GROUP SAYS RULE VIOLATES SEVERAL FEDERAL LAWS
Brady Campaign Sues to Stop National Park Gun Rule:
The new rule applies to rural and urban national parks. If it goes into effect on January 9, it would allow concealed firearms on the National Mall just eleven days before the Obama Inaugural Celebration.
By Bill Schneider, 12-30-08

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, America’s largest anti-gun organization, sued the Department of the Interior today to prevent the implementation of the controversial administrative rule allowing loaded and concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

“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 Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, in a press release. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

In a phone interview with NewWest.Net, Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney for the Brady’s Legal Action Project, said his group “is looking at all options,” but thought it was vital to file the lawsuit as soon as possible instead of waiting to let the rule go into effect and work through the long political process of trying to get the Obama administration to overturn it.

Many other groups also oppose the rule, he noted, but at this point the Brady Campaign is going it alone with this lawsuit with no co-plaintiffs.

“The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.”

The Washington Post had estimated that as many as five million people will be in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Obama inauguration, predicting that the celebration might be “the single biggest gathering of people America has ever seen.”

“This rule affects both rural and urban parks like the Liberty Bell,” Vice said. “Some of our members are now afraid to take their kids to Ellis Island.”

This is why the lawsuit asks for a temporary injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect on January 9, he added. “But we’re concerned about all the parks, not just the urban parks.”

The fundamental legal issue, Vice explained, is that the rule violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“They (Interior Department) did no environmental analysis or review at all,” he explained. “When you have so many people with strong opinions on both sides of an issue, it’s important to follow the law and do a review process.”

Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA, Vice answered, “Even Reagan did this.”

He refers to the NEPA analysis and review President Ronald Reagan’s administration conducted when the current rule, which requires guns to be unloaded and inaccessible when taken into national parks, was implemented in early 1980s. “This rule should at least require the same review,” Vice insisted.

According to the Brady Campaign press release, the new rule also 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.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Yellowstone National Park (ID,MT,WY)
Felony Firearm Conviction

On December 12th, Virgil M. Meyers was sentenced in federal district court following his conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 30 months in federal custody, followed by 24 months of supervised release. On July 14, 2006 Yellowstone rangers arrested Meyers near Old Faithful for driving while his privileges were suspended and for possession of a controlled substance. A search incident to arrest revealed a .38 revolver and ammunition located next to the driver’s seat. Meyers was found guilty in federal magistrate’s court and sentenced to 120 days in jail. A subsequent investigation revealed that Meyers had been convicted of second degree murder in Washington State in 1985 and of criminal sale of dangerous drugs in Montana in 1998. This led to a grand jury indictment and issuance of an arrest warrant for Meyers, who had already completed his 120 days of incarceration. In October, NPS special agents were contacted by the Montana Highway Patrol and advised that they’d discovered the arrest warrant while investigating a motorcycle accident caused by Meyers. Meyers was in the hospital in Kalispell Montana at the time recovering from head and facial injuries, but agents discovered that he’d been able to convince the hospital to release him during the early morning hours. Two agents left for Kalispell and found Meyers sitting on the front porch of a friend’s house within ten minutes of arriving in town. Meyers was arrested without incident and transported to Missoula for an initial appearance. The case agent was Bruce Applin.

This thread should not have been "More on Guns in Parks", but should have been titled " Moron Guns in Parks"
Frank

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

NPS planning on frisking 5 million people in the DC mall?

It's a constitutional right.

The constitutional right to bear arms was for the purpose of creating a colonial militia to fight the British. There is no longer a need to kill the British in our national parks last time I checked. Of course, they ARE foreign tourists so maybe it's O.K. to shoot them on Saturdays. They are easy to spot. They wear red and march in a straight line.

Jim

tomdisco have a clue.

The Bill of Rights was created with the assumption that the USA would be its own country, and by 1789, it was and is. And the Second Amendment was created for the specific purpose of enabling the citizens with the opportunity, via self-protection (keep and bear arms), to protect themselves from their own government. Lesson learned there.

Now, the gov't of the USA could easily overrun pockets of resistance from its citizens, but coupled with the First Amendment, we stay free. Erosion of either First or Second and you might as well begin learning Chinese or Russian.

