jim March
January 21, 2009, 01:04 PM
Not to mention you can get nailed for a felony for "guns in the park" just driving through on a main highway!!!

This has happened, folks. Cop pulls somebody over in there, asks the "got any guns on you" question, you know you're legal with a CCW, but: SURPRISE! You're busted and facing a lifetime ban.

BlueTrain, listen up: you're assuming that gun control laws get applied reasonably. I looked at your location and sure enough, N. Virginia. You haven't encountered really ugly gun control as enforced by people who fundamentally hate your guts based on who you are as a gun owner. I was born and raised in California, so I damned well do know...people from even worse places like New Jersey, Hawaii, NYC and the like know what I'm talking about.

The only purpose behind gun control, the only real practical effect, is to terrorize the population and suppress "politically incorrect" types who don't believe that the state is their nanny.

The only purpose is to violate your personal civil right to self defense.

zxcvbob
January 21, 2009, 01:05 PM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods. Go to George Washington National Forest, just a stone's throw away if you feel at risk. It is legal and there are even a couple of shooting ranges.


What about Big Bend (SW Texas, right on the border and 300 miles from anywhere), Denali (Mt. McKinley, in Alaska), and some of the more remote parts of Glacier Nat'l Park? You better be armed there, whether it's legal or not.

Playboypenguin
January 21, 2009, 01:10 PM
BlueTrain, just how does a concealed firearm "spoil the reason?" You aren't gonna know, one way or another.

I would like to know this also. How is my fat, clumsy backside carelessly tromping over flora and fauna suddenly become worse because I have a 20oz firearm in my fanny pack instead of an extra couple of candy bars? At least I will not be leaving the guns wrappers lying on the ground. The only thing I want kept out of national parks is alcohol.

Wildalaska
January 21, 2009, 01:22 PM
As mentioned, this regulation (National Parks Concealed Carry) went through all the necessary hoops (vetting process) and is now law. Pres. Obama can not simply rescind it by executive order. There are I's to be dotted and T's to be crossed. Since the regulation went into effect before he took office, he would have to follow the proper procedures to rescind an active regulation.

The only way this process can be aborted is by Congressional Legislation, since the process was by Congressional authority to begin with.


And then you add the Heller proble if they change it

WildinterestingissueAlaska ™

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2009, 01:39 PM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods. Go to George Washington National Forest, just a stone's throw away if you feel at risk. It is legal and there are even a couple of shooting ranges.

BlueTrain,
Honestly I'm not intending to slam you, I'm just having a really hard time understanding your thinking.

There have always been "armed people tramping around" in SNP and if you don't think that's true you need a serious reality check!

Some of these people were legal (park rangers/park police), some illegal but non-threatening (folks who put their personal safety at a higher priority than park regulations), and others were illegal AND threatening (people of evil/malicious intent looking for easy prey).

The only thing that has changed in that part of the equation is that now folks who believe in self-responsibility and self-protection are no longer criminalized for that belief.

As for me I'm FAR more worried about the way I see people driving along Skyline and Blue Ridge Parkway than I am about lawful concealed carry.

but enough of the myopia, the issue is FAR larger especially when one considers the sheer size of many of the National Parks and the per-capita crime rate (which is really high) and the ratio of law enforcement per square mile (which is really small) not to mention the situations such as the ongoing drug pipeline war that exist in parks like Big Bend that run along our national borders.

I'm glad you feel safe enough to think that firearms have no place in parks, but I was camping only slightly more than two miles away from where Julianne Williams and Laura Winans were Murdered in 1996 and it gave me a different perspective on risk in our parks.

hammer4nc
January 21, 2009, 02:22 PM
Brady has filed a lawsuit challenging this rule change on a technicality...absence of an environmental impact statement, IIRC.

Administrative rules have been voided on far flimsier rationale. Regardless of the opinions of some on this board as to the solidity of the rule change, any judge looking for a promotion could order suspension of the rule pending the disposition of the legal challenges. Likewise executive orders. This issue is entirely within "stroke of the pen, law of the land" territory. If you don't believe it, you can spend millions (and years) establishing legal standing, and millions more proving that you've been personally damaged by rollback of the administrative rule. Merely pointing out improper procedure ain't gonna mean squat. Ask Thomas Bean; as in "US v Bean".

