The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department over its plans to allow national park visitors to arm themselves. While the rule change is set to take effect January 9, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also seeks an injunction to prevent that from occurring.
The lawsuit (attached below) was not unexpected. Indeed, what was more of a question was which group would file it. In announcing the lawsuit, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke says the rule 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 names as defendants Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, claims Interior officials violated several federal laws to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office. Specifically, it charges 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 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.
Rules in place since the Reagan Administration have allowed visitors to transport guns in national parks and wildlife refuges if they are unloaded and stored or dismantled.
While proponents of the rule change have maintained park visitors' safety is at stake, statistics would seem to indicate otherwise, as crime data show the park system to be one of the safest places in the nation. In arguing to block the rule change, the Brady Campaign claims its members will be irreparably harmed because they "will no longer visit national park areas and refuges out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas. Moreover, those who do visit such areas will have their enjoyment of those areas profoundly diminished by the increased risk to safety created by this rule change."
Additionally, the lawsuit maintains -- citing Interior Department records -- that more than 125,000 comments were received on the proposed rule change, "and that many of these comments expressed opposition to a change in the existing rules."
"In support of their final rule, defendants summarily dismissed various comments that were raised in opposition to the rule change. Among other things, those comments stated that defendants should not rely on state law to manage firearms because Congress has given the federal government complete authority over federal lands," states the lawsuit. "They also pointed out that there is no reason to allow visitors to carry a loaded and concealed firearm for personal safety since national park areas and national wildlife refuges are among the safest areas in the United States.
"These comments also emphasized that parks and refuges are designed to be havens of peace and safety, and visitors who do not like guns will not be able to fully enjoy such areas if they know that another visitor in close proximity may be carrying a loaded and concealed firearm. Finally, these comments pointed out that the rule change will inhibit the ability of park and refuge managers to halt poaching of wildlife in such areas."
Since at least 1936 it has been clear that visitors are not allowed to carry weapons in national parks, unless that park allows hunting, of which there are relatively few. But under the rule change pushed through by the Bush administration, concealed carry in the parks would depend on myriad state laws, some of which carry quite a few nuances.
Jim Burnett, a commissioned law enforcement officer during much of his 30-year Park Service career, discovered the significant challenge that exists for sorting out all of those conflicting regulations. Here's a sampling of his findings:
The State of Wyoming Attorney General's website sums up this problem: "It is extremely important for all concealed firearm permit holders to be aware of the requirements and laws of all reciprocating states. The permit issued by your state does not supersede any other state’s laws or regulations. Legal conduct in your state may not be legal in the state you are visiting."
The State of Florida website on concealed weapons permits notes, "The Division of Licensing constantly monitors changing gun laws in other states and attempts to negotiate agreements as the laws in those states allow." Even if someone took time to sort out the concealed weapons laws of all the states he'd be visiting, some of those laws may have changed recently, so the process has to be repeated before every trip.
Here's only one example of the problem: Florida has reciprocal agreements to honor concealed weapons permits with only 32 of the 50 states. Visit the other 18 and you're out of luck, so don't forget to lock up your gun when you cross the state line. To make matters worse, Florida's official website notes seven different exceptions to those agreements, so even among the 32 states with agreements, guidelines vary. Are you a resident or non-resident? Are you over the age of 18 but under 21? Are you from Vermont, which doesn't even require a concealed weapons permit? (Sorry, you can't "carry" in Florida under the reciprocal agreement guidelines, since Florida can't "reciprocate" if a permit doesn't exist in the first place.) The list of exceptions goes on.
Making all this a bit more complicated are parks -- Yellowstone, Great Smoky, Death Valley, and the Blue Ridge Parkway just for example, as there are more -- that span more than one state. As a result, rangers will not only have to be schooled on those states' gun laws but also, presumably, carry a GPS unit so they know in which state they're in when they're in the backcountry so they'll know which set of laws to apply to armed backcountry travelers.
According to the Brady Campaign, numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime.
"Experience in states that have allowed concealed carrying of firearms has shown that thousands of dangerous people are able to get licenses. In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime," says the group. "Since becoming the first state to allow the concealed carrying of firearms in 1987, Florida consistently has had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. Florida has been ranked as the state with the highest annual violent crime rate more often than any other state in the last two decades."
