Posted: 2/17/2009 2:02:21 AM EDT
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/17/politics/washingtonpost/main4805192.shtml
Obama Admin Defends Loaded Guns In Parks 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." 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. Paul Helmke, Brady CampaignGun 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." |
|
Wow, I am just as confused as Paul Helmke. This is not expected at all.
Of course, I suspect the O regime, understanding that a large number of subjects are frantically arming themselves as a response to their new ruler, might actually have the sense to understand that overturning the parks ruling would add fuel to the fire. Maybe the surprise is they actually showed common sense here! (real common sense, not the Brady/ Gun Guys flavor of "common sense") |
|
Quoted:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/17/politics/washingtonpost/main4805192.shtml 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. What a freakin' joke. 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.
Man, Bush was so pro-gun that I almost can't stand thinking about it. |
|
Take up defense of a few pet pro-gun issues, give a half hearted effort and not really care if it stays or goes. Six months or a year later, when a nutso AWB comes on the floor - garner support for being "pro-gun" yet not against "reasonable restriction". Call me cynical, say the libards are pandering or stupid, but one thing you can't accuse them of is not knowing how to play the game. |
|
Quoted: Take up defense of a few pet pro-gun issues, give a half hearted effort and not really care if it stays or goes. Six months or a year later, when a nutso AWB comes on the floor - garner support for being "pro-gun" yet not against "reasonable restriction". Call me cynical, say the libards are pandering or stupid, but one thing you can't accuse them of is not knowing how to play the game. exactly. I can't add anything here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/17/politics/washingtonpost/main4805192.shtml 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. What a freakin' joke. 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.
Man, Bush was so pro-gun that I almost can't stand thinking about it. Quote Bush " send me an Assault Weapon Ban and I will sign it" end quote |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Take up defense of a few pet pro-gun issues, give a half hearted effort and not really care if it stays or goes. Six months or a year later, when a nutso AWB comes on the floor - garner support for being "pro-gun" yet not against "reasonable restriction". Call me cynical, say the libards are pandering or stupid, but one thing you can't accuse them of is not knowing how to play the game. exactly. I can't add anything here. Thank god Obama does a pro gun thing and some here are pissed . LOL |
| They can probably look at the issue empirically, see that nothing will really change if they overturn it and can thus foster a image of being moderate on guns. This will also allow them to preserve their political capital for something more important to them..... like a permanent AWB. |
|
Quoted:
They can probably look at the issue empirically, see that nothing will really change if they overturn it and can thus foster a image of being moderate on guns. This will also allow them to preserve their political capital for something more important to them..... like a permanent AWB. THIS!!!! but I am really happy, especially as there are huge Forests/Parks in GA. |
|
Quoted:
I truly think this is just bureaucratic inertia. Wait a few months. This! Quoted:
They can probably look at the issue empirically, see that nothing will really change if they overturn it and can thus foster a image of being moderate on guns. This will also allow them to preserve their political capital for something more important to them..... like a permanent AWB. And This!! |
| Sure you can carry your gun, but when they pass a serialized ammo bill, the average joe schmoe won't be able to afford it, so what good will it be. Never trust a politician, especially a liberal one with no soul. Especially a Kenyan liberal, muslim, funded by Soros who defeated a Medusa, and now has her on his cabinet, along with tax cheats, baby snatchers, anti hunting witches, and just fill in the blank. |
|
Quoted:
They can probably look at the issue empirically, see that nothing will really change if they overturn it and can thus foster a image of being moderate on guns. This will also allow them to preserve their political capital for something more important to them..... like a permanent AWB. Yep. Can you see the talking heads on TV like Fred Barnes pontificating how Obama is really "governing from the center like Clinton" because he lets us carry in national parks, yet pushes for a bill to "keep AK47s off the streets?" Like someone else said, nothing is ever as it seems. |
,
.
| Its funny that they say Bush broke laws when he enacted the carry law, but were'nt the original gun banning law makers breaking a contitutional law by not alowing the people the right to protect themselves from wild animals and human attacks. Environmental laws are a joke!!!! Just another excuse to try to control the sheeple population. |
|
Salazar, the new secretary of the Interior, was 'A' rated by the NRA and supported in committee the Senate bill allowing guns in national parks. Lots of liberals were upset with Obama's pick of Salazar because of Salazar's prior pro-gun positions.
This does not make it certain we are going to win, but at least we know the secretary of the interior is not reflexively anti-gun. |
|
Quoted:
Why did Bush wait till the end of his presidency to enact this? 
You people never stop, do you? FYI, the process for changing this rule started back in early 2008. This rule was changed not by an executive order but by normal Department of Interior channels, which included several months of public involvement and comment. And even if this was the first thing GW Bush did in 2001 it wouldn't stop President Obama from reversing the rule when he came into office. Barack Obama is president now; he does have that authority, regardless of when the rule went into effect. On a similar note, George W Bush is no longer president. For the love of God will you people finally move on and face the present crisis instead of whining about what Bush did or didn't do? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Take up defense of a few pet pro-gun issues, give a half hearted effort and not really care if it stays or goes. Six months or a year later, when a nutso AWB comes on the floor - garner support for being "pro-gun" yet not against "reasonable restriction". Call me cynical, say the libards are pandering or stupid, but one thing you can't accuse them of is not knowing how to play the game. exactly. I can't add anything here. Thank god Obama does a pro gun thing and some here are pissed . LOL Obama did not do anything pro gun he acted in his intrest. The Obama administration is NOT defending concealed carry or gun rights, you are fooling yours self if you think they are. They are defending their ability to make the rules… and ability to change the rules. This at core has nothing to do with the Obama administration view on guns but their protecting executive Branch power. |
|
This was a Bush admin. item that was called into question by the Obamamites when they came into power. Obama did not allow concealed carry in a National Park; it existed before he took office.
Obama is acting in his favor and not for gun owners. Trust me, while the Brady bunch is probably sitting there a little angry some strategist somewhere is explaining the big picture to them so they understand the next move. There will be other cases where this comes up and maybe later we lose but Oblammmmmmy can say he tried. He is at least making it appear that he has no intention of going after gun rights. That is why I agree with the other members here that it is a trap. "I defended the rights of responsible gun owners to carry loaded firearms in National Parks. However the need to control violence in our cities leads me to support this new assault weapons ban/firearm registration/etc. This is common sense gun law that will not leave those who choose firearms to defend themselves unprotected." |
|
Quoted:
I suspected Obama was gun-friendly. I think this proves it. This just proves that complete incompetence occasionally bears fruit. They wanted to help the economy, so they pushed through a Bill that will hurt the economy. They wanted to enact gun control policies, so they fucked that up too. |
| It's a bullshit ploy, just one more big fucking lie from Obama to get the opposition to drop their guard. It's right out of the marxist playbook. The stimulus bill will fix the economy too right? And the census being taken over by the Obama's people is to promote fairness right? |