Two groups in Maine have joined the legal bid to overturn the Bush administration's decision to allow national park visitors to arm themselves.
Already the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Parks Conservation Association, aligned with the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, have filed lawsuits to overturn the gun rule.
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.
The lawsuits challenging the rule change claim Interior officials violated several federal laws to implement the rule before President Bush left office. Specifically, they allege that Interior failed to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The lawsuit filed by the NPCA and the retirees also claims that Interior officials ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
It was only about two weeks ago that the Mountain States Legal Foundation entered the fray. The Denver-based foundation filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the Interior Department because it didn't think Interior lawyers would argue adamantly enough on behalf of its members.
Federal Defendants are charged by law with representing the public interest of the citizens of the United States, not the more narrow and “parochial” interests of MSLF’s members. MSLF’s members have expended time, money, and effort to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. Because only a small fraction of the general public obtains such licenses, Federal Defendants’ obligation to represent the interests of the general public, most of whom do not have concealed carry licenses, is at odds with the interests of MSLF’s members. At best there is a partial congruence of interests, which does not guarantee the adequacy of the representation.
The latest to enter the legal battle are Friends of Acadia, a non-profit that advocates and works in behalf of Acadia National Park, and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.
The Maine groups contend that, "Acadia National Park is not the type of place where guns make a lot of sense."
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I disagree that the EIS argument is a slippery slope. Furthermore, I disagree with the response to issue 8. The demographic differences between NPS visitors and other site's visitors makes extrapolation of those study results unreliable.
The conveniences found in many national parks help to draw a very diverse crowd, one that is often much less prepared to deal with nature than visitors to more primitive FS or BLM sites.
If a person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in X state and visits a park in X state what is the problem? No laws have been broken and there is no more of a danger inside the park nor less danger outside the park. I can't figure out the amount of ignorance or narrowmindedness in these "concealed" arguments.
Facts and reality don't actually demonstrate otherwise. The application of the results, of the cited studies, argue that parks would not likely see in increase in poaching. That is an extrapolation of data between some very different types of sites.
But this should not even be an discussion about poaching.
As for showing data that CCW permit holders are more likely to poach, I would actually agree with you and acknowledge that they are not likely to poach. However, they are more likely to shoot and kill an animal in a park than someone not holding a gun. Now that is a fact that cannot be argued. Because of that, I think an EIS should be completed to evaluate the potential impacts on wildlife.
Kurt,
I feel like you weren't quite clear in your third paragraph. I think
...a rule to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states... gives the impression that anyone would be allowed to carry "loaded, concealed firearms" in national parks, when, as I understand it, it merely allows existing state law to apply, i.e. concealed-carry permit holders can carry in the park as they would outside the park in the same state.
Mark