National Park rules

imported post

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]The new rule, which takes effect today, allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule will also put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.[/font]

imported post

Would you mind providing for us links to news articles or other relative information?

imported post

Please cite?

imported post

Has it been published in the Federal Registry? Once it is, if I remember correctly, then it goes into effect 30 days later.

imported post

carhark wrote:

Would you mind providing for us links to news articles or other relative information?

Click to expand...

http://www.jhguide.com/article.php?art_id=4115

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/opinion/letters/20090108_lette_188470.txt

imported post

Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

The new change took effect on Jan 9, 2009


However:
The Brady Campaign, sued the Department of the Interior to prevent the implementation of the administrative rule:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/brady_campaign_sues_to_stop_national_park_gun_rule/C41/L41/

Following the lead set December 30 by a lawsuit by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, two park advocacy groups, the National Parks and Conservation and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, announced that they have filed a similar lawsuit to stop the Bush administration rule to allow loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

<edit>
OCDO Thread on this:
Brady Group Sues to Stop Concealed Weapons in Federal Parks
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/20071.html

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

[SNIP]Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of th left and theiruse of loophole-litigation tactics to get their way always makes me angry.

Bringing a working automobile into a National Park has far more "environmental impact" than bringing a concealed handgun into a National Park does. Any judge with a lick of common sense would laugh their suit right out of the courtroom and tell them any more of these frivolous attempts at litigationwill be met with charges of Contempt of Court.

In reality, some liberal puke of a judge will overturn the policy change in the anti-gunner's favor and disarm us once again in our own National Parks.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

[font="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]The new rule, which takes effect today, allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule will also put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.[/font]

Click to expand...

"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.

...
Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090121/pl_nm/us_obama_regulations

imported post

Huh?

Nothing pending about it, it took effect 2 weeks ago.

I think this is just the reporter being careless with the facts (not that there's anything wrong with that!)