I'm not surprised the Brady Bunch filed suit, because guns are the enemy always with that group. But they're in the minority. Have a cool head and analyze why things are the way they are before trying to dismantle a very, very basic RIGHT of a US citizen.

I happen to be a gun owner(sport skeet & clay shooting). My take on gun ownership is:
- No guns in National Parks...PERIOD!
- Stricter gun control on hand guns.
- The NRA(I once was a member) is a fringe extremist group whose views are outdated and don't apply to our society today.
- No sale of automatic rifles to the general public. For what purpose do they need them?
- I am not opposed to hunting with guns although I don't do it myself.

---

Bob Nicholas

Consider the history of the Brady Bill:
James Scott “Jim” Brady (born August 29, 1940, Centralia, Illinois) is a former Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan. After nearly being killed and becoming permanently disabled as a result of an assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981, Brady became an ardent supporter of gun control. (Wikipedia)

I believe the National Park gun restriction was promoted by Reagan in 1982. Connection?

All rights are conditional. Why weren't you "constitutionalists" interested in "constitutional rights" when Bush instituted warrantless wiretapping?
Why don't you oppose warrantless searches at airports?
Why don't you support child pornography as an expression of freedom of the press?
Why don't you advocate for loud speakers and megaphones in Yosemite valley to exercise your freedom of speech?

I'm with Jim on this one.
We can live without guns in the parks, literally.

Frank

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

What we should do is issue crossbows and bolts to every visitor entering the park and not possessing a gun; these people would be required to carry the loaded bow at all times. People possessing a gun would not be allowed to also carry a crossbow.

This solution to the problem would allow normal people to protect themselves from the paranoid ones. It would also facilitate identification so that they could be appropriately dealt with in a quietly expeditious manner without "infringing" upon their Second Amendment rights. (I wouldn't want to be accused of that since I also am a member of the ACLU.)

I am new to this site (about a week) and have greatly enjoyed the threads involving nature and the like, but when I ran across one of the "Big Three" topics (the other 2 being Capital Punishment and Abortion) I was hesitant to reply, as I did not want to alienate folks before I had been around a month.

that said...

I briefly lived and worked in a country that had a different sort of gun control; one that either required or strongly encouranged folks to carry guns at all times (we were in a constant state of war). While riding the bus to work every morning, "excuse me" was usually the polite way(an armed society is a polite society) to tell the guy/gal next to you to Puh-leeeze move the M-16 so that it would quit gouging my leg! All the while we were adjusting our weapons of mass security, our biggest fear came from some guy/gal boarding our bus with the latest in explosive underwear.

I find myself asking if the topic at hand is 1) one of security in the Park system (you define security) 2) or one involving the high order of academics, Rights, and rhetoric involving the Second Amendment. While I am certainly not qualified to comment on the second, I do have a casual observation about the first: After reading the chapter labeled "Homicide" in the book called Death in Yosemite, I was struck by the fact that the most greusome crime(s) committed in the park's history (the Cary Stayner murders) was done with a knife.

I wish you all a happy and healthy New Year

B



Post Edited (01-01-09 02:16)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

>>I find myself asking if the topic at hand is 1) one of security in the Park system (you define security) 2) or one involving the high order of academics, Rights, and rhetoric involving the Second Amendment. While I am certainly not qualified to comment on the second, I do have a casual observation about the first: After reading the chapter labeled "Homicide" in the book called Death in Yosemite, I was struck by the fact that the most greusome crime(s) committed in the park's history (the Cary Stayner murders) was done with a knife.<<

Sounds like Israel. I'm hope you got through that safely. Thanks for your thoughts on the issue. It is controversial and I often wonder if there isn't a better way to resolve these issues. I cannot recall a situation where the statement of an entrenchd position changed anyone's mind. Perhaps if we could start from points of agreement, I think we could move civilly to some consensus. Just Dunno if these are useless discussions or if they should be handled differently.
Frank

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Bear in mind that the issue here is to allow only concealed weapon license holders to carry their weapon while on NPS grounds. It would not allow every gun owner to go around armed or even store their weapons any differently than they do today. In any event I am not in favor of any visitor carrying a loaded weapon in our national parks. Just because you are legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon does not mean you should always do so.

