Another lawsuit has been filed in a bid to prevent a change in national park gun rules. Late Tuesday the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Back on December 30 the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence filed a similar lawsuit.
The filing by the NPCA and retirees coalition seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush administration’s new regulation that would allow national park visitors with concealed weapons permits to arm themselves throughout their visits. In their lawsuit the two groups contend the rule change would increase the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife.
The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9.
“In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so,” said NPCA President Tom Kiernan.
The Bush administration last month finalized a National Rifle Association-driven rule change to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded.
“Our members, with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks, can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule. More guns equal more risk,” said Bill Wade, chair of the coalition's executive council. “Apparently, the Bush administration chose to ignore the outpouring of concern voiced during the public comment period."
According to the lawsuit, the Department of the Interior “adopted the gun rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law… The new regulation is an affront to the national parks’ missions and purposes and a threat to the national parks’ resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside.”
As with the Brady Campaign, the NPCA and retirees coalition maintain that the rule is unlawful because the Interior Department failed to conduct an analysis of the rule’s environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the effects of the rule on threatened and endangered species. The lawsuit also argues that Interior officials ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Any reasonable person would have to conclude that changing these rules to allow more firearms in the national parks could have an environmental impact on park wildlife and resources,” Mr. Kiernan said.
In a letter sent to Interior Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, seven former directors of the National Park Service stated that there is no need to change the regulations. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The rule also was opposed by the current career leadership of the National Park Service and other park management professionals, including the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.
The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the national parks, according to NPCA tallies.
Comments
Bill Wade
Chair, Executive Council
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
Well, Frank the facts are these: the entire Executive Council of CNPSR, duly elected by the members, voted unanimously to support this suit. And, while I suspect every single person in CNPSR doesn't agree 100 percent, the way our organization runs is that the membership allows the EC to make the decisions on their behalf. Not unlike the country does business; however, not one single member has yet to notify me that they disagree with the suit, and we've been discussing it for some time now. So, I have no clue where you get the idea there is some internal dissent.
As to the risk, you know very well something like that is hard to quantify; but the survey we did resulting in the report referred to on our website; and that we submitted to DOI, provided ample indication from a significant number of current and former employees of the NPS that the risk would increase. That's exactly what we said.
NRA "drives" laws through Congress.
When involved in a conflict or struggle, folks need to know who the opponent actually is, if they are to take effective actions. The problem is, folks very commonly react toward figures & entities other than the source of their grievance. Sounds weird - and often is! - but it's true.
The boss comes into work and gets on everyone's case, all day long. The real source of the boss's irritation is his wife, but he's treating the crew at work like the enemy. Then when he goes home, he kicks the dog, for good measure. This is the classic case of "redirecting" frustration to a less-threatening or less-dangerous figure (if he lights-in to his wife, he only digs himself in deeper).
This is called "displacement", in Psych 101.
In our present case, it is better to hang the blame for the new gun-law on the NRA, because the real 'culprit' is that American citizenry as a whole, who strongly support gun rights. That's really why we have the new guns-in-Parks rule: Because elected Representatives know taking positive actions to correct erosion of the Second Amendment pays generous dividends, next time elections come around. They don't need the NRA to figure this out, or know what to do.
To rail against America as a whole, and try to paint the vast masses in some vaguely nefarious shade, is too big a bite to gnaw off and choke down. But here's the NRA - and handy to the scene of the 'crime'. "Damn s.o.bs - always subverting the American government..."
Frankly guys, I think Capitol Hill can stand on its own against the NRA ... and they're not really into handing out Legislative powers to let lobbies "drive" law-making.
Legal action based on "emotional appeal"
Asserting in a lawsuit that something that we don't like is increasing the "risk" of bad things happening is extremely common. It's "emotional" because the suit says there is something "scary" about the activity we don't like, that there is something to "fear", and we want it stopped. Fear is an emotion, so to "appeal" on such a premise to the Court is an "emotional appeal".
Disrespecting the NPCA and the CNPSR
These people are just lobbyists, same as the NRA. They have no more business doing what they do - and no less - than the Exxon lobby has doing what it does. They're just a group acting on behalf of a particular point of view. The test of this assertion will be, when & if we finally manage to pass real lobby-reform laws to brush-back the lobby-horde, the NPCA & CNPSR will find themselves toeing the same line that Exxon & NRA surrogates are put behind.
Bill Wade
Chair, Executive Council
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
Ted -
I object to you categorizing CNPSR as a lobbyist in the same breath as Exxon. The law requires an organization to register if it has lobbyists. CNPSR is a non-profit 501c3 and has to report on any "lobbying" it does, in order to retain its non-profit status. Last FY, using the legal definition of lobbying for non-profits, we "lobbied" about 2% of what we were legally allowed.
