[Al_HikesAZ]

Just saw this

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; Page 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."

[chumley]

Call me stupid, but how exactly does somebody carrying a concealed weapon have anything to do with "environmental considerations" and/or the National Environmental Policy Act?

[jeffmacewen]

It doesn't; this is the progeny of some in his administration who harbor the misinformed mindset that all those who own guns are out to shoot the landscape up, kill wildlife, and be a hazard to the safety of those around them. In actuality, legislation like this pushes for tighter controls because now more people will be willing to get a CCW and submit to a background check thereto, etc, since having one will be more meaningful. The anti-gun lobby seems bent on cutting off its own nose to spite its face by alienating those of us who take our legal right to own a firearm seriously and exercise it responsibly. The only people who win are criminals and those who couldn't care less about laws or Park rules in the first place.

[ssk44]

The only people who win are criminals and those who couldn't care less about laws or Park rules in the first place.

This is only the beginning...

[writelots]

The anti-gun lobby seems bent on cutting off its own nose to spite its face by alienating those of us who take our legal right to own a firearm seriously and exercise it responsibly. The only people who win are criminals and those who couldn't care less about laws or Park rules in the first place.

Just remember, exercising good judgement and responsibilty are not something we expect people to do in this country. We make laws so people don't have to think. They simply can't be trusted to do so (note dripping sarcasm).

[Jim_H]

It doesn't; this is the progeny of some in his administration who harbor the misinformed mindset that all those who own guns are out to shoot the landscape up, kill wildlife, and be a hazard to the safety of those around them. In actuality, legislation like this pushes for tighter controls because now more people will be willing to get a CCW and submit to a background check thereto, etc, since having one will be more meaningful. The anti-gun lobby seems bent on cutting off its own nose to spite its face by alienating those of us who take our legal right to own a firearm seriously and exercise it responsibly. The only people who win are criminals and those who couldn't care less about laws or Park rules in the first place.

This is only the beginning...

You guys are aware that the decision means you can carry a concealed weapon, right?

Call me stupid, but how exactly does somebody carrying a concealed weapon have anything to do with "environmental considerations" and/or the National Environmental Policy Act?

Federal Environmental Assessments are like drafting a 400 page document to theoretically cover all aspects of something so as to be ale to justify a decision when some group inevitably sues because they don't like what is being done to their public lands, be it the Sierra Club, a hunting organization, or potentially a anti or pro-gun lobby as in this case.

I can only think of two reasons where carrying guns into National Parks could be bad, though it probably wouldn't be all that bad given the overall scope. 1. Excessive redneck style firing of lead shot contaminates a water source or destroys something which is cherished by park visitors, 2. Drunk rednecks start shooting animals indiscriminately.

Most parks could probably benefit from hunting and thinning of the large game animals since only a few parks have large numbers of predators, and the likelihood of lead shot being sprayed around by red necks at a campsite isn't too likley since those people won't be able to get very far in to the backcountry in their ATV's or pick-ups, and therefore would be in developed sites where people would just call the police on them.

Is carrying a conceal weapon all that necessary to someone like me, no, but an old paranoid friend of mine needed his gun to feel safe all the time or compensate for something. Concealed begs a question: if it is concealed is it not noticeable to someone? It would only become noticeable if you pulled it out and used it or started threatening people with it. If its being pulled out for legitimate reasons what difference does that make to people who object to them? When the need to actually have a gun in parks is so low, why is it so important to be able to tote around your gun everywhere you go?
Once again, I don't really care about it all that much. I think people who need their guns all the time are weird. My friend was and is weird, but he is responsible with guns. On the other hand, I couldn't care less about someone carrying a gun. Most people are not very good with a gun, and would probably be worse in the odd situation where they would be shooting at someone. Can they still carry a knife? How easy is it to stealthily stab someone in the back? Or, I can drive my car or large commercial vehicle in a park. How hard would it be to run over a large group of people with one of those, intentionally or otherwise?

[dysfunction]

Answer to your concealed question:

The whole point is to not 'print'. ie.. not show others you're carrying. In Arizona it's equally legal to carry open, but this actually presents more situations IME where it's a pain in the butt.