Comments
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the rule is aligning with State law. Why should Washington DC be deciding on my ability to Carry in Yellowstone. Shouldn't it be the state, for which it is located, be making the rules. If you are legally able to carry in your state, a National Park should not be exempt. And we are not talking about just "ANYONE" carrying a gun on their person, but about those who have been trained to handle a firearm, had detailed State and Federal background investigations, and have to re-apply and certify at regular intervals. In addition, we are required to be up on all current gun laws, for any and all States we carry in. We go to the range regularly, and in most cases practice more than most law enforcement. The Criminals don't care where you are, or abide by the laws or rules governing anything. Personally, I think it is about time we are aloud to protect ourselves and our families. It is not about hunting, it is strictly about self-preservation. When the talk about 125000 comments to the negative, I would figure there were many times more positive (just from the couple of forums I personally belong to). I hope the court sees through this ruse and strikes it down post haste.
Ted Clayton:
When referring to the Brady Campaign as "leading the opposition" I meant to say I applaud the Brady Campaign for being the first entity to take a legal stand against the new ruling, I in no way meant to infer that Brady was the leader of any organized coalition opposing this ruling. (I apologize if the Brady Campaign is in fact not the first entity to do so.)
However, I find it poetically fitting that a his organization sits on the side of the fence opposed to the ruling.
I too support the Constitution, Ted, including the Second Amendment, as it was written. But I do not support politically manipulative legislation and idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution to suit the needs of a few while ignoring the consequences to the larger society we live in.
As for the rest of your comments on my opinion as written, your own constructive logic says more about your ideas than I could ever improve on.
While picking apart one of Frank N's comments did you really compare gun owners to the victims of Jim Crow laws?? Do you really think not being able to carry a loaded gun wherever you please puts you in the same civil arena as an entire race of people that are discriminated against because of the color of their skin? Gun owners are "separate but equal" because the NPS does not interpret the Constitution as narrowly and idiosyncratically as you do? How large a coalition could you build using that argument? How many elected officials will bring that particular argument to the fore in defense of legal carry in our parks? I look forward to watching your progress.
Frank C. asks:
If one notes that the Democrats or the Republicans or the Greens or the Constitutionalists are pleased or disappointed with this or that, do we parse the spectrum of private political orientation to determine what she is talking about? No. Libertarians - like Greens and Constitutionals - are a bust. No nuance necessary. Has nothing to do with the admittedly complex & certainly fascinating rainbow of actual citizen thought. We're talking Parties.
By reading my comment, it is seen that all four of my uses of the work "libertarian" in my response to Warren Z. are indeed plainly capitalized ... so it would seem the usage was explicit aimed at - literally - Big-L Libertarians.
Frank, I endorse & recommend your use of the phrase, "corrupt, one-party system". I'm not going to be drawn into a hair-splitting exercise over what the word corrupt means ... far as I'm concerned the word does not belong to somebody with a tenured chair at the University, nor some lawyer, nor some company selling dictionaries. "Their butts are sucking wind" does fine with me, if "corrupt" is too tricky to handle.
I do, however, call it "The Two-Party System", a different term meaning the same as your usage. ;-)
I call the Libertarians "delusional", because they think that because they have a quality argument and more-consistent platform, that should qualify them for an important role. Problem is, they can't get the votes to ... be important. They think they are, but the voting record shows they are not important. That's close enough to delusional to fit as a one-word summary.
George W. Bush "forced" his views on us, by getting elected President. Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown is forcing his views on California, by getting elected Attorney General. If the Libertarians ever escape from the Wonderland of their delusion, they will force their interpretation of issues upon us, by getting themselves elected to lead. So far, 'tain't happening.
"the terminology they used in discussing limitations ran to words like "longstanding" and "traditional" situations, naming examples like the mentally ill, felons, schools and federal buildings....."
72 years is pretty "longstanding and traditional" I'd say.
"the Court did explicitly acknowledge that no Right is without limitations....." Exactly! If you don't want to shut off your cell phone, don't go into the theater.
"Overall, law enforcement is the 10th most dangerous job...." Is that a valid reason to make it more dangerous?
"Why should Washington DC be deciding on my ability to Carry in Yellowstone?" Because Yellowstone is federal land, Jason. It is NOT state land. You are not in Wyoming or Montana, you are in Yellowstone NATIONAL Park.
"And we are not talking about just "ANYONE" carrying a gun on their person, but about those who have been trained to handle a firearm, had detailed State and Federal background investigations....."
Depending, of course, on what state they obtained their permit. I quote from Kurt above, ""Experience in states that have allowed concealed carrying of firearms has shown that thousands of dangerous people are able to get licenses. In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime.....""
