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
Warren,
The questions you have on the Second Amendment were taken up earlier in '08 by the Supreme Court, and their treaty on the history, analysis and legal status of both the questions and the Amendment are published in their ruling, D.C. vs Heller..
This ruling says it better than I can, it's on the formal public record, and it's from the Supreme Court of the United States.
"Or perhaps you'll take it upon yourself to interpret a particular situation you decide is unlawful, thus justifying your need to provide defense?"
Among your snide questions, this one's the winner. As to when I decide a situation is unlawful, it's really easy. As a CHL holder (and indeed as a citizen), I am permitted to use lethal force when faced with "imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm". This is what the law allows. You will not even know I carry a gun until that happens.
"Why do organized gun ownership concerns always seemingly resort to fear when searching for supporters?"
Funny. We use facts showing that crime is real, that the police have no obligation to protect us, that regular citizens have proven quite capable of defending themselves, and that CHL holders have a remarkable record for safety. It is the opponents who seem to come up with "fear" as evidence of a problem (see plaintiffs).
Bravo Ted...Bravo!!
If only I had a dollar for every time I see in the Morning Report something about firearms possession in a park, I could have retired already!
Ted:
From the published Supreme Court ruling No. 07-290, District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller,
Opinion of the Court:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment IS NOT UNLIMITED... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms... or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.."
"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession IN THE HOME violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm IN THE HOME operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it IN THE HOME." (emphasis added)
Nothing in their opinion should should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions... That's all we, the dissenters to the legal carry in National Parks ruling, are saying. And the Right-leaning Supreme Court apparently agrees with us.
I bring to your attention the purposeful use of the phrase "in the home" in the original case, and in Supreme Court's ultimate decision. IN THE HOME. How does DC v. Heller, concerning legal possession of a firearm in the home, guarantee the right to take a legally owned and loaded weapon into a National Park? It's clear that the Supreme Court, stacked with right wing personal rights advocates such as it currently is, only interprets the 2nd Amendment so far as legal possession within one's own home. Thorough reading of their very thorough published opinion proves this out, and gives pretty good insight into possible future cases concerning guns and personal use rights. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The issue of ownership protected by the 2nd Amendment is not the issue addressed by the legal carry ruling controversy. Yet proponents of legal carry within our National Parks constantly circle back around to that point (which is not being questioned by the anti-carry within a National Park opinions expressed here), for what purpose I am not sure.
Ownership of an item does not imply I can or should take that item with me anywhere I go.
Again I ask that we stick to the specific issue at hand.
Jim in Houston:
I agree that crime is real. I've been the victim of violent crime. My life wasn't threatened, though I did suffer bodily harm.
But you know what? I never once thought "I wish I'd had a gun..." The gang that surrounded and attacked me did so swiftly, even efficiently. The lead pipe they used to break my arm and lacerate my scalp almost knocked me unconscious... I doubt I would have had the faculty to use a gun to defend myself. But I never wold have thought to carry one, I just wasn't raised with the thought that I may have to defend myself one day with a gun. So that's my bias.
I grew up in an urban area, and have lived in urban areas most of my life, and to the contrary of popular beliefs propagated by our national media, never once in my life have I heard a gunshot while living in a city.
(Except on New Year's Eve: In the region of the country in which I now live it's customary to shoot off guns to celebrate the coming of the New Year. But such reckless use of a firearm would only be perpetrated by criminals, right?)
I guess I'm naive, I don't spend my days expecting "imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm". And yet I've managed to survive for 45 years.
Go look at the home pages of every pro-gun website and you see many examples of fear-mongering.
I admit I have a strong personal bias about this ruling, and sometimes that bias comes out in my argument. I truly do not intend to be snide, I just want someone to answer the questions I continue to ask, specifically related to the issue these comments are intended to address.
For all:
Please don't quote chapter and verse on the 2nd Amendment or DC v. Heller as a tactic to avoid responding to the issue of legal carry in a National Park.
I am a biologist, and some of my work takes place inside National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I do not support the NPCAs lawsuit, because I view it as a misallocation of limited financial and human resources. That the Brady Campaign filed suit is understandable, because "that's what they do." But this as an unworthy pursuit by the NPSA. The stated argument is that this rule change will place parks staff, visitors, and wildlife at risk. But such reasoning lacks merit. Currently, some 40 states issue carry licenses to anyone who passes criminal background checks and demonstrates training with firearms, and another 8 states issue such licenses on a discriminatory basis. Data from these states (notably Florida, where shall-issue has been law for 21 years) demonstrates that persons with carry permits are extraordinarily law-abiding, and in some states literally hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crimes than the population at large. This evidence flies in the face of claims that carry licensees will perpetrate crimes if allowed to carry in National Parks or Wildlife Refuges; they don't do so anywhere else, so it is wholly without merit argue that they will within park boundaries.
The lack of evidence that licensees commit crimes points to another motivation, one that is likely subjective if not unspoken. Many of those (with whom I have discussed this rule change) support this lawsuit primarily for symbolic reasons. Simply put, they don't like "those people" who would carry guns for personal or family protection. Those are personal beliefs and they are fine, as long as they don't drive policy. But it has been appalling for me to learn that this personal, subjective, and prejudicial bias is what's motivating much of the opposition to the rule change.
As an aside and as a more primary observation, I find it unfortunate that these discussions are taking place in the light of the DOI-solicited public comments. Such comments are of an academic interest only. The bill of rights exists precisely to protect the rights of individual from the will of the majority (eg. legislation enacted by democratically elected governments, or rules promulgated by the DOI). If the second amendment specifically protects the right of individuals to own and to carry defensive arms (and it certainly appears to do so), then this question of whether they may be carried within park boundaries is moot, constitutionally speaking. So in effect, this argument is about whether the constitution is in effect within the boundaries of lands administered by the Park Service ... so the issue, and many of these arguments, are flawed from their foundation. And that is roundly unfortunate.
I do not expect to have a flat, yet I carry a jack and a spare.
I do not expect my house to catch on fire, yet I keep an extinguisher handy.
I carry what I believe to be adequate home and auto insurance, though I certainly do not seek out accidents.
And where prudent I carry a firearm, though I hope to never need it.
If all this labels me paranoid, then so be it.
But consider the following from the National Park Servise's own data:
The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.
And as to the accusation that this was sprung on everyone at the last minute, I call BS. This has been in the works for something like three years and the comment period was even extended to allow additional time for input. I expect there was some intent to get this through before the administration changed, but that's just how politics works. I am sure there are many such actions that are being held until after the handover for similar reasons.
Jim in Houston,
You picked Warren Z.'s remark:
... as his "winner". Myself, though, I had a hard time resisting:
Warren, with commentary like this, you may as well just throw yourself on the floor kicking & screaming.