Obama Defends Bush Rule on Permitting Guns in National Parks

sailor99 · February 17, 2009, 05:25 PM

After reading all the bashing of our newly elected President, thought I would post this. He appears to be not so "anti-gun" after. This was posted on Fox by the way, a rather conservative news agency.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ational-parks/

cookhj · February 17, 2009, 05:49 PM

i saw that and was rather surprised. i just hope his majesty stays on the pro-gun side and i will overlook pretty much anything else he does.

Don H · February 17, 2009, 05:56 PM

Obama is not personally defending the rule change, the DOJ is as part of its duties. Agencies don't necessarily reflect the administration's policies on all matters. As I recall, the Bush Administration was on both sides of the Heller argument, as a case in point.

azredhawk44 · February 17, 2009, 06:02 PM

Sailor, please read the full context of the article... not just the blatant words.

Quote:

The Obama administration is going to bat for former President Bush by defending his last-minute rule allowing loaded guns in national parks.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that while the Interior Department is internally reviewing whether the measure passes environmental muster, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by gun-control and environmental groups.

The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. For more than 20 years, they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

The three groups fighting to overturn the rule are the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. They contend that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct a sufficient environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also claim that the new policy could discourage some visitors from visiting national landmarks.

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

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has requested an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, an Interior spokesman told the newspaper Monday.

This is Obama's golden parachute with the Fudd gun crowd. He can say "I tried to support Bush's park carry rule, but it just wasn't environmentally sound."

This ingratiates him with envirowackos and Brady-ites while making a fawning gesture to the ignorant among the 2A crowd. Obama directs the executive agencies that will be doing the environmental impact review. The results WILL go the way he wants them to.

The fact that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has initiated an investigation tells me that he was directed to do so by his boss... the President of the United States. You don't investigate something under the pretext that you will find nothing, therefore, Obama's camp intends to find some sort of environmental impact.

I find it interesting that a bunch of pensioner ex-forest rangers, BradyCorp and a small National Park-only environmentalist group are the only signatories to this suit. No Sierra Club, PETA or others.

sailor99 · February 17, 2009, 06:56 PM

HI Redhawk,
I did read the article. The Justice department is attempting to block an injunction requested by the anti-gun crowd to keep the new rules from taking effect. In defense of the new rules the justice department is saying there is no environmental impact on people carrying arms. Then it goes on to say that the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, is requesting an assessment as to whether the new rules have any environmental impacts. I interpret this as the Interior Secretary is doing the assessment to back up the Justice Department when a judge asks them to prove there is no environmental impact. Its interesting when you ask me to read the full article, yet when you quote the article, you change the term assessment to a more darker "Investigation". Then you take the leap that this "Investigation" was directed by the President. Lets not even get into how King George's appointees tried to direct all scientific findings if they didn't agree with them.
So far as a middle of the road gun enthusiast, I like what I am seeing.

shortwave · February 17, 2009, 07:19 PM

Sailor, before you jump to any conclusion of how "less anti-gun" Pres. Obama is, PLEASE do a search typing in 'Sen. Obama gun'. Very first hit, Barack Obama on Gun Control . Sit back and read. Someone saying "they believe in the right to bear arms" and then in the same sentence says "he also believes the state has the right to take your gun if state see`s fit" thats anti-gun/ 2nd Amend. That tells me he`s less anti-gun till the government deems it necessary for you not to be able to own a gun. Also note his comment when asked if he`s ever signed legislation supporting gun bans in Illinois. His answer "No". A lie proved on the next line showing a bill he did sign supporting the ban of handguns, among other things. Go on down and read all the hits, HIS statements are there for the viewing. I ask again please research about Obama!

Glenn E. Meyer · February 17, 2009, 07:40 PM

Signing a bill is the role of the executive. He hasn't been one till he became President Obama to my knowledge. Do you mean voting for a bill?

sailor99 · February 17, 2009, 07:41 PM

HI Shortwave,
please read my post. I never said he was "pro-gun", I said he might not be as "anti-gun" as people think. His new administration just did something for the pro-gun crowd, and they just can't seem to accept it. Rather humorous really.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 17, 2009, 08:05 PM

Just a note. If the thread starts to become a discussion of Obama's pros and cons in general, then it will violate our rules on politics.

If we stick to the specifics of this action - we should be OK.