Now, I do carry concealed from time to time, and mostly used to when I worked jobs where I was in vulnerable positions. While I don't carry at all on trails there are some places where I might consider it. Also IMO if you're going to carry, you have an obligation to train to the point of competency with your carry firearm. Period. (and yes, I know people don't all do that)

[Rob del Desierto]

Most parks could probably benefit from hunting and thinning of the large game animals since only a few parks have large numbers of predators

This rule change doesn't affect hunting, only carrying a weapon. Since hunting would still not be legal within the park/monument boundaries, the reason for it would presumably be for self-defense.

the likelihood of lead shot being sprayed around by red necks at a campsite isn't too likley since those people won't be able to get very far in to the backcountry in their ATV's or pick-ups, and therefore would be in developed sites where people would just call the police on them.

More than just rednecks carry guns. I think the idea here, once again, is personal defense. I think this is especially pertinent for large parks and/or border parks. Xanterra isn't the most scrupulous with its background checks for its foreign employees at GCNP, nor is Aramark at some of its parks around here. I'm sure some domestic workers "fly under the radar" as well. We had people, on a couple occasions, try and break into the Peregrine Fund trailer at the South Rim.

Concealed begs a question: if it is concealed is it not noticeable to someone?

The rule change would allow for holders of CCW permits to carry a weapon in the park/monument. I don't recall that the rule change would actually force the weapon to be concealed, just that the person carrying it would have a CCW permit (which usually entails a fingerprint/criminal check by state law enforcement, and a weapons safety class). I think it is primarily to ensure that those that would carry in the park/monument wouldn't be "drunk rednecks" who would start blasting away at whatever took their fancy (excepting, of course, criminals who don't care about the law anyway).

If its being pulled out for legitimate reasons what difference does that make to people who object to them?

Don't know there, but then again, I'm not someone who objects!

When the need to actually have a gun in parks is so low, why is it so important to be able to tote around your gun everywhere you go?

Well, the Constitution says

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

so that sounds like a decent reason to me. Admittedly I don't think a gun is necessary everywhere, concealed or unconcealed, in a park or not. When I'm walking around town in Page, do I think I need to carry? Not really. At Natural Bridges, do I feel a pressing need to pack heat? Again, no, not really. But there certainly are places where it would be nice to have something "just in case," both in and out of the NPS system.

I think people who need their guns all the time are weird.

Some folks would think anyone who climbs Humphreys in the dead of winter is weird too. All a matter of perspective, I guess. Like I said above, though, I am not someone who wants to or feels the need to carry all the time.

Most people are not very good with a gun, and would probably be worse in the odd situation where they would be shooting at someone.

That's one of the things that having a CCW permit involves; marksmanship and how to react under stress, so that if the situation arises, the CCW holder is able to react appropriately and not put anyone in any unnecessary danger.

Can they still carry a knife? How easy is it to stealthily stab someone in the back?

Kinda unrelated, but not in HI for much longer. Pocket knives are being outlawed, as of January 2010. Hawaii Senate Bill No. 126.

Or, I can drive my car or large commercial vehicle in a park. How hard would it be to run over a large group of people with one of those, intentionally or otherwise?

Or load one up as a bomb, or simply push people over the edge of the Canyon, let loose rattlesnakes in the Visitor's Center. There are all sorts of ways folks who want to do ill can go about doing so, and hardly any of them would follow the law in any case going about doing so. You can't prevent everything, but why not be prepared in case you could prevent one thing from happening?

[Jim_H]

Answer to your concealed question:

The whole point is to not 'print'. ie.. not show others you're carrying. In Arizona it's equally legal to carry open, but this actually presents more situations IME where it's a pain in the butt.

Now, I do carry concealed from time to time, and mostly used to when I worked jobs where I was in vulnerable positions. While I don't carry at all on trails there are some places where I might consider it. Also IMO if you're going to carry, you have an obligation to train to the point of competency with your carry firearm. Period. (and yes, I know people don't all do that)

What is IME and IMO?