What with the new administration, and new forum ethic, perhaps capitulation on this issue is what it takes to convince the fence sitters, and the general public, that the gun community is not a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals, to quote a popular phrase in gun forums these days? Similar to the way that many forum members castigated the soccer-mom who legally open carried, in another thread. Wasn't it established by consensus in that thread, that the wishes of the non-gun owning general public trumps the wishes of gun enthusiasts to follow the letter of the law? :confused: I'm observing some conflicting positions here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page? :eek: Request for a ruling, please?

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2009, 02:31 PM
What with the new administration, and new forum ethic, perhaps capitulation on this issue is what it takes to convince the fence sitters

Because the capitulation on the 20,000+ OTHER gun laws has won us so much trust and goodwill.

Nope, I'm done paying the Danegeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld)and I'm ready to get rid of the Danes

Or as Mr Kipling phrased it
“It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

alloy
January 21, 2009, 02:48 PM
BlueTrain, cretins like these dont count for you as reasons?
No comment on bears or mountian lions etc respecting park boundaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stayner http://www.aldha.org/arrest02.htm

azredhawk44
January 21, 2009, 03:06 PM
(Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page? Request for a ruling, please?

I ain't a mod but I would posit that this being the "Law and Civil Rights" forum, the effects of Executive Orders can be every bit as impactful on us as a Law or a government abrogation of Civil Rights... and such an abrogation of Rights would typically be undertaken by an agent of the Executive Branch of government.

I consider pending XO's to be every bit as dangerous and powerful as a bill from Congress coming to the President's desk.

BlueTrain
January 21, 2009, 03:06 PM
One question I need to ask here is, how do you decide which laws to obey and which ones to ignore? It is sort of like people who run red lights and ignore stop signs but those things aren't dangerous, are they? Alcohol in the parks? Who's gonna know? Drugs in the park? Who's gonna know? Bears in the park? Yes, I've seen the bears. There's supposed to be bobcats but I don't think there are any lions.

I am not speaking of Alaska. I only worry about the places I go.

People who worry about paying the Danegeld clearly aren't taking the viewpoint of the Danes.

Is the fact that there might be armed people tramping around in the woods a reason to ignore the law. You must be assuming that all armed people are bad, yourself excluded. Personally, I've never met a threatening person. And I've never seen anyone driving particularly dangerously along Skyline Drive either.

Call me politically incorrect if you will. It works both ways, obviously. But I only have my own experiences to guide me. I have personally known about seven (lucky seven) people who died from gunshots, five of whom were related to me in various degrees. Undoubtedly that gets in the way of my thinking clearly; it gets in the way of reality somehow, I suppose. And by the way, I was under the impression that the two women were murdered in their sleep.

I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California.

alloy
January 21, 2009, 03:10 PM
to me the park is a road. i drive on it, im not the hiking type and the color of the leaves doesnt make me oooh-aaah. i am trying to save gas/time by taking the direct route two to four times a day. but im not going to think that "i only worry about the places i go" is much of a reason to write laws. others go other places. the breaking laws part i dont really know what you mean. concealed weapons are now legal.

But if my sister or neices are the oooh-aaah birdwatching type, they ought to be able to avoid becoming a statistic.

kayakersteve
January 21, 2009, 03:21 PM
This comes around to the "no gun zones" - They actually place people at a higher risk of crime because the criminal can be relatively certain his victim will be unarmed. Crimes happen - Crimes happen in state and federal parks - People who choose to CCW there will not influence your day there in any way. If you choose not to be armed, so be it. Dont try to take away other people's right to do so.

Mike Irwin
January 21, 2009, 03:46 PM
"I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California."

That works both ways.

If you're so concerned that someone might be carrying a handgun LEGALLY concealed in a national park, stay out of it.

If you're worried about someone carrying a handgun legally in a national park, are you also concerned about someone carrying a handgun legally at the grocery store?

The movies?

The local park?

If not, why not?

