In its apparent haste to rewrite the rules so national park visitors could arm themselves, the Bush administration might have shot itself in the foot.
According to documents obtained by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, the Interior Department was advised to perform, but refused to do so, an environmental analysis of the rule change's impact on national parks.
The Bush administration in December finalized a rule 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. The rule change took effect January 9, before President Obama was sworn in.
When his group announced back in December that it would seek to overturn the rule change in court, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said the change would endanger national park visitors.
"The Bush Administration's last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law," said Mr. Helmke. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."
The lawsuit, which named as defendants Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, claimed Interior officials violated several federal laws to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office. Specifically, it charged that Interior failed to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule might cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Brady Campaign also believes the rule violates the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.
Now, in a column Mr. Helmke wrote Thursday, he says there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored NEPA requirements:
...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."
Comments
Morons? lets be realistic. Both ends of the spectrum (NRA to the "Brady Bunch") have proven themselves to be hysterical, opportunistic, lying, and they misuse data. All special interest groups do it. That doesn't make it right, but it means that you have to be critical of all data sources. And using fear to promote a groups interests works quite well as has been demonstrated by all sorts of groups.
Obviously to protect ourselves from the hotbed of terrorism that occurs in national parks! ;)
It's ironic that there have been attempts in the past to disarm park rangers in recent history because it was shown that the crime rate in parks was so minimal. Here is an article discussing it (there are other viewpoints out there)
Pendleton, M. R. (1996) Crime, Criminals and Guns in Natural Settings: Exploring the Basis for Disarming Federal Ranger. American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 4.
I have been sitting here wondering how my carrying a pistol while I am hiking in the boondocks in a national park has any enviromental impact. If I accidentally encounter a grizzly bear and am attacked, I should have the right to protect myself and my family. The above post by Cris indicates that he has never been in the back country and a "semiautomatic" pistol or revolver is irrelevant-just hyperbole and scare tactics. I personally don't want to try to load a pistol while I am being charged by a bear. In addition, three shots is a sign of needing help.
Persons who have concealed permits have already been verified by the FBI, fingerprinted, and passed proficiency tests to have that privalege. These are not the people you need to worry about. You do need to worry about the Drug/alcohol crazed individuals and sex deviants that do not wear a T-shirt indicating such that do visit our National Parks.
I personally do not see a problem with the new regulation. The people that do want to pick and choose which part of the Constitution that they agree with and force their personal beliefs on others.
I personally don't care what Obama or the Brady Bunch say. Im gonna carry my gun wherever I want, whenever I want. As an American, I'm guaranteed the right. So all you disgusting hippies can know, try to convince the crackheads you've all let out of prison not to rob me. I've got something for them if they do. And I will carry my gun in a National Park. Leave my guns alone and go after the real threats to this country, like the economy, immigration, and drugs.
While I'd argue that there are very few ways in which 2nd Amendment rights can be legally limited, there are some, most especially with regard to "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Given that this is accepted by the Supreme Court (those words are from Justice Scalia, no infringer of gun rights, in his majority opinion designating DC's gun ban as unconstitutional), how exactly is it that public parks, where large, unpredictable animals and small, unpredictable children often abound, are not considered sensitive in their own right?
And with all do respect to carriers of concealed weapons permits, passing a proficiency test on the use of a handgun seems unlikely to do much for the piece of mind of the average family-of-four on vacation. Did the test include understanding threat displays of bears, bison, or elk so you even know when might be an appropriate time to pull a gun or when to leave it holstered? Did your FBI screening certify that in an intensely stressful moment you'll still be able to put all rounds on target rather than into the crowd in the background gawking at you and the enraged deer? Did this intensive check test your knowledge of ammunition so that you'll even know which handgun calibers and loads will actually be affective against a grizzly (the majority are outright useless) versus just wounding it, sending it into a further rage toward the unarmed family of four?
This doesn't even touch on those rather annoying details of implementation. The 2nd Amendment applies only to what the Federal government can't do -- not to what states can -- and given that any number of National Parks extend over multiple jurisdictions, likely with inconsistent rules, the question of whose laws get followed seems relevant. Why we should add answering this to the list of Park Service duties I have no idea.
The one restriction that is unquestioned by anyone is that guns can be prohibited on property when it is at the request of the landowner. Given that the Federal Government is the owner of record for parcels controlled by the NPS, they're free to place such a restriction just as they have elsewhere. Why would they want to? Well, they serve all of the citizens of the United States, not just the gun owning one's, and they are under no obligation - Constitutionally or otherwise - to allow guns on the people's (as in "we the people...") property. In fact, they may even decide that National Parks are "sensitive" places too, and that the self-assurance radiated by concealed weapons permit holders is not something upon which the majority wants to rely.
While there are many silly comments here I won't bother responding to, there is one that I frequently that I simply cannot ignore this time: "If I accidentally encounter a grizzly bear and am attacked, I should have the right to protect myself and my family."
The problem is that bear attacks are exceedingly rare, while bear encounters are commonplace. Take the Sierra Nevada for example - visitors and rangers get bluff charged all the time by bears. However, a black bear has never actually attacked a Yosemite visitor - they are afraid of people are are simply trying to scare them away. Will a visitor with a gun realize that the bear running at their campsite is simply bluffing? Or would a visitor fire, in an attempt to protect his or her family?
A well-meaning, responsible gun-carrying individual might be an expert in guns, but is likely not an expert in wildlife encounters. This is a major environmental risk of guns in parks, as bluff charges are commonplace, while LelandG's hypothetical grizzly bear attacks are not.
"I have been sitting here wondering how my carrying a pistol while I am hiking in the boondocks in a national park has any enviromental impact. If I accidentally encounter a grizzly bear and am attacked, I should have the right to protect myself and my family." - LelandG
That is the exact sentiment that is dangerous to visitors and wildlife like a griz. A grizzly bear has little chance of being stopped by a weapon that was designed to take down a person. And a loud gunshot meant to scare off a trail bear can often do more to incite a situation than diffuse it. Also, bear attacks happen very quickly and many people who have been attacked while holding a gun report that they didn't even have time to aim their gun.
Finally, you, like other concealed weapons permit holders have been vetted by the authorities but you may still know very little about how you and your gun will react to wildlife.
Here is the environmental impact: While the populations of grizzly bears in the lower 48's parks are doing well, the number of breading females in these areas are key to their long term viability. If a percentage of breading females were killed or injured by guns during self defense encounters with visitors that could be a significant impact to a population.
"If you think terrorism is not likely to occur in national parks (and for the most part, I agree), ask yourself why the government has spent millions training NPS law enforcement offices in counter terrorism measures. Several NY national park officers responded to 9/11, and don't forget that the Statue of Liberty, a supposed terrorist target, is a NPS site. Plus all those dams, such as Hoover and Hetch Hetchy. Supposedly the terrorists are targeting those. While I don't know of any data to suggest that CCW could prevent terrorist acts in these areas, I don't see the harm in trying."
They train NPS to respond to terrorism is mostly about politics and fear (and policy guided by fear). Like you said some if the policy, fear, and politics is, perhaps, relevant.