Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: oBAMA ADMINISTRATION MAKES IMPORTANT GUN POLICY STATEMENT!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    This morning I about spit coffee all over the winshield when I read in the Washington Post that the Obama Administration and the Eric Holder Justice Department had decided to DEFEND the new Interior policy permitting concealed weapons in U.S. parks. WWWWOOOOOWWWWW.

    Then I thought: "what's up??". could it be that he has had an epiphany? Or could it be that he is so over his head with the job that he has decided he doesn't need to be catching hell from the NRA, GOA, OCDO, VCDL ad infinitum and has decided to throw us a bone to keepus quiet while he works his - whatever it is he THINKS he's doing??

    Or could it just be Obamanese for "go to sleeeeeep --- sleeeep --sleeeeep -- guns in parks will put them to sleeeep......" to put us off our guard (which won't happen)?

    I am equipped with neither the hardware nor the knowhow to post articles on these pages so if someone could get the article up here, then thanx. WHAT IN BLAZES?

  2. #2
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    I won't rest until all of their "rules" are voided and we are returned to the limited-governmental system prescribed by the Constitution, nullified by Lincoln and propagated his occupying imperial regime.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  3. #3
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Are we dreaming? Or has the kool-aid in the White house been changed to some reality drink, like coffee?
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    Maybe they realized that the way the decision was worded it was inadvisable to reverse it? There was a part in the summary that stated roughly the following:

    That the federal government believes that they should respect the democratic state legislatures decisions regarding concealed weapons. Also that federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize state expertise in this matter and regulations should respect state prerogatives and authority.

    This can be found here, page 4: http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf

    eta: I was really glad they worded it this way, because if Obama tried to later reverse the policy, it would show his true colors with respect to States rights.

    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Jeremy/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/img] [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Jeremy/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/img]
    [img]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Jeremy/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/img]

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Here's the article:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021601151.html

    Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns
    But Interior Is Reviewing Measure, Which Allows Concealed Firearms in Parks

    By Juliet Eilperin
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, February 17, 2009; A03

    The 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.

    In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

    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."

    But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

    "Secretary Salazar believes the Department should put forward its legal arguments in defense of the rulemaking procedure, and allow the courts to reach a conclusion," Lee-Ashley wrote in an e-mail. "In addition, in order to ensure that the actions of the government are based upon the best information, Secretary Salazar has directed the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, under the auspices of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, to undertake a 90-day review of any environmental considerations associated with implementation of these rules and to provide him a report on the results of that review."

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said in an interview that he did not understand why the new administration was defending a rule that embodied "bad policy and bad procedure."

    "It is hard to tell who is calling the shots on this at this point," Helmke said. "You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past."

    Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks. We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."

    Bush's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, Lyle Laverty, pushed for the policy change, according to documents disclosed as part of the ongoing case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    In an Aug. 22 letter to the directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, he wrote, "This proposed rule is one of my top priorities."

    But Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall and National Park Service Director Mary A. Bomar, both Bush appointees, informed Congress shortly before the rule was finalized that they opposed allowing concealed weapons in refuges and parks. "After careful review of our records and actions, we believe that the existing regulations provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System," Hall and Bomar wrote House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.) in a Nov. 9 letter.

    The national park system has a relatively low rate for crimes or for attacks by wild animals. In a July 31 letter that Bomar wrote to a Reno resident inquiring about the new rule -- which was unearthed during the proceedings -- she stated that in 2006 there were more than 270 million visits to the national park system and 384 violent crimes. In the course of more than 1.3 billion visits to the system since 2002, she added, there have been two reported fatalities and 16 serious injuries caused by "encounters with non-domestic animals."



  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP

    Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks
    Chris Cox and the NRA can eat it. What did they do?
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    "The 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."

    Code for, it is bad for the environment so we need to override it.However, we do agree with it in principle. Wink Wink.......

    How does carrying a firearm concealed anywhere have any impact on the environment? The only impact it would have would be the body impacting force on a bad guy.

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    While searching for the Washington Post article, Google popped out an article from the Huffington Post (we should all be aware of this site, if for no other reason than to recognize it for what it is, a sink-hole of defective liberal propaganda).