I think the two basic requirements for a concealed carrying license are for the protection of valuables you might be transporting or for personal protection if you can demonstrate that you are under threat as you move about. I can't see either of these conditions manifesting themselves often if at all in the NPS especially while backpacking. Don't even bring up protection from animals, it's a bogus argument.

---

Old Dude

I don't think the founding fathers, who made these initial 'rules' over 200 years ago, had any concept of what anything would be like now, or for that matter even the concept of a national park, airliner, or shopping mall.

One could as easily argue that concealed, loaded weapons must be allowed anywhere, including the above, because it's a "constitutional right". I don't believe the spirit of that amendment was to assure that people are all armed, but rather to assure that it doesn't become a society where the government protects its totalitarian rule by banning anything that could be used to oppose or overthrow it. I think recent events such as 9-11-2001 have shown that while it was a nice idea in the 1700's, it doesn't work now.

Using societies where everyone packs a gun as an example sounds sort of counter-productive to me; do we really want to follow that example?? Is there security in seeing everyone running around with an automatic weapon? I don't think so.

Instead of issuing crossbows, why not issue the person's choice of an M-16 or a .357 magnum and ammo to anyone entering the park? On loan, of course, turned in when they exit. Then we should be really safe and secure. Does anyone really believe that? If not, then just how do we choose who can pack a gun in the park? Whoever wants to? Whoever hasn't been convicted of being violent...yet? Whoever some official (like our brilliant president, or our very honest and non-corrupt police departments) has given a license to pack?

Why not just do this on airliners too? Instead of the ridiculous searches, x-rays, etc., just have everyone show their weapon as they board. An armed society is a safe society.

Laws, whether fully enforceable or not, have to represent some ideal; if we reasoned that since people ignore speed limits, we should remove all speed laws, it would not make things better. It would just legitimize irresponsible behavior, so not only can excessive speeders endanger others, they can be self-righteous about it too. At least until they kill someone...and then of course, they weren't doing anything wrong by driving 120mph in the rain at night. Just because no-gun regulations in parks won't be 100% effective in keeping them out is not a valid reason for reversing the law, especially when there isn't a problem to begin with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is a good principle.

I've been pretty supportive and tolerant of Bush, as I don't believe someone should be criticized for different beliefs than the next guy, or for not being overly bright, as some would describe him. But this move has put him on my list of idiots...it's an obvious, blatant, special interest political favor that he'd have never done if he was running for reelection. So now I can join the Bush bashers, unfortunately 8^).

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

>>Sounds like Israel.<<

Yes.

>>I'm hope you got through that safely.<<

I did; thank you very kindly for asking.

>>Using societies where everyone packs a gun as an example sounds sort of counter-productive to me; do we really want to follow that example?? Is there security in seeing everyone running around with an automatic weapon? I don't think so.<<

I could not agree more. Folks who can not afford to feed their kids find a way to throw rocks, wear explosives, and shoot rockets.

>>Don't even bring up protection from animals, it's a bogus argument.<<

I smile. One of my favorite comments to animal scardy-cats is that animals are much more logical and consistant about their approach to violence. Its the humans who keep changing the rules.

>>Just Dunno if these are useless discussions or if they should be handled differently.<<

I am just glad that folks are waking up, talking about the issues, and most importantly, they are finally recognizing the power of the vote.

B

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Author: Sierrafan
Date: 01-01-09 09:24

"I don't think the founding fathers, who made these initial 'rules' over 200 years ago, had any concept of what anything would be like now, or for that matter even the concept of a national park, airliner, or shopping mall. "

Does this attitude render the Constitution and Bill of Rights useless?

Nope. The founders had foresight on these matters and worded the documents accordingly.

Stick with the Constitution and quit interpreting it to death. That's what has happened to the Bible and look how it's turned out.

(A different approach?)

Vince, Bee, Mike, Gary, Len, Jim, Rick, Others:
Is there universal agreement on the following:
1. The 2nd amendment states "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2. There are no absolute rights defined in the constitution.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Frank,

I agree on both points.