Thanks.

shortwave · February 17, 2009, 08:15 PM

Your right Glenn. It is 'vote' on bill. Thanks! Sailor, my post has been corrected. Please re-read and after you do the search, ask yourself if you think he will do something as pres. less anti-gun. His short record speaks for itself and its no wonder people feel he`s anti-gun and would seriously question him defending anything pro-gun

Bartholomew Roberts · February 18, 2009, 08:45 AM

I think Don H summed it up pretty well. A lot goes into a rule change and once it is changed the bureaucratic inertia is tough to redirect. DOJ is defending this rule change because that is what their job is.

Another great example of where our side playing offense has put the other side in a costly defensive battle though.

ZeSpectre · February 18, 2009, 09:00 AM

If you want some entertainment, go to the Washington Post article on this topic
found here

I've been having a ball with the comments section.

Re4mer · February 18, 2009, 09:08 AM

I used to know an old timer who would say "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I have to agree with him.

johnwilliamson062 · February 18, 2009, 09:19 AM

Lets just hope the March in DC ext Spring ends up being a victory dance.
This administration has shown a lot of common sense so far. Certainly some mistakes, but some common sense thrown into the mix also.

Pilot · February 18, 2009, 09:30 AM

Watch what Obama DOES not what he SAYS. That will tell all. He is the master of saying something then voting or signing the opposite into law.

sailor99 · February 18, 2009, 01:25 PM

Interesting comments from all. ZeSpectre, the comments in the Washington Post were humorous, both from the far left, and the far right. I personally will be watching his actions, which so far I view favorably, only time will tell. One comment about his past anti-gun stance. He was elected by the citizens of Chicago to be their representative. If the majority of Chicago citizens favored gun control, he was doing his job as their representative. I think our country would be far better off if all the representatives followed the will of their constituents, rather than a personal agenda. As the elected President of the entire United States, I hope he is going to follow the will of the majority of Americans who favor 2nd amendment rights. So far his administrations first action to do with gun control seems to indicate he is. In my humble opinion.

Playboypenguin · February 18, 2009, 01:30 PM

Way to keep those minds closed tightly fellas. No matter what this administration says or does it seems a lot of the people here will go to their grave protesting. They very clearly took the position that armed citizens in the park has NO negative effects on environment or safety and you want to spend your time doing some creative "reading between the lines" just to have reason to be offended.

buzz_knox · February 18, 2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

DOJ is defending this rule change because that is what their job is.

And DOI is reevaluating the environmental impacts to see if anything needs to be addressed. Don't be terribly surprised if the impacts of activities such as poaching and illicit target practice "need" to be dealt with and curtailed.

zxcvbob · February 18, 2009, 01:39 PM

Ya know how hard it was to get this rule changed in the first place? The time has expired to easily reverse it; now it will be just as hard (and time consuming) to try to change it back.

buzz_knox · February 18, 2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Ya know how hard it was to get this rule changed in the first place? The time has expired to easily reverse it; now it will be just as hard (and time consuming) to try to change it back.

Why would it be difficult? The problem with getting this rule implemented was getting the right people in at the right time to change decades of hostility to weapons in the parks, and institutional inertia. If DOI decided tomorrow that it wanted to go back, it could reissue the old rules, wait the comment period, and then go final on them. The only way of changing them would be to get Congress to order it (no chance in the current environment) or the courts to overturn it (little to no chance as courts give considerable deference to agencies).

Gary L. Griffiths · February 18, 2009, 03:17 PM

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] Cat.jpg
Paul Helmke
on learning
of the DOJ's
decision!

Y'know, folks, I hate to cast a pall on all this doom and gloom, but here the Obama administration had an opportunity to oppose concealed carry with virtually no political repercussions, and chose, instead, to support it!

Could it be that the Obamanation isn't 100% evil after all?

Bartholomew Roberts · February 18, 2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Y'know, folks, I hate to cast a pall on all this doom and gloom, but here the Obama administration had an opportunity to oppose concealed carry with virtually no political repercussions, and chose, instead, to support it!

While I'd like to believe that the power of gun owners is so immense that someone who once voted to convict a man for shooting an intruder in his own home despite the Willemette ban on handguns has suddenly seen the light, I think a more likely explanation is that Obama has a lot of other things going right now and DOJ did what DOJ normally does - defend administrative regulations whether they were passed this year or 50 years ago. I doubt Obama even knows of the decision, one way or the other.

I'm glad it fell out the right way in this case; but this is a long, long way from the administration making a conscious decision to support concealed carry. However, if that ever happens, I'll be sure to give them credit for it.

