• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

oBAMA ADMINISTRATION MAKES IMPORTANT GUN POLICY STATEMENT!!

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
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.
 

trailblazer2003

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
211
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, ,
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.

moz-screenshot.jpg
moz-screenshot-1.jpg

moz-screenshot-2.jpg
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here's the article:

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

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
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?
 

hogleg

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
168
Location
KC,MO, ,
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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-helmke/guns-in-national-parks-go_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.)
 

hogleg

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
168
Location
KC,MO, ,
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. :cuss:
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
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. :cuss:
I''l take all the help I can get to get Harry Reid voted out of office.
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
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.



 

t11spanner

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
226
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
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.....
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thanks for your analysis, Mr. Y!

Here is some more coverage:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obama-defends-bush-rule-permitting-guns-national-parks/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.
 

Johnny Stiletto

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
114
Location
Rome, Wisconsin, USA
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:
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
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.
 

Daddyo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
250
Location
Plymouth, MN, ,
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 
Top