What's the temporal break between those situations that makes one bad and the other OK?

hammer4nc
January 21, 2009, 03:49 PM
Interesting, kayakersteve, that you would bring up "no gun zones"!

The Association of National Park Rangers, cites that exact point in their opposition to the Bush rollback.

http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm

ANPR believes that the Constitutional - Second Amendment justification is being applied selectively. There are currently many federal, state and local government lands that prohibit the possession of firearms, as well as private businesses that will not allow firearms on their premises. Examples include postal property, schools including school grounds/athletic events, courtrooms and buildings, U.S. Capitol grounds and buildings (including the Senate Office Buildings), the White House and grounds, portions of airports and certain airplanes, and some churches and church grounds.

AZredhawk, I agree with you, but strict enforcement of forum rules eclipses any other considerations, neh?

Mike Irwin
January 21, 2009, 04:00 PM
"U.S. Capitol grounds and buildings (including the Senate Office Buildings)"

Funny how those restrictions have prevented people intent on committing crimes from taking firearms into those locations...

For example, the two Capitol Police officers shot to death back in the late 1990s.

ZeSpectre
January 21, 2009, 04:09 PM
It is sort of like people who run red lights and ignore stop signs
I reject this entire specious argument. There is no equivalency between the right to self protection and reckless acts with a motor vehicle, careless consumption of booze, or the use of illegal pharmaceuticals.

I am not speaking of Alaska. I only worry about the places I go.
You ARE speaking of Alaska (and every other state in the Union) since you stated that you wanted guns banned from National Parks. If you refuse to see the full ramifications of your desire that is YOUR issue not mine.

People who worry about paying the Danegeld clearly aren't taking the viewpoint of the Danes.
I don't tend to get too concerned with the viewpoint of those trying to strongarm me into compliance for no reason other than an exercise of power.

Is the fact that there might be armed people tramping around in the woods a reason to ignore the law.
Is the fact that some people "feel uncomfortable" a good reason to deny self-defense/safety tools to law abiding citizens?

You must be assuming that all armed people are bad, yourself excluded.
Actually that seems to be YOUR argument since you are the one wishing to ban all armed people.

Personally, I've never met a threatening person. And I've never seen anyone driving particularly dangerously along Skyline Drive either.
And because you've been lucky so far that leads you to conclude that there is no reason for anyone to be prepared for self defense? Do you also drive without seatbelts or other commonly accepted safety precautions?

I have personally known about seven (lucky seven) people who died from gunshots, five of whom were related to me in various degrees. Undoubtedly that gets in the way of my thinking clearly; it gets in the way of reality somehow, I suppose.
Clearly, since you are concerned enough aobut the presence of firearms to want -all- armed people banned from the National Parks even though the law abiding are no threat and the criminals will ignore the bans along with any other inconvenient laws.

And by the way, I was under the impression that the two women were murdered in their sleep.
I suppose the point you are trying to make is that the women would not have been able to defend themselves? Well seatbelts and airbags don't always save car wreck victims either so I suppose we should just get rid of them as well. No thanks, I'll hang onto my safety equipment. ALL of my safety equipment.


I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I consider parks to be an especially dangerous place. This is incorrect. However I do not have some Walt Disney fantasy that the interior of a park is a SAFER place than the rest of the world. I choose to have safety equipment INSIDE a park for the same reasons I have it OUTSIDE the park. Just like my seatbelts, airbags, first aid kit, and compass, my other safety equipment (firearm) doesn't just make me "feel" safer, it has a realistic chance of actually improving my safety should (Creator forbid) an emergency actually arise.

blume357
January 21, 2009, 04:10 PM
but I've been in the Whitehouse and on the grounds and that is the last place you would need to have a gun... if the need arose all you'd want to do is dig a real deep hole.... you don't want to know how many people there are there with guns... I dare to say most gun clubs during a good meet don't have as many... and most even though you can't see them are very very close.

hammer4nc
January 21, 2009, 04:27 PM
Another golden quote from the Association of National Park Rangers, which provides context for the value placed on civil rights (individual self defense) within their jurisdiction:

http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm

ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.

IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.

