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
We've geared up and posted signs. Tomorrow concealed weapons will enter the park legally. Our evidence lockers will no longer be over flowing with guns that were confiscated when visitors carrying concealed weapons permits were stopped for a myriad of other offenses, such as feeding the wildlife, speeding, littering and so on and were given a citation for possession of a weapon and a warning for the other. I for one look forward to giving our park rangers the opportunity to getting back to the business of accomplishing the mission and focusing on the litter, the speed and the feeding the wildlife.
"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."
I've spent almost 60 years without being attacked, and I expect to spend the rest of my life similarly blessed (that's what I would expect statistically). However, bad things happen to good people and if I need a gun, I will need it right then (and statistical expectations will be irrelevant). I will try to be prepared for such an eventuality.
As to whether or not a gun would have stopped the attack you suffered, well who knows? If you were attacked from behind without any warning, then there is little you or anyone else could have done. However, if you had 5 seconds of warning and were mentally prepared, you could have easily produced your gun and likely stopped the attack. A gang that brought a lead pipe to a gun fight would likely have a frantic change of mind. Please note that only a gun could have any chance to equalize the situation of one against many. Alternatively, if there were an armed bystander in the vicinity, then the whole event might have gone differently.
"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."
I wasn't raised that way either. However, I'm a smart man and realized that I needed to change my mind on this issue. I realized that if I were attacked, I would be at the mercy of the merciless until such time as someone else with a gun showed up (assuming I could even get a 911 call out). I wanted to have a chance during those precious minutes. The only way to do this is have the man with the gun there from the start of any such assault. This is particularly true as I am getting weaker and less agile by the year.
Carrying a gun is a heavy responsibility, one that is drilled into your head during CHL training. You might want to reconsider yourself.
And just in case that gun ownership is only for mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, I will point out that I am the proud possessor of two Ivy League degrees, including a doctorate in the sciences. That stereotype (see Random Walker's cartoon) is not only wrong but extraordinarily offensive.
Dr. Carl Dick,
Thanks for the circumspect account as an 'outside' professional, from within the National Parks scene.
Folks on this Parks-oriented website are handling this topic as a "guns-in-Parks" issue, but it is really a "guns in America" issue, specifically that some think guns don't belong in America, and it is only a matter of time until their victory becomes overt & complete.
The new DOI regulation, though, (and almost simultaneous with D.C. vs Heller) is a jarring reversal of the broad trend to progressively paint firearms & firearm owners as a tawdry anachronism that we need to put behind us.
Anti-gun factions have long overestimated the extent to which their efforts have marginalized the status of gun-ownership. The gun-opposition has deceived, perhaps deluded themselves that they are 'on a roll', and in due course guns will fade into the sunset like the Marlboro Man.
Now, they are confronted by strong contrary evidence, and the unexpected advent of these signs that the nation fully intends to retain & defend the concept of an armed citizenry appears to be generating a degree of 'denial' in some.
Uncle Lar said (among other ringing commentary):
Several otherwise competent & effective people here have been compromising their own otherwise credible arguments, by leaning on this nonexistent bulwark.
Congress, through its own normal, Constitutionally authorized means, produced a measure in fulfillment of its proper role as Representative of the American citizens - all of them - Constitutionally authorized gun owners & all.
For the record, I am not "anti-gun".
I happen to be "anti-" carry a gun anywhere you please, a gut reaction I admit, though I reasonably accept the well stated arguments and opinions of most of the commentators on the pro- carry side.
I apologize for letting my own commentary slide into a realm of sarcasm and misinterpretation.
That said, I think it's unfortunate that the pro- carry arguments on this website pick and choose the facts and the established case law to support their position, especially in light of the extremely thorough consideration and statement of opinion by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, adopted as the current pro- gun victory, but so be it.
If the pro- carry folks can only think in terms of broad agendas, perhaps that speaks to a larger plan of action yet to be revealed...
Now that just sounds ridiculous, right?
To paint us anti- carry folks as stupid, irresponsible, whining, babies kicking and screaming on the floor is just as unnecessary as that unfortunate cartoon that plays on prejudicial stereotypes.
I personally am not a member of any anti-gun organization, nor have I ever sought to diminish anyone's civil rights as established by the great documents drafted by our founding fathers.
So it saddens me to have my portrait painted with such broad strokes, based on my opinions.
And it puzzles me that such learned folks, as most of the pro- carry commentators here, can only see a broad swath of paranoid fanatics ready to take away all of their guns, and all of their rights while we're at it.
Ted said:
"Folks on this Parks-oriented website are handling this topic as a "guns-in-Parks" issue, but it is really a "guns in America" issue, specifically that some think guns don't belong in America, and it is only a matter of time until their victory becomes overt & complete."
The Brady organization specifically states it seeks reasonable and responsible gun legislation, and does not seek to remove firearms from every American's possession.
