You are here

Federal Judge Issues Scathing Opinion in Blocking "Concealed Carry" In National Parks, Wildlife Refuges

Share

A federal judge, in a biting opinion highly critical of the Bush administration's Interior Department, has blocked a rule change that would have allowed national park visitors to carry concealed weapons.

In her ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly scolded those who crafted the rule change for abdicating "their congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts..."

The ruling, which also applies to concealed carry in national wildlife refuges, granted the National Parks Conservation Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the Association of National Park Rangers a preliminary injunction that blocks the rule change.

“This ruling by Judge Kollar-Kotelly validates the concerns of Americans across the country, every living former director of the National Park Service, ranger organizations, and retired park superintendents —all of whom opposed this eleventh-hour change under the Bush Administration," said Bryan Faehner, associate director, park uses, for the NPCA.

“This decision will help ensure national parks remain one of the safest places for American families and wildlife,” he said.

The rule change, which took effect January 9 and will now be blocked until the court issues a final determination, was seen by gun-control advocates and national park advocates as pandering by the outgoing Bush administration to the National Rifle Association.

Indeed, despite being in office for eight years the administration didn't actively move forward on the rule until its final year in office. And then it moved with haste, moving from a proposal to replace the old rule, which allowed for firearms to be transported through national parks as long as they were broken down and placed out of reach, to language to allow concealed carry in barely two months.

Some of those working under former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne worried that the process was flawed because the rule-change was being pushed through without a National Environmental Policy Act review, which is just what Judge Kollar-Kotelly focused on.

Indeed, at one point the judge, who called the Bush administration's approach "astoundingly flawed," struggled to grasp the logic of Secretary Kempthorne in deciding no NEPA review was necessary.

The lynchpin of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. In other words, the Final Rule has no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any environmental impacts. (emphasis added)

In her 44-page ruling (attached below) Judge Kollar-Kotelly also noted that the Bush administration, "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts, including (i) Defendants’ own long-standing belief under the previous regulations that allowing only inoperable and stored firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was necessary to safeguard against certain risks to the environment and (ii) the almost universal view among interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals (all of which suggests that the Final Rule will have some impact on the environment).

Judge Judge Kollar-Kotelly also made it clear that she was not ruling on the issue of gun rights in general or concealed carry specifically.

"(D)espite many of the arguments raised by the parties, intervenor-movants, and amici curiae, this case is not a platform for resolving disputes concerning the merits of concealed weapons or laws related to concealed weapons that are appropriately directed to the other branches of government," she pointed out. "The Court is bound to consider only whether Defendants have complied with Congress’ statutes and regulations, and not whether Defendants have made wise judgments in any normative sense. Accordingly, the Court expresses no view as to the merits of any laws or regulations related to concealed weapons or firearms generally."

Comments

Why is it that when groups like the NRA file lawsuits, it is viewed as activity that does not pursue their politial agendas? Yet, when other groups file lawsuits, it is nothing but "classic legal obstructionism, wasting the court's time and resources to further a back-door political agenda." I am a member of two of the litigant parties. I don't think these groups have a back door political agenda. They are up front in saying that the previous regulation concerning guns in parks worked well and that the DOI's new rule was a solution looking for a problem without any evidence to support its implementation.

Rick Smith


The new rule was a solution to a problem. The problem of CCW holders traveling across NPS lands in cars and having to stop and secure the weapon and then stop again to carry in a holster. Some drivers had to do this many times a day.

Plus the Heller decision implies that the federal government cannot ban guns and carry in the parks. The Heller decision did indicate that CCW could be banned but not carry. So would open carry be a better solution?

I do not believe that Brady people would approve of open carry. It is funny but that organization has justified its stance on keeping guns out of criminal hands. However this rule change had nothing to so with this justification, but the Brady group was against this rule change.

So is the Brady group concerned about the possible environmental impact or just the fact that guns were allowed with CCW?

The answer is obvious. Brady group is anti gun, not pro environment.

Beside how is gun secure in a holster an environmental hazard? The ban on discharge is still in effect so this is just another example of anti gun hysteria.

I expect the District Ct to uphold the injunction and then go to the Circuit Ct where it will be overturned just like the Heller decision.


While you may be right about the original intent of the law, the current rule change should not affect poaching.

The following would all have to be true for the rule change to lead to more poaching:
1. A poacher would have to be able to pass a criminal background check.
2. He would have to go through the licensing and training requirements of his state and pay for a permit.
3. He would have to have a concealable handgun capable of taking game, perhaps a midsized 44 Magnum or 357 Magnum
4. He could secretely carry that handgun on his person, knowing that he had not violated any laws yet.
5. He would then travel to a remote area where a gunshot would not be heard, track and shoot an animal.
6. He risks severe legal penalties, including the permanent loss of his permit, as soo as he draws his weapon and fires.
7. Then he secretely cleans and hauls out the meat.