**44 AMP** · February 18, 2009, 11:09 PM

shooting in the parks is not allowed, right? poaching is not allowed. The guns, AND ammo were allowed, if unloaded and stored. SO, just how would allowing you to have ammo inside the gun, and on your person, impact the environment?

Fremmer · February 19, 2009, 03:33 AM

Interesting topic. The entire premise of the OP is primarily political. Obama.

Obama's record is replete with support for gun control. He voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He desires a new assault weapons bill. He opposed the approval of Supreme Court justices who held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. In between all of his attempted gun-grabbing, Obama now wants to study the environmental impact of guns on national parks. Get ready for a major lead-kills-animals claim. If Obama truly supported Bush's pro-gun legislation, he'd would have simply said that he supports the legislation and fought the silly anti-gun lawsuits.

'Common-sense, gun safety' legislation. Now that's Obama change you can believe in.

**Tom Servo** · February 19, 2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Get ready for a major lead-kills-animals claim.

Bingo. Last year, OSHA tried to pass the 1910.109 standard, which would reclassified ammunition under their rules for explosives. The effect would have been that you could not have ammunition in the same place that firearms are discharged.

Yes, you read that right.

Fortunately, it was taken off the table when it was exposed for what it was. Still, somebody had the idea, and it was a sneaky one. A backdoor ban like this, based on "health" or "environmental" issues could possibly fly.

Bear in mind, lead is, "known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm."

I doubt anyone's going to try for an actual "ban" on guns or ammunition, if only for the potential political fallout. A "save the environment" regulation can do just as much harm, without being a "ban."

February 17, 2009, 05:25 PM	#1
sailor99 Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 15	Obama Defends Bush Rule on Permitting Guns in National Parks After reading all the bashing of our newly elected President, thought I would post this. He appears to be not so "anti-gun" after. This was posted on Fox by the way, a rather conservative news agency. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ational-parks/

February 17, 2009, 05:49 PM	#2
cookhj Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2001 Posts: 330	i saw that and was rather surprised. i just hope his majesty stays on the pro-gun side and i will overlook pretty much anything else he does. __________________ You may be whatever you resolve to be. - Gen. TJ "Stonewall" Jackson

February 17, 2009, 05:56 PM	#3
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	Obama is not personally defending the rule change, the DOJ is as part of its duties. Agencies don't necessarily reflect the administration's policies on all matters. As I recall, the Bush Administration was on both sides of the Heller argument, as a case in point. __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

February 17, 2009, 07:19 PM	#6
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	Sailor, before you jump to any conclusion of how "less anti-gun" Pres. Obama is, PLEASE do a search typing in 'Sen. Obama gun'. Very first hit, Barack Obama on Gun Control . Sit back and read. Someone saying "they believe in the right to bear arms" and then in the same sentence says "he also believes the state has the right to take your gun if state see`s fit" thats anti-gun/ 2nd Amend. That tells me he`s less anti-gun till the government deems it necessary for you not to be able to own a gun. Also note his comment when asked if he`s ever signed legislation supporting gun bans in Illinois. His answer "No". A lie proved on the next line showing a bill he did sign supporting the ban of handguns, among other things. Go on down and read all the hits, HIS statements are there for the viewing. I ask again please research about Obama! Last edited by shortwave; February 17, 2009 at 08:04 PM.

February 17, 2009, 07:40 PM	#7
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Signing a bill is the role of the executive. He hasn't been one till he became President Obama to my knowledge. Do you mean voting for a bill? __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 17, 2009, 06:56 PM	#5
sailor99 Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 15	HI Redhawk, I did read the article. The Justice department is attempting to block an injunction requested by the anti-gun crowd to keep the new rules from taking effect. In defense of the new rules the justice department is saying there is no environmental impact on people carrying arms. Then it goes on to say that the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, is requesting an assessment as to whether the new rules have any environmental impacts. I interpret this as the Interior Secretary is doing the assessment to back up the Justice Department when a judge asks them to prove there is no environmental impact. Its interesting when you ask me to read the full article, yet when you quote the article, you change the term assessment to a more darker "Investigation". Then you take the leap that this "Investigation" was directed by the President. Lets not even get into how King George's appointees tried to direct all scientific findings if they didn't agree with them. So far as a middle of the road gun enthusiast, I like what I am seeing.

February 17, 2009, 07:41 PM	#8
sailor99 Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 15	HI Shortwave, please read my post. I never said he was "pro-gun", I said he might not be as "anti-gun" as people think. His new administration just did something for the pro-gun crowd, and they just can't seem to accept it. Rather humorous really.

