Obama administration defending a last-minute rule that allows concealed firearms in national parks

[Howzit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601151.html

Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

The three groups seeking to overturn the rule -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- have argued that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also argue that the new policy could deter some visitors, such as school groups, from visiting national landmarks.

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


How did this happen?

[XemaSab]

1. I am a hardcore environmentalist

I am not worried about it. :shrug:

[Chulanowa]

4. Same here

But I spent a couple years living in a place where humans were part of the food chain, so could just be me.

WHy the need to carry concealed, I don't know. A bear doesn't give a damn and someone out to mug you probably won't if they see you packing.

'Course, each such weapon should be "checked in" so that park workers have somewhere to go for ballistics testing when animals turn up shot.

[TheWraith]

9. Probably so that they don't frighten or concern other hikers.

As for things ending up shot, I wouldn't worry too much. Anyone fool enough to try hunting a bear with a handgun deserves what they get.

[quickesst]

11. Ha ha....

Noone is suggesting that anyone go hunting a bear with a handgun, especially in a national park where hunting is illegal, and even if it is, the point is being missed, or ignored. Besides, who would be the fool if confronted by a large wild animal? The person who curls up into a fetal ball, the person who waves their arms and starts shouting, the person who turns and tries to run(worst thing one could do), or the person who has a glock strapped to their side willing and able to use it? Maybe I don't hold to the majority opinion here about guns, but give me the glock any day of the week. And that's just the real animals. What about the human animals? Those who would see opportunity for evil if a woman meets them, and they have the intention of "owning her", possibly with murderous intent. Praying won't do any good, begging won't do it, curling up in a fetal ball won't help, running probably won't either. But what if she is carrying a weapon, and trained in it's use. The knowledge that she is packing would probably deter any would-be assailant, and if not, I'm sure a nine millimeter slug would. Thanks.
quickesst

[Chulanowa]

28. Who said hunting?

Look, I know it's a real unpopular thing to say, but there are a lot of people in this country who own guns because they want to kill something. Or at the very least, have the fantasy of killing something. Bringing guns into parks is going to end up with a fair number of wounded and dead animals, damaged rock formations, and all that, becuase of these sort of people that think having a gun obligates them to shoot that gun.

I'm not saying guns should be banned from parks. But I do think that some method should be in place to make it easier to track down and prosecute the law-breaking yahoos who make it worse for everyone else.

[gorfle]

19. Why concealed.

WHy the need to carry concealed, I don't know. A bear doesn't give a damn and someone out to mug you probably won't if they see you packing.

You are missing the point here. The reason concealed carry is being allowed in national parks is not because there is some compelling reason to allow it.

The reason it is being allowed is because it is foolish to say a man can carry a concealed weapon down main street surrounded by hundreds of pedestrians and yet say he can't carry it similarly in a park.

In other words, there is no compelling reason to disallow it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Lots of crime in some of the National Parks.

[slackmaster]

13. Me three

A firearm poses no environmental hazard unless it is fired.

If that happens for a good reason (e.g. self-defense or lawful hunting), it's still not a problem.

[Lasher]

2. This seems consistent with the recent SCOTUS ruling about the 2nd Amendment

Particularly in this consideration it is entirely proper. Good on Obama!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. works for me

[whoneedstickets]

5. This will be deemed harmless until...

..some guy decides that the bear he's driven up along side of has come a bit too close to him or his family and discharges his weapon.

[Endangered Specie]

6. I bet this will put a bing dent in the "Obama's gonna take all my guns" crowd

Obama's pretty damn smart.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

7. I take it you did NOT turn in all your guns to the ACLU?

Bad, bad.

Me neither.

[raysr]

8. Concealed weapons

in the National Parks is bullshit. To many drunks. I see Obama siding with repuke policies WAY too much. What did we really get? I don't like the way it smells, sort of like "no lips Mitch from the South".

[TheWraith]

10. Are you one of those drunks?

Because equating Obama with McConnell definitely requires that your brain be legally impaired.

[slackmaster]

14. It's easy to spot drunks on the Internet

They often fail at spelling and punctuation.