To repeat, (as many argued in the soccer mom open carry thread), if the desires of gun owners must be subjugated to the wishes of the general public, to preserve harmony and avoid the appearance of fringe lunacy; its game/set/match.

Al Norris
January 21, 2009, 04:53 PM
Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page? Request for a ruling, please?

The fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms for self defense purposes (Thank you Heller) is on topic.

The Federal regulation in this discussion is the equivalnet to and has the effect of legislated law. Again on topic.

The fact that some, think this regulation may be abrogated by an EO (another form of regulation) is on topic.

As stated in the "rules," political discussion should be peripheral to the discussion of Law and Civil Rights. I will be the first to admit that some political discussion will be greater than peripheral in some topics than others. This appears to be the case here.

This thread will close if the discussion turns completely away from the core discussion of National Parks and lawful concealed carry. As yet, I don't believe that point has been reached. There are 5 other moderators that are more than capable of overruling me.

gc70
January 21, 2009, 08:27 PM
I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.

National Park carry was authorized by a federal regulation that became final on January 9, 2009. There is nothing pending about the regulation that the new administration can stop "by the stroke of a pen."

Final federal regulations cannot be changed by Executive Order. The process for changing federal regulations is detailed and explicit and is contained in the Administrative Procedure Act (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blapa.htm) passed by Congress in 1946.

There are only four ways to change the new National Park carry regulation at this point:

1. The Congressional Review Act (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blcra.htm) gives Congress 60 in-session days to review and reject any new federal regulation. Precisely one new federal regulation has been rejected since this process was enacted in 1966.

2. All federal regulations are based on underlying "enabling" legislation passed by Congress. Congress can amend the existing law to remove the basis for the regulation.

3. Federal regulations can be changed by going through the lengthly and somewhat arduous process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. If the new administration wants to change the new regulation, they can start the public and very transparent process for new rulemaking.

4. The courts can invalidate a federal regulation.

BTW, the new National Park carry regulation did not come about because the Secretary of the Interior had a deep and abiding love for gun owners. The change also did not come about because President Bush wanted to further firearms rights. Rather, a bipartisan majority of the Senate wrote a letter requesting the change - that is when the Secretary of the Interior took notice and things began happening.

vranasaurus
January 21, 2009, 09:19 PM
Isn't the new Secretary of the Interior somewhat pro-gun rights?

Whatever his stance is on the issue could help or hurt the cause.

Al Norris
January 21, 2009, 09:48 PM
I really don't know anything about the newly appointed Secretary, Ken Salazar. Hmmm, just googled him. He's no friend of gunnies, either.

I do know the outgoing Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, former Governor of Idaho and no friend of gun owners. Yet it was under his watch that this new regulation was put in place.

Playboypenguin
January 21, 2009, 11:10 PM
I am disappointed by the number of posts, both in this thread and on other forums, in which guns owners react to "news reports" that are misleading or, at best, poorly written. The information necessary to properly assess the news is readily available. Gun owners should be knowledgeable about the legal process if we are to protect our rights.
It is a saddening reality these days. Every since Obama has been elected certain groups of gun owners have been shouting "the sky is falling."

How about we start dealing with what is really going on and stop shouting about every possible "doomsday scenario" that the far righties can dream up. I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary. I will be the first to scream when he veers away from his promises, but I am not going to shout out every time someone is afraid he "might" do something.

Gun owners as a community are really at risk of becoming the proverbial "boy who cried wolf" these days. How many times will we yell with no true wolf in site before society as whole just stops listening to us altogether?

Al Norris
January 21, 2009, 11:43 PM
I am going to heed the words of Reagan and "trust but verify" as far as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary.
Ya know... That was one of the reasons for making Bart's thread a sticky. So we could keep track of real stuff that comes up.

I think I should change it's name and do some pruning. Maybe folks will pay more attention... Nah, whatever am I thinking! :o :rolleyes:

kayakersteve
January 22, 2009, 04:41 AM
as Obama is concerned. I am going to trust that he meant what he said when he claimed to respect the individual gun rights of Americans, but I am going to constantly keep my eyes open for information to the contrary. - That's great.