" ...it is strictly about self-preservation...." Guess it must come as quite a surprise to millions upon millions of visitors to national parks who somehow manage to get out alive year after year without pack'n heat! This has nothing to do with "self preservation" or the second amendment, just as keeping bison out of Montana has nothing to do with brucellosis. It is about political power, plain and simple.
"...And hopefully, as a park visitor, others--such as poachers, intoxicated campers, and thieves--won't put me in confrontational situations....." I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, Frank, I've been around a good long time. I learned a long time ago that most "confrontational situations" can be avoided. I don't argue over campsites, parking places etc. You want it, its yours. If there is a problem, I get into my car and drive to the nearest ranger station. That's what they get paid for. On those rare occassions when a confrontation was unavoidable (never once in a National Park, BTW, despite spending hundreds upon hundreds of days camping, hiking and backpacking in them), I was actually glad that I did not have a gun which could have escalated the situation. Finally, in that hypothetical situation where I might be accousted in the back country: The trails that I take are not the busy, popular ones. I often go days without seeing another human being, much less being confronted by one; but heck, it could happen! I believe that in a hypothetical worst case scenario (which I don't spend my life dwelling on as apparently some people do) I would blast the culprit with my bear spray; which I would probably have a better chance of shooting from the hip than trying to get at a conceled weapon buried under a couple of layers of clothes (or in my pack). In a situation involving drug growers (which so many people seem to obsess about), I figure they are going to make themselves scarce because the last thing they want is hundreds of searchers combing the woods looking for a missing hiker.
Check the statistics that Kurt linked to. No reasonable person can make the arguement for the NEED to carry a loaded gun in a National Park. The only arguement is to prove that you can. Political power.
Oh, one last thing........Jim Crow? Really?
Warren Z.,
Ah, thanks for the clarification of the Brady group's role in the gun-control community. I was unaware of them being the leader, but sometimes such things are the case even though not evident (sometimes, by design).
It is of course understandable that the personal tragedy of Mr. Brady became the impetus for a new gun-control organization (he was shot in the brain during the assassination attempt upon President Reagan; survived, but with substantial neurological damages). While again acknowledging that I may not have all the facts, I think that although the group is named for the man, it appears to be quite independent of him. Mr. Brady may have a formal seat or honorific role with the Brady operation ... but I saw him on TV a few years ago, and he was clearly 'in over his head', just trying to make a largely passive appearance in front of the camera.
Warren Z. objects:
In "D.C. vs Heller", the Supreme Court sweeps aside the characterization that you assert here, on the record. SCOTUS slices through the "manipulation" and "interpretation" issues, as a primary task they set themselves to. Much of the historic 65 page ruling they brought down, concerns itself with the question of what is extraneous & irrelevant to the nature of the Second Amendment, and just what item #2 of the Bill of Rights really does provide to citizens.
Yes, there are costs tied to having an armed citizenry, as provided by the Second Amendment, and they should not be downplayed. However, the governance of disarmed populations is not without costs itself, some of them much worse than what we bear.
I did indeed compare the legal fallacy of the Parks' former gun-law, to the legal fallacy of the Jim Crow laws. No, I did not make the mistake of comparing the grievance of deprived gun-owners with the grievance of African Americans. Furthermore, I took pains to include language to forestall such a misinterpretation of my wording. Any who actually read my previous comment will see that I did not suggest what you try to credit to me. Perhaps you should read it again, Warren.
Yes indeed, the former gun-laws of both Washington D.C. and the Parks System are but sophistries not-so-cunningly designed to place spurious barriers between citizens and their fundamental Constitutional Right to arms. The use of this type of sophistry is the same legal fallacy by which Jim Crow laws kept the Black Man from his Rights.
Or ... those who take refuge out on a legal limb, should not be surprised when it ultimately fails to support them.
The Brady Bunch..an appropiate name. mindless sitcom mentality.
"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."
This comment shows a lack of understanding of concealed carry. Concealed carry permit holders have been through a thorough background check and completed classes in gun safety and handling. These are the good guys. The real "dangerous people" don't care about the laws and certainly would not be in favor of any law abiding citizens having a legal right to carry a gun. That could be dangerous for them in carrying out whatever evil intent they may have. The bottom line is this.... dangerous people will and always have had guns at their disposal. They just don't want anyone else to have them. In other words, allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry guns in National Parks makes them safer for everyone except the criminals.
John
Myself and most of my family do not go to your parks because not everyone is a law biding citizen because I am not allowed to carry concealed, you will find most criminals do not obey the law and are usually carrying a weapon you will find most convected felons have or do carry various weapons. Carrying concealed legally gives me or my family a 50-50 chance instead of a 100-0 chance in a bad situation.