    They claim to have found the metaphorical smoking gun documents that show some DOI folks pointed out that the rule was not properly done since the process did not go through a full NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis. Having said that, we must remember that the top DOI folks were vehemently opposed to the rule change from the start, and had to be directed by their politically accountable-to-the-people bosses to get this done.

    Of course this is total baloney, the rule itself (linked in trailblazer's post above) discusses the NEPA issue (Issue 11, Page 17), and provides their reason and legal justification for the action.

    I find it pathetic that the Brady Bunch is wielding this one mis-applied technicality as their "big gun" on this issue. They apparently concede all the other, more important and relevant points concerning the right of self-defense, etc.

    IANAL, but it seems to me that Heller does or will eventually make this issue a moot point for them, but in their last gasp, they're throwing anything not tied down.

    TFred

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-h..._b_166529.html

    Guns In National Parks: Government Documents Show Bush Administration Warned About Ignoring Law

    Whether or not you agree with a policy idea, the government is supposed to follow the rules before it can give that policy the force of law. That is essentially the principle now at issue in a case pending in U.S. District Court here in Washington, DC.

    A last-minute rule adopted by the Bush administration after the election forces states to allow loaded, concealed weapons in National Park lands within their borders - even if states specifically prohibit the practice in their own state parks. Whether you believe that's a good idea or not - and clearly we do not - just-uncovered government documents show that the previous administration ignored warnings from Interior Department officials that the rule was being changed in violation of Federal law because of a rush to get things in place before Bush left office.

    These internal Bush administration documents were acquired by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in response to our lawsuit against the Interior Department. You can read the documents here.

    These documents show that the Bush administration ignored the procedural concerns and safety warnings of at least two federal agencies in order to push through the rule in time to deny the Obama administration a chance to review it.

    For example, on April 3, 2008, the National Park Service's Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule "required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis" and that "at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation."

    In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that "The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw."

    Documents also show the rule was strongly opposed by the National Park Service, whose Bush-appointed Director, Mary Bomar, wrote a letter in July 2007 saying, "We believe that the [previous] regulations [restricting guns in parks] provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System."

    Nevertheless, the Bush administration Interior Secretary responded with a memo on August 22, 2008, stating that the rule is "one of my top priorities." The rule was later issued without the environmental analysis required by law.

    This incident highlights a lame-duck Bush administration more concerned with handing the gun lobby a parting gift after they were soundly defeated in the November 2008 elections, rather than following the procedures required by law. Appropriate action needs to be taken by the courts and the Obama Administration to review the validity of this rule.

    (Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    KC,MO, ,
    Posts
    168

    Post imported post

    With everything going on and most likely coming down the pipe it amazes me how much energy is wasted on bitching aboutGUN RIGHTS groups of any flavor that someone does not agree 100%. If you don't like what they do, support another one. Wasting time bitching does nobody any good. Why don't you point some of that at you local congress critters who have been out to get gun owners in your state lately.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP

    Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks
    Chris Cox and the NRA can eat it.* What did they do?
    lol, right? +1

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    hogleg wrote:
    With everything going on and most likely coming down the pipe it amazes me how much energy is wasted on bitching aboutGUN RIGHTS groups of any flavor that someone does not agree 100%. If you don't like what they do, support another one. Wasting time bitching does nobody any good. Why don't you point some of that at you local congress critters who have been out to get gun owners in your state lately.
    I''l take all the help I can get to get Harry Reid voted out of office.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    They don't have a smoking gun, they have 3 anti-firearms "police statists" who advocated to do an environmental impact assessment. DOI management essentially indicated that since they didn't greenlight any different conduct that would actually affect the environment, the rule was categorically exempt. Obviously, if the rule had been strickent in it's entirety then there would be a serious environmental impact since one could then use a trap or net in the parks. However, use of a firearm was not alteredone bit.

    There could be several twists along the way, but essentially...

    1: The Interior dept./ NPS / FWS are still in violation of 2nd Amendment not just for banning firearms, but for banning other self defense implements which are "in commmon use" today. Further, their final ruling clearly states they do not recognize Heller as binding precedent, nor do they recognize it as applicable to them. A "rule reversal" reverting to the previous ban would be almost exactly the same as the DC law pre-Heller. Since the Parks are a federal entity, Heller does apply.