You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO

Playboypenguin
January 22, 2009, 01:06 PM
You will just ignore his historical record pertaining to guns??? That's simply foolish!! He will deal with guns as he has in Illinois: He thinks that's what gun ownership should entail. If there is ever a time to cry wolf, it's now. IMHO

You can run around hysterically screaming about things that "may" happen if you choose to do so, but I am going to only deal with the things that are happening. People who do the former tend to get labeled as not being worth listening to by most people.

I love how one minute Obama has "almost no political experience" and the next he has this massive history of political gun grabbing. Which is it?

Also, getting worked up about what the Brady campaign has proposed and then acting out against Obama because of it is just unfair. Center your attacks on the Brady campaign. They are the ones "proposing" the legislation. Did you attack Bush when PETA was proposing legislation making it illegal eat beef? It is okay to prepare for these types of things and make your voices heard, but to attack Obama for something he has no hand in makes it seem like partisan rhetoric.

kayakersteve
January 22, 2009, 02:43 PM
You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!

Playboypenguin
January 22, 2009, 03:30 PM
You seem naive to his past record - You need to do more homework is this one!
I have not extensively studied his record. I will admit that. I did however watch the piece on CNN about his record and when they compared it piece by piece to other conservative politicians he really had not done anything substantially more offensive as far as "gun grabbing" is concerned. A little pomp and circumstance and blustering for his base in IL, but beyond that no real offensive actions in any circumstances where his vote would have even mattered. Politicians will often vote quietly for something they do not personally believe in if they know there vote will not matter but could be later used against them if they voted against.

I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.

Al Norris
January 22, 2009, 03:51 PM
Pres. Obama does have a history within the context as a State or Federal legislator. While the past may be (and often is) indicative of future actions, context is necessary. As the Chief Executive, we really have no baseline, other than what he might do.

That said, we are now getting deeply into the political and off topic. Let's bring it back around.

sasquatch
January 22, 2009, 03:52 PM
I am open to hearing what anti-gun legislation he has personally sponsored or pushed through in his career though.

I would love to get involved in this discussion, however the moderator has threatened to close the thread if it strays from the original subject, and it seems to be doing just that.

hammer4nc
January 23, 2009, 11:09 PM
For the record, here's a link to the Brady lawsuit challenging the rule change, filed 12/30/08.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf

case# 1:08-cv-02243

I don't know how to track legal records, (pacer?) perhaps other knowledgeable members can post links to subsequent court filings/decisions as they accrue.

Assigned to Judge Colleen Kotar-Kotelly (A Bill Clinton appointee, who has slapped the Bush administration on at least a couple of occasions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_Kollar-Kotelly Is this pertinent?

Interesting, 2 of the 3 named defendants on this lawsuit are now gone (Kempthorne and Bomar). Replaced by Salazar, and another Obama appointee TBA. What happens when new administration's legal response is filed, essentially admitting to the malfeasance? Presumably only special interests like NRA, etc. will be left to file friends-briefs averring the charges.

Will that factor into the judge's decision?

How many of the 50-odd senators who signed the original letter requesting the change, are still in office?

The suit asks for reversal, and injunctive relief to block implementation. I'm assuming no decision (granting or denying the injunction) has yet been issued.

Scanning internet articles, it appears many forces are arraying against this rule change, including invoking the Congressional Review Act (undoing many of GWB's "midnight decisons") . Far fewer voices speaking up in favor. Time will tell, but I'd say it is quite foolish to dismiss concerns about this issue as chicken little doomsday crapola. :rolleyes:

cubsin2079
January 26, 2009, 12:00 AM
I am planning a trip Big Bend next month and was curious as to the status of this law. I was told "until said law is entered into the National Registry" it is not law and would not be recognized as such. Firearms are not permitted onto national park land. Firearms must be made inoperable when on national park land. If caught with operable firearms you could face federal felony charges and a lifetime ban from all national parks.

rwilson452
January 26, 2009, 12:11 AM
Not withstanding a change brought about by impending law suits, the Rule change took effect Jan 9th.

gc70
January 26, 2009, 12:16 AM
"until said law is entered into the National Registry"

The new concealed carry regulation (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29249.pdf) was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008, with an effective date of January 9, 2009.

useful_idiot
January 26, 2009, 04:35 PM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.