Training and all that are good, but what I mean is that when a stressful situation happens and people have to think fast or act quickly, how good are they really? Soldiers are generally considered to be highly trained, as are police, but when they encounter a real battle, are they the marksmen that they can claim to be in the range? In a real world situation I'm willing to bet that an average well train concealed weapon carrier is not going to be at the top of his game, so to speak. Mountain Lions move swiftly, Bears would require a whole clip to drop, a man set on killing a person probably won't announce and then charger you and bring out a gun, so in what situation is a person really going to be able to affectively use their firearm? The Mexicans crossing in Organ Pipe might be a rare example, but aren't you more likley to be surprised by them at night if you hear them at all?

[joe bartels]

in my experience
in my opinion

[Jim_H]

Rob,This is shorter than quoting,
1) I figured the ruling didn't affect hunting, I meant that as an example where being allowed to carry could have an environmental impact due to abuse. It could just as easily happen with people who carry in the park illegally. EA thinking, thats all.
2)I know most people who carry would not be considered Red Necks, it was just an example of how I could see the allowance of concealed carrier-ship having a negative impact. One thing I remember most about what must have been a really nice area of the Ocala NF in Florida were these ephemiral wetlands that were destroyed by rednecks in pickups who would go "muddin" in them and completely destroy them. Basically, think many acres of mud hole where there used to be a fairly diverse numbers of flora and fauna. The trees and vegetation around these pools were riddled with shot and bullet hole. I know this is almost apples to oranges, but it was what came to mind as a thing that could go wrong.
3)Screening of lowly Xanterra employees wouldn't really be anymore effective than screening park entrants, with respect to the need to conceal. Wouldn't a hidden camera at the falcon shed have more effect than a gun in you vest?
4)If its not concealed, aren't you making yourself a target of harassment? Thats an actual question, since most park visitors would probably see something wrong with a guy openly carrying a weapon.
5) Can't carry in a court, so the constitution is already being infringed upon, but that is really a different argument.
6)Well, I know certain people think I'm weird, or obsessed, or OCD, or what ever. I do what I do because I enjoy it and its the best thing I can do to stay in shape for Whitney, or at all really. Elden is boring these days, and what else is there in a short distance that offers me that level of physical challenge and convenience? Besides, 35 times is still not that often (yes, I love to brag). If we had other "real" mountains in AZ that were nearby I would do them. I still think my friend was weird, and most of the folks I have known who kept guns under their pillow, or under their car seat, or in their coat all the time qualify as weird in my book. I don't think they shouldn't be able to do it, just as I don't think people who get all tattooed up shouldn't be able to do that, but I still think they are weird. I'm perfectly willing to except that people think I'm nuts for doing what I do.
7)I still think that practicing for a moment is not being in the heat of the moment. One thing I remember reading a few years back was that the numbers of accidents with police who had fired their guns was increasing. One reason cited was that the newer police were right out of High School and the Academy and had not had real world experience with a fire fight. Many 10 and 15 year veteran cops were in this category (late 90s article). In the 70s and 80s a great number of police had been in Viet Nam and had experience with real world fire fight and as such were much calmer in a gun situation, and therefore had lower numbers of accidents with guns. I'm talking about the sort of thing where police think a "perp" has pulled a gun and 3 cops get off 50 rounds of ammo, kill the "perp" who had no gun and was reaching for his wallet, and kill or injure a few bystanders. Nervous over reacting type of stuff.
8.)The knife and vehicle example are related, but not to be against gun carrier ship, rather to point out to those who oppose the carrying of a gun by saying look, if someone wants to hurt other people, there are plenty of ways to terrorize and do this without needing a gun. In Britain they banned cheap samurai swords a year or two back because gang members were using them in drive by slashing. I suppose if a state banned all weapons there would be a debate over whether or not we could carry a lead pipe in our pants for protection. That or to impress the ladies.

[writelots]

Kinda unrelated, but not in HI for much longer. Pocket knives are being outlawed, as of January 2010. Hawaii Senate Bill No. 126.

Really? Pocket knives? Like Leathermen and Gerbers and I just have this to open my REI boxes type of knives?

[Jim_H]

Kinda unrelated, but not in HI for much longer. Pocket knives are being outlawed, as of January 2010. Hawaii Senate Bill No. 126.

Really? Pocket knives? Like Leathermen and Gerbers and I just have this to open my REI boxes type of knives? Where's that banging my head against a wall smilie?

Its also almost completely unenforceable! Unless you threaten or harm someone with it, how could they prevent them since they are so small?