[rrneck]

18. I resemble that remark.

:beer:

[X_Digger]

12. Good!

Let the states in which the parks reside determine whether or not CCW is allowed. (That's really the core issue.)

This doesn't _force_ concealed carry on states that don't have it, unlike the hyperbolic bellowing from the anti's would have you believe.

[aikoaiko]

15. "[CCW in Nat Parksp policy] will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."

very nice

[jmg257]

16. Uhh - Obama leaned on his constitutional law training/experience, combined that with common sense,

to make yet another good decision?

Bravo, Mr. President!

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

17. Bushco actually made the decision. Obama is just stating why it's being upheld. (nt)

[jmg257]

21. Yep, and rightly so.

[gorfle]

20. How it happened.

How did this happen?

Common sense prevailed.

[raysr]

22. Where is the "common sense"

in allowing concealed weapons in National Parks? And no I'm not one of those drunks, "TheWrath", you jerk-off.

[jmg257]

24. They are allowed just about everywhere else. What is so special about National Parks

that makes any of the people there magically immune from personal attack / being victimized?

In other words, there is as much of a need for self-defense in parks as anywhere else, maybe even more due to wildlife.

[gorfle]

25. It's right here.

Where is the "common sense" in allowing concealed weapons in National Parks?

Right here:

Today, a person can legally have a concealed carry permit (CCW) and they can walk or drive down main street surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens. Yet if he were to walk or drive through a national park in his travels, he would somehow not be allowed to carry his weapon. This makes no sense. What makes sense is that if I'm able to walk or drive down main street with a concealed weapon, then I can also walk or drive through a park with a concealed weapon.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Where is the common sense in disarming ME,

As I, a Virginia CCW holder, as I drive down a US Highway that just happens to go THRU a national park??

Are you saying that their is something about a national park that makes me, a mad dog killer type??

What makes me so much more dangerous inside that invisible boundary, than just outside it??

Yea, I can smell your "common sense" all the way over here....

If they have such an effect on people why do we allow ANYONE inside them?

[Redneck Socialist]

23. But wait, I thought Obama was gonna take all my guns away?

I'm so confused!

[jmg257]

26. NOT take them away, just ban a lot of scary looking semi-autos (and maybe others).

This would impact the future purchasing and trading of such arms and their magazines, and depending on the exact bill enacted, COULD lead to registration, which COULD lead to confiscation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Why did you think that?

You should have come here sooner the gun owners here would have set you straight.

David

[Redneck Socialist]

32. "Cause the NRA told me so.

Sarcasm, FMD, sarcasm.

I know it's hard to tell on these boards sometimes, and the Gungeon in particular. (The preceding sentence was not sarcasm and neither was the poke at the NRA.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. My question was sarcastic as well.

I guess the double sarcasm is confusing for everyone.

David

[russ1943]

31. appeasement

NEW YORK TIMES
February 20, 2009
EDITORIAL
Two Early Tests on Guns
The Obama administration has chosen to defend a bad rule rushed through during former President George W. Bush’s final days in office that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The rule is a gift to the gun lobby.....

.......Another early test of that commitment is coming soon. It involves the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which is strongly supported by the gun lobby. The amendment denies police and local governments access to essential information about guns used to commit crimes..... The issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms and everything to do with public safety. The only real purpose served by the Tiahrt restrictions is to protect shady gun dealers and gun traffickers from detection, arrest and punishment.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20fri2.html?ref=opinion

[benEzra]

33. Ah, the same NYT that goaded Dems into handing the repubs Congress in '94

over the gun issue, and reprints every press release from the repubs at the Brady Campaign as if it were their own independent reporting.

Yes, the NYT editorial board hates the idea of the "little people"/non-country-club types owning guns, especially non-artsy-looking guns, and hates the idea of armed home defense unless you are wealthy enough to hire somebody to touch the icky guns for you. We get that.

It doesn't follow that the NYT is being rational on this issue. Nationally, carry license holders have a somewhat lower rate of violent crimes than even the police do, and the police rate is very, very low.

FWIW, as I have pointed out before, to obtain a NC carry license, you have to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental health records check, have your prints run by the FBI, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the local sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with a handgun.