Without the rule change, this is what it takes to poach: (note this could happen with or without the rule change allowing concealed guns)
1. Anyone with any criminal history takes any gun to a remote area of a National Park.
2. The gun is unloaded, disassembled, and in a case in the trunk as has been required by park rules for years.
2. He risks severe legal penalty as soon as he assembles and loads the gun.
3. He tracks and shoots an animal.
4. He secretely processes and packs out the meat.

Since the gun is legal in both scenarios until the crime is about to be perpetrated, what difference does it make that in one case the law was broken a few minutes sooner rather than later? There is really no increased chance for law enforcement to stop the poaching.

Consider also that those with concealed carry permits are exceedingly law abiding, and probably would not be the people poaching. And handguns commonly carried concealed would be of limited effectiveness in taking down game animals.


If their case was so strong that concealed handguns were an unnecessary presence in the parks, why didn;t they argue that position?
Instead they argued the technicallity that proper environmental assessments were not followed.

How exactly did the previous rules "work well". Kind of like saying my magic hat keeps away elephants. It has worked so far, why should I stop wearing it.
The fact is that there is much evidence to show that allowing concealed carry is both advantageous for the carrier, and does not cause a detriment to other who are not carrying. States that have allowed concealed carry have not seen an increase in crimes committed by those carrying legally. And if having a sidearm means I have another means at my disposal to protect my family against a threat (yes, admittedly a small statistical threat) of attack from a human or animal, then why not allow it.
In my opinion a rule change that increases my options for self protection while having no discenable nagative effects is a no-brainer.

I personally am glad that when I am hiking in the National Forest, or state parks I can carry a tool that gives me the ability to defend my child, my wife, and myself from an aggressive attack. Now, if I venture into a National Park I have to unload it, and pack it in the trunk where it does me no good. Why should there be a difference in rules because I cross a road, or walk through a gate.
That is what the rule change did in January. It made State law apply on federal National Park land.
Why is that a bad idea? Is the federal government smarter than the local government? No, just further removed from reality.


This has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights and everything to do with the NRA's voter mobilization strategy for 2008 & 2010.


Concealed Handgun Licensees SHOULD be permitted to carry within airports and on aircraft. CHL holders are proven to be among the most law abiding people in our population. These are NOT the people you need to be concerned about!

Welcome to your National Parks! A place where you may be assured that you have no right to protect yourself and where criminals have the assurance that they may attack you unimpeded.


On this thread and elsewhere on the Traveler there have been claims about drug smugglers and AK-47-toting thugs and how dangerous some areas of national parks are. At the same time, there have been more than a few CCW permit holders who have claimed that they've carried in the parks.

Just out of curiosity's sake, have any CCW permit holders had to resort to pulling their weapon in a national park? If so, would you share the circumstances? Have any CCW permit holders who left their piece behind when they entered a national park been accosted? Again, would you share the circumstances?

In either case, did you file a report with a law-enforcement ranger?

Obviously, there's no scientific validity to this survey, but I sense there would be great interest in the responses.


Persons with concealed carry permits have demonstrated to the issuing state's satisfaction that they are responsible law abiding citizens and can be trusted to safely and responsibly carry concealed firearms because they are not a threat to themselves or others. After reading the judge's ruling it appears that the Brady Bunch's case is primarily based on an underlying assumption that concealed carry permit holders, as a group, are not capable of being responsible (lawful) with their firearms.

In addition, the Brady Bunch is insisting that, as a group, concealed carry permit holders will use their firearms on federal land in a manner which would essentially violate the issuing state's laws and regulations (ie. careless, criminal, and unwarranted discharges).

The failure of the park system to recognize state carry permits makes no more sense than banning the use of automobiles for fear that drivers with valid driver's licenses as a group are incapable of operating their vehicles in a lawful and responsible manner.

One of the most absurd arguments in the document was the question: why reverse such a long standing rule? I have two words for Brady: second amendment (actually I have many more but those two should suffice).

I would think that a concealed carry permit holder (responsible, law abiding, non-felon, state approved etc.) would not want to use their firearm, unless their life was in jeopardy, since discharging their firearm for any other reason could (and likely would) result in:

1) a trip to jail;
2) a felony record;
3) loss of the carry permit; and
4) loss of ALL OF THEIR FIREARMS (felons can't own them)

Brady Bunch also says most concealable weapons are ineffective against animals. As someone that has been attacked and nearly killed by a wild animal - I would prefer to have a firearm the next time.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.