I bet the families of those two young ladies murdered in their tent in the Shenandoah National Park a couple years ago wish they had been able to defend themselves.

Other people's discomfiture with individuals concealed or open carrying for personal protection should never take precedence to the inalienable right to defend yourself and loved ones.

maestro pistolero
January 26, 2009, 04:51 PM
I hate to take the other side but I really would prefer to keep guns out of national parks. I go up to Shenandoah National Park as often as I can and there is no reason I can think of to have a gun there and frankly, it sort of spoils the reason I go there if there are armed people tramping around in the woods.

How does it spoil the reason you go there? The guns are concealed, so you presumably don't even know who is armed, which incidentally has been the case all along.

Would you really make a case that individuals who can be trusted to CC with a license in an urban area are somehow unsafe with a gun in the wilderness?

With millions of open acres of land, and very little if any cell phone service, I can't think of a more appropriate place to take responsibility for one's own safety.

Vanya
January 26, 2009, 06:18 PM
hammer4nc quoted the following from the Association of National Park Rangers:
ANPR echoes U.S. society and existing legislation in believing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute in all locations nor at all times. Park units are sanctuaries for human and animal alike, and in some cases may be the only viable habitat for a specific species. Unlike some other private, state, and federal property, natural resources in National Parks are protected, unless specified differently in the park's enabling legislation. Because of this, humans do not have the right to kill an animal in a National Park in order to protect life or property. Allowing firearms in National Parks would increase the risk to animals, primarily predatory species, considerably.
and commented:
IOW: The "experts" believe the Endangered Species Act supersedes the Bill of Rights.


Actually, I think ANPR has a valid point here, and it's not about the Endangered Species Act. The animals in National Parks live there, and are protected because they do -- we don't live there, nor do we HAVE to go there. The purpose of National Parks isn't to let us get little "nature fixes" when we want them; it's to preserve some of the natural environment, including the animals that live there. So it's reasonable to prohibit behavior which puts those animals at risk. Whether CCW in parks does put them at risk is an empirical question, but it seems to me that it might. It would be nice if "No, sorry, it's illegal to kill animals within National Parks, no matter what," were enough to prevent people from killing them, but that's pretty hard to enforce, especially once you're talking about people going into the backcountry, where rangers are few and far between. I'm not talking about "wanton killing" here, which I assume isn't something any responsible gun owner is going to engage in -- I'm talking about someone shooting a bear, or a wolf, or even a moose, because they felt threatened by it; in a National Park, this isn't, and shouldn't be, OK to do.

I've done a fair amount of travelling in pretty remote places, canoeing in the Arctic and such, without feeling any need to cart a gun along. At the same time, if I go to a National Park, just knowing that some people may -- legally -- be packing isn't going to wreck the experience for me, or make me uncomfortable. But I do think that if their reason for carrying has anything to do with their "right of self-defense" against wildlife, that's sorta sad... better they should stay home if they're that uncomfortable outdoors, or at least take the trouble to find out how to coexist with whatever wildlife they're lucky enough to meet.

zxcvbob
January 26, 2009, 06:20 PM
So if you kill an animal in self defense in a NP, be prepared to pay a big fine. That seems reasonable to me. (I'd never thought about it before)

Vanya
January 26, 2009, 07:08 PM
Yeah, I'd hope it'd be a big fine. But that there's a fine if you're caught won't necessarily deter someone who's way out in the backcountry...

And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.

Playboypenguin
January 26, 2009, 07:14 PM
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.

Just how does it make it harder to catch poachers? If someone is going to illegally poach animals, they are going to disregard the law about not carrying guns into the park in the first place. It is still not legal to discharge weapons in a national park without due reason. Any gunshots will still attract the same amount of attention.

alloy
January 26, 2009, 07:18 PM
poachers??? you think this is about poachers with shotguns and rifles?

they arent concealed carry people they are bear/deer/turkey etc hunting with dogs and long guns, they just poach, they dont care what boundaries they cross and that IS...and has been...illegal since forever anywhere and everywhere. park has nothing to do with poaching.

zxcvbob
January 26, 2009, 07:19 PM
And the new regulation will make it harder for the Park Service to catch poachers. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the original regulation, which requires firearms to be unloaded and inaccessible (e.g. in the trunk of the car) was to help prevent poaching within National Parks, where it's easy, as many animals have lost their fear of humans.