[jeffmacewen]

I've already chimed in on another thread about the fact that even well-trained soldiers freeze, drop their weapons, or intentionally miss when put to test. The look on their face is something you'll never forget. I've seen it personally and that's about all I'm willing to say.

I don't carry a weapon with me everywhere, either. Guns are really most useful when you are going into a situation you control or are up against someone else who is armed...especially at a distance. In all other circumstances, the chances are better that someone wanting to get the drop on you will do so, armed or not. If they sucker-punch you or knock you unconscious, you've now just given them a weapon.

As for wildlife, there are far better ways to handle almost all wildlife encounters than resorting to a bullet. Not just because it's unnecessary, but because they would be far more effective than cranking off shot after shot trying to hit or stop an animal. I can think of only a very few situations where I would ever shoot wildlife of any kind...period. If people want to hunt...more power to them. If my family were starving I might do the same.

Here's my formula: I tend to carry when I'm going somewhere that I will have a high probability of encountering any of the following:

1) Drunk rednecks doing redneck things; especially in their own environs.
2) Drug or human smuggling.
3) Trailheads far from urban centers or in an area where there is a higher chance my vehicle will be stolen or vandalized.

Unfortunately, some national parks fall into one of the categories, above. Example for those familiar with Tucson hiking: Would I carry a gun up Finger or Pima to Kimball and back in a day? Probably not ever. Would I carry one up Italian Spring to Mica and back down in a day? *Every time*...Getting there requires me to go down Redington road and four wheel into and leave my vehicle in an area completely overrun by yahoos on all manners of OHV in various states of intoxication shooting wherever they so please and generally not giving a darn about those around them. The situation is exacerbated by the degree to which local law enforcement is overwhelmed in the area.

All of that said, I believe and always have that gun ownership is just as much a responsibility as it is a privilege. We figured out that people untrained behind the wheel of a vehicle is bad so we instituted mandatory licensure. I have no problem with all gun owners being forced to go to training and maintain a license of some kind.

[dysfunction]

For what it's worth, most police (and really most military for that matter) aren't really as thoroughly trained as they should be either. By competency I'm not suggesting training to the point that professional shooters do (Not average police or military units), or even IDPA type shooting (although that would be good). But at least being able to maintain an understanding of what their backdrop is, and be able to hit their target reliably without stress. I'd be pleased with that level of competency to keep a permit.

[djui5]

Wow, O's camp is defending our right to carry concealed firearms!!! This could be a great thing for the future of gun ownership in this country!! I'm really surprised.

[Al_HikesAZ]

I'm adding this update to this thread so no one gets in trouble.

Court decision blocks guns in national parks
Associated Press 03/19/098
Rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration is overturned

A judge on Thursday blocked a federal rule allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in U.S. national parks and wildlife refuges.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturns a rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration.

The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, and allowed visitors to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge was located allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns in parks had been severely restricted.
The Obama administration had said it was reviewing the Bush rule but had defended it in court.

A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to comment Thursday, citing the ongoing court case.
Restrictions adopted during Reagan years

The Bush administration issued the gun rule in December in response to letters from half the Senate asking officials to lift the restrictions on guns in parks, which were adopted by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s.

The rule went further than a draft proposal issued a year ago and would have allowed concealed weapons even in parks located in states that prohibit the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of two groups that sued to block the rule, called the judge's ruling a victory for the people.
"We're happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed," he said.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which also brought suit, said he was extremely pleased.
"We're especially glad to hear that the court is agreeing with the park rangers and the public who are concerned that there will be negative impacts from the (now-overturned) regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public."
NRA backed the Bush rule change

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the Bush rule change, saying law-abiding citizens had the right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations were inconsistent and unclear, the NRA said.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations protested the Bush rule change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

[jeffmacewen]

Ugh...whatever.

[Vaporman]

One crusty old chick forces us all to illegally be packing in the parks...

[jeffmacewen]

One crusty old chick forces us all to illegally be packing in the parks...

My sentiments exactly. Whatever. I guess some groups in our country are hades-bent on only letting criminals carry weapons in our midst. At least this way we had to be licensed. Even that isn't good enough, I guess.