February 17, 2009, 08:05 PM	#9
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Just a note. If the thread starts to become a discussion of Obama's pros and cons in general, then it will violate our rules on politics. If we stick to the specifics of this action - we should be OK. Thanks. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 17, 2009, 08:15 PM	#10
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	Your right Glenn. It is 'vote' on bill. Thanks! Sailor, my post has been corrected. Please re-read and after you do the search, ask yourself if you think he will do something as pres. less anti-gun. His short record speaks for itself and its no wonder people feel he`s anti-gun and would seriously question him defending anything pro-gun

February 18, 2009, 08:45 AM	#11
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I think Don H summed it up pretty well. A lot goes into a rule change and once it is changed the bureaucratic inertia is tough to redirect. DOJ is defending this rule change because that is what their job is. Another great example of where our side playing offense has put the other side in a costly defensive battle though.

February 18, 2009, 09:00 AM	#12
ZeSpectre Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,276	If you want some entertainment, go to the Washington Post article on this topic found here I've been having a ball with the comments section.

February 18, 2009, 09:08 AM	#13
Re4mer Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2008 Posts: 240	I used to know an old timer who would say "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I have to agree with him.

February 18, 2009, 09:19 AM	#14
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Lets just hope the March in DC ext Spring ends up being a victory dance. This administration has shown a lot of common sense so far. Certainly some mistakes, but some common sense thrown into the mix also.

February 18, 2009, 09:30 AM	#15
Pilot Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2000 Posts: 4,193	Watch what Obama DOES not what he SAYS. That will tell all. He is the master of saying something then voting or signing the opposite into law. __________________ Pilot

February 18, 2009, 01:25 PM	#16
sailor99 Member Join Date: January 9, 2009 Posts: 15	Interesting comments from all. ZeSpectre, the comments in the Washington Post were humorous, both from the far left, and the far right. I personally will be watching his actions, which so far I view favorably, only time will tell. One comment about his past anti-gun stance. He was elected by the citizens of Chicago to be their representative. If the majority of Chicago citizens favored gun control, he was doing his job as their representative. I think our country would be far better off if all the representatives followed the will of their constituents, rather than a personal agenda. As the elected President of the entire United States, I hope he is going to follow the will of the majority of Americans who favor 2nd amendment rights. So far his administrations first action to do with gun control seems to indicate he is. In my humble opinion.

February 18, 2009, 01:30 PM	#17
Playboypenguin Junior member Join Date: February 27, 2006 Location: Great Pacific Northwest Posts: 11,515	Way to keep those minds closed tightly fellas. No matter what this administration says or does it seems a lot of the people here will go to their grave protesting. They very clearly took the position that armed citizens in the park has NO negative effects on environment or safety and you want to spend your time doing some creative "reading between the lines" just to have reason to be offended.

February 18, 2009, 01:39 PM	#19
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	Ya know how hard it was to get this rule changed in the first place? The time has expired to easily reverse it; now it will be just as hard (and time consuming) to try to change it back. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

February 18, 2009, 03:17 PM	#21
Gary L. Griffiths Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2000 Location: AZ, WA Posts: 1,466	[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] Cat.jpg Paul Helmke on learning of the DOJ's decision! Y'know, folks, I hate to cast a pall on all this doom and gloom, but here the Obama administration had an opportunity to oppose concealed carry with virtually no political repercussions, and chose, instead, to support it! Could it be that the Obamanation isn't 100% evil after all? __________________ Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

February 18, 2009, 11:09 PM	#23
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	slightly confused shooting in the parks is not allowed, right? poaching is not allowed. The guns, AND ammo were allowed, if unloaded and stored. SO, just how would allowing you to have ammo inside the gun, and on your person, impact the environment? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 19, 2009, 03:33 AM	#24
Fremmer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 3,482	Interesting topic. The entire premise of the OP is primarily political. Obama. Obama's record is replete with support for gun control. He voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He desires a new assault weapons bill. He opposed the approval of Supreme Court justices who held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms. In between all of his attempted gun-grabbing, Obama now wants to study the environmental impact of guns on national parks. Get ready for a major lead-kills-animals claim. If Obama truly supported Bush's pro-gun legislation, he'd would have simply said that he supports the legislation and fought the silly anti-gun lawsuits. 'Common-sense, gun safety' legislation. Now that's Obama change you can believe in. Last edited by Fremmer; February 19, 2009 at 03:40 AM.