Bill,
I understand that it is a little distasteful to see your organization mentioned, much less categorized with Exxon or NRA. But I did not say that CNPSR are liars, thieves or otherwise disparage them, only bringing forward that they are a "lobby", like a large number of other such groups that 'work' the government.
Its no different than discussing lawyers. Many of us have developed a reflexive snarl when we use the 'L-word'. However, there is a wide range in the ethical footing in the lawyer-population: Some are indeed scoundrels, while others are quality people. Yet, we don't hear 'nice' lawyers object, "Don't call me a lawyer", because some lawyers are nefarious. Lawyers are lawyers - and lobbies are lobbies.
When and if we pass laws to reduce the influence of lobbying upon the government, the controls enacted will not be applied "using the legal definition of lobbying". Rather, a lobby-control law will be applied on the basis of actions & relationships, whether an entity meets a particular legal definition or not.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a lobby.
We have groups who engage in lobbying-activities, but do not register as or meet the formal definition of a lobby. If we passed a law that controlled only those groups that are registered or meet the technical definition of a lobby, then the day after the law comes into effect, every since lobby in the country would suddenly be reorganized as an informal body outside the "legal definition", and all lobby-activities would proceed, 'business as usual'. Hmm?
I think we ought not lose sight that lobbies we like & approve are just as much a part of the 'issue' and 'problem' of lobbying, as are those lobbies we think stink.
And, they will be controlled under the law, the same as those we don't want mentioned with.
So... let's take all of the discussion about "lobbyists" out of the argument, and get back to the issue.
As Kurt wrote earlier: "The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the national parks, according to NPCA tallies." And that was during an intentionally abbreviated (by the Bush Administration) comment process, that also masterfully managed to ignore the necessary NEPA compliance process. If put through the full legislative process, this ruling would most likely NOT have seen the light of day. And the Bush Administration knew that.
I think the public comment statistic shows that if left up to a public vote, an essential part of the democratic process, concealed carry in the Parks would not be allowed. Are these 73% all blindly following the political agenda of some unknown evil bent on ruining the fine fabric of our nation by chipping away at our God-given, er, I mean our Constitution-given rights?
Let's get real here. The majority of the general public, the professionals, and the legislators don't think this ruling is lawful, necessary, or prudent. Enough said.
Sorry gun owners, but sometimes you just don't get your way. Will you now raise your militias to force your views on the rest of us?
Warren Z.,
Warren said:
Warren, Kurt elevated the lobbies to a central position in his leading article here. His objection to the role of the NRA (lobby) is that their (lobbying) role improperly tipped the national lawmaking process. His elevation of the role of lobbies is entirely appropriate: They have been key & primary players - both pro & con - throughout the life of the issue under discussion. Largely, "lobbyists" are "the issue".
Warren said:
On the contrary, actually: "Majority in U.S. poll support gun ownership rights"
On the matter of public views regarding firearm ownership, a large majority is consistently supportive.
Wow..cute comic! And is that the way we as U.S. citizens should see it? That we cannot go and visit a national park without feeling bodily threatened and in need of a firearm?
My husband & I have visited numerous parks, and the day when I don't feel safe...we'll be staying home!
Ted:
The CNN poll you referenced, as worded, concerns the right to own guns. It did not ask respondent's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, specifically where and when it would be appropriate to carry legally owned and loaded firearms. That's a big difference.
I see where you're going though: one can always find a poll or statistic to support their viewpoint. But the poll you quote does not pertain to the point I made.
Perhaps you could help me understand how legal ownership, as provided for in the 2nd Amendment, implies that one can carry a fully loaded legally owned gun on Federally owned and protected lands wherever and whenever one chooses? The specific word that confuses me is "militia", and how the 21st Century issue of gun owners wanting to keep a fully loaded at their side at all times while walking Federally protected lands relates to that concept.
Let's all take a look at dictionary definitions of the word "militia".
- a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
- a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, or emergency law enforcement.
- a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
- all able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service.
Some questions for everyone:
Will you need to have your gun on you while hiking the Grand Canyon in the event you are called to service while on vacation?
Or perhaps you'll take it upon yourself to interpret a particular situation you decide is unlawful, thus justifying your need to provide defense?
If you're no longer eligible for military service, will you keep your gun at home?
Were the framers of The Constitution concerned with contemporary issues of possession, purchase, and transportation?
"A well regulated Militia..." Where's the regulation in letting gun owners carry wherever they choose?
Why do organized gun ownership concerns always seemingly resort to fear when searching for supporters?