    2: The rule wording clearly recognizes that the Department knows the rule is already very close to void on 10th amendment grounds;


    10A reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people."<- Note: it's "powers" that are delegated, not rights.
    3: Failing to defend the rule would set a precedent that future administrations could use to abandon the same, or other rules. If there's one thing the government does not want, it's fewer rules, regulations and laws. If government had it's way they would make everything illegal, and then permit only specific acts.

    Nobody anywhere has articulated exactly WHAT environmental impact could possibly be experienced with the current rule change. Except for the act of carrying a lawfully concealed handgun about the person, there hasn't been a change.



    Remember, Heller came about because - and God bless him for it - DC Mayor Adrian Fenty was too stupid to realize the impact of a loss at the supreme court AND that all he had to do to moot the case was to barely change the law just enough to on paper permit registration, but drag the process out over several years. Sure, Heller could re-file, but he would have been set back YEARS by DC simply amending thetotal ban to a 'near total' ban.

    Here, Brady is Quixotically tilting at the windmills of a so called friendly administration, and if they do manage to skewer one, they could very well set up the court case which ends gun regulation in the National Parks as we know it.




  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    226

    Post imported post

    Funny, I used to work for the NPS, and you would not believe the numbers of muggings, car break-ins, and assaults (including sexual) and so on that Chief Bomar is not telling anyone about.

    And that is just on the C&O Canal! (Of course that park is located in Maryland)

    One thing I cannot figure out, is that BLM is part of DOI, and BLM's policy is to follow state policy.....This was BLM policy LONG before any talk about the NPS policy.....

  14. #14
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Thanks for your analysis, Mr. Y!

    Here is some more coverage:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...arks/comments/

    Obama Defends Bush Rule on Permitting Guns in National Parks
    The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges.

    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Johnny Stiletto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rome, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    This morning I about spit coffee all over the winshield when I read in the Washington Post that the Obama Administration....
    Wait a minute...Were you driving your car, reading the paper, AND drinking coffee all at the same time?!?! :shock:


  16. #16
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Don't worry. He was on the Capital Beltway, so it's a good bet he wasn't moving.


    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Herndon, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    260

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    Don't worry. He was on the Capital Beltway, so it's a good bet he wasn't moving.

    "That right there is funny, I don't care who you are!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    hogleg wrote:
    <snip>How does carrying a firearm concealed anywhere have any impact on the environment? The only impact it would have would be the body impacting force on a bad guy.<snip>
    Someone using lead projectiles was my only concern. I think that this would be overshadowed by the economic upturndue to the number of people using copper jacketed rounds. Due to the economy, I am sure prospector will make a come back. With all the OK corral type shooting the sheep are predicting, there will be great fortunes to be had in prospecting for bullets.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, MN, ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Are we dreaming? Or has the kool-aid in the White house been changed to some reality drink, like coffee?
    Obama and Company kind of remind me of how it is arguing with my brother. If he ever for some reason happens to wind up agreeing with your position, he'll still go to his grave before he admits he was wrong. But if you leave him a way out without actually admitting he was wrong, everything moves along nicely. Disagreement? What disagreement? We've always agreed on that point.

    Not necessarily saying that's the case with the current admin, but it's something to keep in mind. A win for our side is a win for our side. Doesn't mean we don't still keep an eye on them, but it doesn't mena we rub their noses in it either.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I don't think it is about defending the rule change as much as defending the "right" of the gov't to make the rules. If every time they make a rule we, the people, just think we can just challenge them in court and get them to change it without going to trial well, what kind of precedent does that set? They have to fight and scrape for their ability to make up whatever rules they want, when they want, and the people just need to STHU and deal with it. On top of that is the issue that at least 8 states are not happy about the 10th amendment violations and have bills pending about this matter. I would not think for a second that this is in any way indicitive of anyone in Obama's administration supporting the 2A in any way for any non-gov't employee citizen.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Obama often says and presents many things of which are only a charade for public consumption. His promise to have a 5-day wait before signing the stimulus bill and his first few appointments that had to be "excepted" from his new "No-lobbyists-in-my-administration" requirement are but a couple that come to mind.

    Remember folks, it is not what he or his slobbering press says or presents that he will do that matters... it's what actually is being done, publicly or behind the scenes. Executive orders and regulatory rules can be very dangerous and are done pretty much out of the public light. Besides, the press refuses to call him on breaking any promise or plan of action, so he can SAY anything he wants and do the opposite without repercussions.