Many of the members of the CNPSR carried guns as part of their job.
These are not anti- gun people.
The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller, did not view that case as one of "guns in America", but rather as a "guns-in-the-home" issue. (The dissenting justice attempted to draw a much broader interpretive picture, but once we all read that document I think we can all agree that the dissenting argument is weak and tangential.)
That's how the Supreme Court works, on a case by case basis, writing opinions on an individual case within the broader framework of established case law from our nation's courts.
The highest court in the land couldn't make this about "guns in America", so why are the pro- carry folks?
Because they fear a growing establishment of case law contrary to their personal idiosyncratic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, not because they fear for the detriment and destruction of the Bill of Rights, a cloak of patriotic protection constantly used by the pro-gun folks. Their published opinions here bare this out.
I own a car, but I'm not allowed to park it wherever I choose. Is that a violation of my personal rights?
I speak my mind freely, but the Bill of Rights does not automatically protect me from suffering the consequences of acting with unlawful prejudice, discrimination, slander and bias based on my beliefs. Is that a violation of my personal rights?
When I go to a movie theater, I turn off my cell phone as requested, abiding by a reasonable standard of civil behavior. Is such a request a violation of my personal rights?
One last example/question, albeit personal and tangential:
I am a gay man in a relationship of 18+ years, yet the Federal government, and most states (including my own) refuse to legally recognize the stability and worth of my relationship because of religion-based prejudice of what I do in the privacy of my bedroom.
Wouldn't you agree that's a violation of civil rights? Aren't CIVIL marriage laws based on RELIGIOUS beliefs and definitions a violation of the Constitutional Principle of the Separation of Church and State?
I'll give you legal carry if you folks give me the legal HUMAN right to marry my partner of 18 years.
I look forward to seeing all of you personal rights advocates at the next pro- gay marriage rights rally, we can use your passionate support of personal civil rights.
Kurt, your only sources were the NPCA, the CNPSR, & the Brady folks, so the article is all one sided, just regurgitating their (the NPCA, the CNPSR, and the Brady folks) unsubstantiated anti freedom rhetoric.
The rules change only brings National Parks Regulations in line with the long existing regulations of National Forests which is simply to allow the States to set their own carry laws. Are they scared to go to National Forest land too? If the people who are scared of our holstered guns are willing to go to the Mall, why are they suddenly scared to go to a National Park that no longer infringes on our natural born but Second Amendment protected right to bear arms in defense of our lives & our families? We already carry everywhere else, crossing a National Park boundary isn't going to cause us to go berserk.
They attempt to justify the old ban by saying statistically we're less likely to be raped, killed, or mugged while unarmed in National Parks than on the streets of Washington DC or other high crime areas. To that I'd say tell that to a defenseless rape victim, or the surviving family of a murder victim. It mattered to the defenseless murder victims just before they drew their last breath, it matters to their surviving family members, it matters to victims who managed to survive, and it matters to me.
If that alone were not enough, there is in fact no "right to be free of senseless fears." There is however a right to bear arms. So I guess they'll either have to get used to those of us who have decided to accept the responsibility for the safety of our families, or push to add a new constitutional amendment that would state that everyone has a right not to be scared of senseless phobias.
Dustin,
According to the Supreme Court, your "right to bear arms" in your home may not be infringed, but it's perfectly legal for a government, state or federal, to restrict where you can carry.
As for the sources in the above post, the story was about the lawsuit those groups filed. Would you prefer that in the future I insert a boilerplate sentence on the NRA's position? If you spend a little time looking at past Traveler posts, and comments, on this issue you'll find the NRA's position very well-represented.
And finally, I suppose one could say your blogs are one-sided as they don't include comment from NPCA, the coalition, or the Brady Campaign.
Warren flashes his political skills:
Among the historical American leaders whom I resonate best to, a disproportionate number based their accomplishments mainly on the art of compromise. ;-)
I accept that the struggle over gun-law and the struggle over gay marriage-law both take place in the murkier realms of the human animal.
It is certainly well-and-good to have the ability to focus on the knee-bone to the exclusion of other elements of the anatomy, to give it one's undivided attention and extra-penetrating insight. However, the knee-bone is for sure connected to the shin-bone, and the thigh-bone ... and in the default normal situation, they operate as a unit.
Congress knew that D.C. vs Heller was headed to the Supreme Court, as they were working on the guns-in-Parks rule-change, and of course would understand instantly that having both brought forward together, would have a much more potent effect than each brought forward independently, at different times.
The key variable for both the ongoing drama of guns in America, and the on-going drama of gay domestic status in America is the same factor: Obama.
And no doubt about it, he has made clear how ambiguous (if not schizoid) he is on these two hot-button issues: His first crucial compromise is going to be with himself.