National Park Carry in Peril?

[azredhawk44]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/...ma_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]

Wait for more bad news each day, I'm sure.

[ZeSpectre]

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]

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/...ition-memo.pdf ). I wouldn't count on this one lasting!

[BlueTrain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not to mention the 2 college students killed in the Ocala National Forrest

[johnwilliamson062]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 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? Request for a ruling, please?

[ZeSpectre]

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 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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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.