    Incrementalism...Incrementalism...Incrementalism. It marches right along.

    The vigilance of those on forums like these are extremely helpful in finding the truth of the matter. Good work all and thanks. Hey I think I see some lights in Boston's Old North Church tower. "The Baracks are coming. The Baracks are coming."


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Don't get too excited. Their concern is almost certainly the presidential prerogative rather than gun owners' rights.

  23. #23
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    4armed Architect wrote:
    Executive orders and regulatory rules can be very dangerous and are done pretty much out of the public light.
    And nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for such acts. Thanks to Lincoln, who invaded the South, not as an act of "declared" war (which only congress can do, and refused) the "executive order" has been used as a tool of tyranny over generations for Presidents to enact policy even if the legitimate representative government would not oblige.

    It is despotism, pure and simple. It is not rule by law, but rule by mandate, without accountability or recourse by the people.

    Executive orders are a scourge to republican government.

    4armed Architect wrote:
    Besides, the press refuses to call him on breaking any promise or plan of action, so he can SAY anything he wants and do the opposite without repercussions.
    The press are fawning at his feet even as his idiot socialist policies blatantly usurp and bury this nation in a toxic cloud of international debt.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    T Dubya wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP

    Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks
    Chris Cox and the NRA can eat it. What did they do?





    Friday, February 15, 2008




    The current regulations on possession of firearms in national parks--which generally prohibit possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms--were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. It is now time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

    The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed average citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Now, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to carry firearms, and 40 of those states provide the opportunity for average citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

    Starting in 2003, NRA staff began meeting with officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior to change this regulation and allow state law to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges -- as it does in national forests and on BLM lands. There was little resistance to such a policy change but also little action to make this change. Bureaucrats involved in this issue would move on and others would replace them, needing to be educated from scratch about the need and importance for this change.

    As the second term of the Bush administration began in 2005, there was more of a sense of urgency to get this regulation changed given the uncertainty of the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. NRA asked several key Members of Congress, by virtue of their leadership roles as committee or subcommittee chairmen, to write letters to then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in support of this policy change. All of those letters went unanswered.

    After the 2006 elections, NRA asked House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Ranking Member Don Young (R-AK) to write another letter in March of 2007 requesting revision to the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) to apply state law regarding concealed weapons statutes in National Park Service (NPS) areas and National Wildlife Refuges. Eight months later, they finally received a “thanks but no thanks” response from National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall.

    In January of 2007, NPS Visitor and Resource Protection Associate Director Karen Taylor-Goodrich wrote in a letter that “(1) Parks are safe places,” “(2) 'Right to carry’ laws do not reduce crime,” and “(3) ‘Right to carry’ laws do not protect visitors from wildlife.”

    On December 14, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) and 46 of his Senate colleagues (including eight Democrats) sent a letterto former Idaho Governor and now Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne asking for the restoration of the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. (NRA-ILA initiated and worked closely with Senator Crapo on this letter.)

    Two months later, there had been no response from Kempthorne. So on February 11, four more Senators sent another letterto Kempthorne requesting this same policy change. Now 51 Senators -- a majority of the upper chamber of the United States Congress -- have publicly sought this regulatory change.

    Finally, Kempthorne appeared on February 13 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and on February 14 before the House Natural Resources Committee, for the annual department oversight hearings. Members of both committees asked Kempthorne about the delay in responding to the letters from 51 Senators, and the Department’s position on allowing those with valid state licenses or permits, to carry firearms in national parks. Following his admission that some parks are unsafe due to drug trafficking, Kempthorne was pressed on the need to allow law-abiding citizens the opportunity to legally carry firearms in national parks for personal protection and whether he believed that Right-to-Carry doesn’t reduce crime.

    Congress has rightly become frustrated over the years of inaction at Interior. Members of both houses have introduced legislation -- H.R. 5434 by Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and S. 2619 by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) -- within the past week to change the policy relating to carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    The U.S. Congress and NRA are anxiously awaiting a response from the Interior Department.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    A quote attributed to Bill Clinton pretty well sums up the liberal attitude I think:

    "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool, huh?"

    It leaves us pretty defenseless, too.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •