Brady Campaign Sues Interior Department-Over Rule Allowing Concealed Guns In Parks

[kpete]

News Release
Brady Campaign Sues Interior Department
Over Rule Allowing Concealed Guns In Parks,
Will Seek Injunction

For Immediate Release:
12-30-2008

Contact Communications:
[phone]


Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today filed suit in federal court asking that the court strike down a last-minute Bush Administration rule change allowing concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and seeks an injunction to block the rule, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 9, 2009.

“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

Attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project and the law firm Ropes & Gray in Washington, D.C. are representing the Brady Campaign in this case. To read the complaint, go to www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf.

more:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1097

[katandmoon]

1. GOOD

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Agreed. nt

[Junkdrawer]

2. I'm sending my year-end check today...

Gunshots at national parks are not my idea of a good time...

[jody]

3. Same article posted earlier in DU's Guns Fortress, link below. The Scary Brady Bunch is wrong again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=195551&mesg_id=195551

[Ilsa]

4. My friends, retired military, camp out in wilderness areas

in CA on state land. They pack a pistol, just in case. They won't go without it. And the time I went with them, I was relieved they had the protection for us. It never came out of the backpack, fortunately.

[Winterblues]

6. What was everyone so terribly frightened of?

Why is America now a nation of complete cowards? People terrified to enjoy our National Parks unless they can carry a concealed semi-automatic pistol...Was there some major epidemic of people being attacked in National Parks?

[wartrace]

9. So, you're OK with revolvers?

As a matter of fact, I would prefer a large revolver if backpacking in areas where brown bear are prevalent.

[Ilsa]

12. Cowards? Hardly. This was wilderness. Off in the distance, we saw mountain lions.

There was also concern for strangers hiding out in the mountains. In some other areas of state and national parks in CA, there are cannibis growers on govt land, and they have shown themselves to be violent, protecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in crops. Carrying the gun was an act of caution, not cowardice.

I was actually more concerned about being assaulted when we hiked on the Appalachian Trail and in the Ozarks.

[Coexist]

21. "allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks"

this is a bit different than that, I think.

[Mojorabbit]

5. I go camping witwh my girlfriend

We are two women alone in some lonely places as both of our husbands hate to camp. We are always armed. It is stupid not to be.

[Statistical]

7. According to some on DU you are a "coward". I guess camping is only for the physically strong

[spin]

8. Because I have a Florida CCW...

I can carry a concealed firearm in many of the largest cities in the United States.

Why should I not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in a national park?

[-..__...]

10. Interesting...

In an earlier Brady press release they had implored Obamas nomination for Secretary of the Interior (Senator Ken Salazar), to rescind the order...

Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign today urged Senator Ken Salazar, if confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Obama Administration’s Secretary of the Interior, to initiate steps to rescind a rule rushed out this month by the Bush Administration that threatens to make America’s national parks less safe for visitors.

In a holiday gift to the gun lobby, the Interior Department finalized approval for a new rule that will allow more people, even potentially dangerous ones, to carry loaded, hidden handguns at all National Park Service Units. The regulations replace a Reagan-era rule that requires Park visitors to keep guns unloaded and stowed away.

President-Elect Obama has spoken out in the past about permissive concealed carry regulations. The National Park Service rule is scheduled to take effect in early January.

“When people go to our national parks, they don’t want to worry about who is packing a picnic and who is packing heat,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This new rule will make our parks less safe, and it should be rescinded.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1093

I wonder if Salazar told them to go pound sand, or if this is a legal maneuver by the Bradys to seek an injunction on the new policy
before it goes into effect?

Hmmm... looks like Salazar doesn't have his head up his ass (unlike so many others), with regards to the 2nd amendment...

Sen. Salazar's Statement on Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold the Second Amendment, Gun Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Salazar issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun.

“Today’s decision reaffirms what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and what millions of Americans already know: the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding individual to own a gun. The District of Columbia’s ban on all handgun possession went too far and was rightly declared unconstitutional.”

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/080626scdecision.htm

SEN. SALAZAR STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF THE GUN LIABILITY BILL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar released the following statement on his support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which passed the Senate today by a vote of 65 to 31:

“This gun liability legislation is commonsense. When guns are used in crimes, we should punish criminals. Responsible manufacturers and dealers should not be punished for the crimes of others. This legislation would not protect gun manufacturers from their own irresponsible or unlawful misconduct. It would allow manufacturers to be held liable when:

* a defect in design or manufacture of the product when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable (traditional product liability actions);
* breach of contract or warranty;
* selling to a person known to be prohibited from possessing a firearm;
* where the seller conspires with a buyer to make false statements;
* where the seller knowingly made false entries in records;
* negligent entrustment or negligence per se; and
* the transferor of a gun is convicted of knowingly committing certain federal or state felonies.