So poachers are going to get concealed weapons permits now? Why not just carry concealed w/o a permit, like other hooligans? (and anyone with any sense who went into Big Bend NP in recent years but before Jan 09 09) I don't like the insinuation...

BlueTrain
January 26, 2009, 07:24 PM
How do you suppose two women sleeping in a tent might have defended themselves?

The national parks have a few problems, one of which seems to be fewer rangers. But another one is illegal hunting. One of the ways they attempt to deal with this is to close the park at dark (I am referring to Shenandoah here). But for the life of me I don't understand how that helps. This they only do during hunting season but I sort of assume that illegal hunting doesn't confine it self to the legal season. But there must be some logic there.

Oh, I just learned from another post that I must be one of those trolls. Apparently on this forum a troll is someone who has a different opinion. I don't toe anybody's party line.

Vanya
January 26, 2009, 07:33 PM
Under the previous regulation, the possession of a loaded and readily available firearm was regarded as prima facie evidence of intent.

And, yes, of course that will still apply to anyone with a loaded weapon and no CCW, and yes, of course we'd like to think that no CCW holder would ever take an animal illegally.

Can I imagine a poacher applying for a CCW in order to be able to carry a loaded gun in an NP? It's a bit of stretch, but I can imagine it. "No, sir, officer, this here 44 mag is strictly for personal protection..."

But, yeah, the poaching thing is probably a bit of a red herring -- I think the "self-defense" killing of wildlife is a more legitimate concern vis-a-vis the new regulation.

BlueTrain
January 27, 2009, 07:42 PM
After thinking about the problem of illegal hunting in some national parks, I concluded that it was likely people were entering the park (Shenandoah, in this case) and hunting after dark but during hunting season. If they were successful, they could, I suppose, claim to have killed it legally somewhere else and therefore could keep the deer.

Now, concerning other remarks I made in this thread earlier, I want to clear up a few things. I think I made mention of referring specifically to Shenandoah Park when I said I'd prefer there not be guns there. I am perfectly aware it is legal in certain other national parks, including all parks in Alaska, to be armed. No doubt it would even be recommended in Alaska. But in that case we are talking long arms, or I would assume so. None of my handguns would fill me with confidence in Alaska, though some I have owned would make me feel better.

Frankly, it isn't so clear cut, the issue of being armed in certain places. There are arguments to be made on both sides, some strong, some weak, but the certain places include not only national parks but churches, bars, the courthouse, your workplace, schools, and so on. My wife claims that having a gun at school (she's a schoolteacher) would be too tempting but I think she was pulling my leg.

Sometimes having a gun may be a good thing but it can also provide a false sense of security. But make no mistake. Parks are concerned about the safety of visitors, especially of those who visit the backcountry, such as it is in places like Shenandoah. Not that they do so much about it.

Other parks in other places are clearly different from the wilds that the East has. It doesn't follow that all parks have to have the same rules. They don't now. They pretty much all make up their own rules, sometimes, apparently, as they go along. But in most places here in Virginia (not just Northern Virginia, either--I'm an immigrant anyway--from West Virginia) I feel pretty safe whether or not I'm in a park. But then I feel pretty safe in D.C., too, mostly. I do use a little common sense, though, and I'm make it OK so far.

So the bottom line is, if you want to carry, go ahead. I probably won't run into you anyway. I'm getting on in years and I don't make it up there so much anyway (now that I've got that senior citizen's pass) and I don't make it down to 14th Street so much anymore either. Why, we're almost old enough to get a Harley and join the gangs that cruise Skyline Drive. But where shall we go now that Jimbo's closed?

brickeyee
January 27, 2009, 07:55 PM
If they were successful, they could, I suppose, claim to have killed it legally somewhere else and therefore could keep the deer.

You cannot hunt deer more than 30 minutes after sunset anywhere in Virginia.