This issue is about personal responsibility. Certainly, manufacturers and dealers who act irresponsibly or in clear violation of the law should be held responsible for their actions. But criminals – not law-abiding manufacturers and dealers – should be held responsible when guns are used to commit crimes.”

Thirty-three states including Colorado already have similar laws on the books.

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/050729gunliab.htm

[krispos42]

11. Because God forbid we be consistant

The Brady Campaign is out to rid the country of all privately-held firearms. They won't stop at a set point, because once that point is reached, the Brady Campaign organization will dissolve. And just how often to powerful, cash-flush political organizations simply fade away?

They don't.

The Brady Campaign is never satisfied and never will be. No matter what law is passed, what is restricted, what is outlawed... there will always be another country they can point to that has even harsher restrictions, and they will say "see, those are reasonable, we should do that here".

“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

I must have missed it when the Dept. of Homeland Security put up X-ray machines and metal detectors at national parks. I guess this law removes them, then? :eyes:

ANYBODY can carry a handgun into a national park... they just can't do it legally unless they have a valid state-issued pistol permit. Which means that people that obey the law and fear going to jail don't carry, and people that don't fear going to jail and plan on committing crimes do carry.

Which is an excellent reason for legally carrying.


And people that can get a handgun permit are among the most law-abiding people in the country. So we're essentially telling a segment of the population that is the the least likely to be dangerous criminals... that they are dangerous criminals and are violating the safely of park visitors.

Love the logic here.


The average CCW permit-holder probably has a significantly better criminal record than the average Army recruit!

[aikoaiko]

13. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

I have yet to see any evidence that people who go through their states' CCW process to acquire a permit or license are "dangerous people".

Between large critters and people with malice, carrying a weapon (concealed or not) in parks is a reasonable thing.

[moondust]

15. I have yet to see any evidence of

a problem in the national parks that would require privately held guns to resolve. Suddenly after decades of no guns in the parks there is some reason to allow every drunken camper on his 2-week vacation to carry a killing machine? That's not bear crap you smell in those woods, it's NRA bullshit!

[aikoaiko]

16. If I understand correctly, violent crime is relatively low at Nat. Parks but I'm still willing to le

people who have demonstrated a recorded of lawful behavior and whatever other state requirements to get a permit/license and carry a gun in a National Park to defend themselves if necessary.

I don't see why National Parks should be any different than other parts of the states in which they reside.

[spin]

18. Every drunken camper?

The individual has to have a concealed carry permit before being allowed to carry the weapon in the park.

One unique characteristic of people with concealed carry permits is that as a group they commit very few crimes.

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/fla_model.htm

Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders.
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

Why this is remains one of the mysteries of our time.

[moondust]

19. Brady Campaign says otherwise.

Numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime. Experience in states that have allowed concealed carrying of firearms has shown that thousands of dangerous people are able to get licenses. In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime. Since becoming the first state to allow the concealed carrying of firearms in 1987, Florida consistently has had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. Florida has been ranked as the state with the highest annual violent crime rate more often than any other state in the last two decades.

(Link above in OP.)

I suppose license holders don't get drunk and stumble around the park on their vacations either...

[spin]

20. The Brady Campaign has an intense dislike of concealed carry..

so it's not surprising that their statistics would show that THOUSANDS OF DANGEROUS PEOPLE are able to obtain carry permits.

The Bray Campaign states In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime. (from link in OP)

Wow! That does sound bad. Let's examine that statement a little further.

I'll use the Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report October 1, 1987 - November 30, 2008 which is published on a monthly basis by the state of Florida as my source. In a 21 year period 1,419,647 licenses were issued.

Let's look at the licenses revoked:

Clemency Rule Change
or Legislative Change ... 66

Illegible Prints With ... 10
No Response

Crime Prior to Licensure ...518

Crime After Licensure ...3724
--Firearm Utilized-- ...166

Other ......................121

Reinstated* ................531
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

So while the Brady campaign was correct when it said that more than 4200 licenses were revoked because of the holders committing a crime, they conveniently ignored the fact that only 166 of those crimes involved a firearm. Unfortunately the report doesn't specify what the other 4000 crimes were. While concealed carry permit holders are no angels with halos, they rarely misuse their weapon in a criminal manner.

Does legal concealed carry laws cause an increase in crime?

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we
find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without
increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun
provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately
1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict
that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated
assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property
crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and
the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce
crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was
at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed
handgun permit is as high as $5,000.
http://www.kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf

Does allowing people to carry concealed weapons significantly reduce violent crime? Possibly, as criminals will be cautious when mugging an individual, as he may be armed. However, since the people who carry concealed are neither cops or vigilantes their effect on crime may not be dramatic. But there is little doubt that a trained individual who has access to a concealed weapon can defend himself/herself better than an unarmed individual.

[Trillo]

14. Why is Paul Helmke saying all people are dangerous?

n/t