I also think it's a shame we even have to resort to constitutional arguements for discourse on carrying concealed weapons in a national park. Everybody should just apply a little common sense and leave the
d---- weapons at home.

The State Police, Sheriff's Department, and Rangers may carry weapons within the confines of Yosemite because it is part of their job. The general public does not need to. I don't care if they believe they have the right to; THEY DO NOT NEED TO! I would be particularly uncomfortable around anyone carrying a concealed weapon in Yosemite if I knew about it. Gun rights devotees have little concept of how offensive this can be to other people. Either they don't get it or they simply don't care. Quoting their constitutional right is a cop-out. It has very little to do with the constitution and we all know it.

I understand that many people grow up in communities where guns and hunting are normal pursuits. So did I. As a teenager I routinely went woodchuck (groundhog) hunting as a sport combined with getting fresh air in a rural environment. I also hunted squirrels, deer, and pheasant in appropriate seasons and still own guns today although I no longer hunt. However, nothing would possess me to carry a concealed 9mm automatic to a national park. Why would I do such a thing?

Leave the guns at home and shoot with a camera.

Jim

1. Yes, the quote of the Second Amendment is as I researched and read.

2. >>There are no absolute rights defined in the constitution<<

This is the 25,000 dollar interpretation, I mean question. The word "absolute" is not stated before the word "right" on any part of the document (to my loose memory of it), however, "right" always seemed to convey its own sort of absolute, (IMO of course). However, HOWEVER, one still cannot yell "Fire" in a moviehouse for the fun of it and call it free speech....

B



Post Edited (01-01-09 11:32)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

>> >>There are no absolute rights defined in the constitution<<

This is the 25,000 dollar interpretation, I mean question. The word "absolute" is not stated before the word "right" on any part of the document (to my loose memory of it), however, "right" always seemed to convey its own sort of absolute, (IMO of course). However, HOWEVER, one still cannot yell "Fire" in a moviehouse for the fun of it and call it free speech...<<<<<<

I am pretty sure that all personal rights are conditional (that is, subject to certain restrictions; are not absolute): speech, press, voting, assembly, bearing arms, etc. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Frank

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

i've got the answer! arm all bears with guns in national parks.

there you go eeek! lol

Given that there is a conditional right to bear arms, and we currently have arms already carried by certain people in the parks (law enforcement) are there some circumstances that would seem acceptable (not necessarily ideal, but just acceptable)?

If we agree that guns may be carried in parks by some people, what other groups might be empowered? Clearly the right to bear arms is not extended to everyone under all circumstances. The issue is what would be a good compromise between complete abolition and unrestricted carriage.

For example perhaps these would be acceptable groups:
1. Retired law enforcement officiers
2. Certified handgun instructors
3. Former military (>10 years of service), honorable discharge
4. Openly carried, unloaded weapons with trigger locks, ammo carried separately, weapon to remain visible and with trigger locked at all times
5. Concealed carry allowed if licensed in adjacent state that register upon entry to the park and demonstrate trigger locks in place and unloaded weapons to law enforcement officer (ammo may be carried on person)



I am not trying to inflame the debate, just suggesting that there are probably a set of acceptable conditions that would be tolerated by both pro and con gun groups. Clearly the extremes (no guns at all vs any weapon under any circumtances) will not be possible. I don't believe everyone will be happy, but concievably there is a set of agreements that would accomodate both groups if we accept that there is a limited right to carry weapons under certain circumstances in the unique environment of a national park.

Frank

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Perhaps I got lost in the muddle, because I am not clear as to who is to be allowed to carry guns in the park system. Is it an across the board clearance for everyone to pack weapons openly (ie rifle racks, etc.) or is it restricted to those who have the proper permit(s) to carry concealed weapons?

B

It basically applies to people with concealed carry permits.

To me it is the nose of the camel.

---

Old Dude

Well, I don't have the final rule in front of me (this is a non-legislative lawmaking process that involves the executive branch of government through the various cabinet departments where a bureaucrat will formulate a change to the Code of Federal Regulations; there will be dicussion or publication process then a finalizing of the rule in writing in the Federal Register) but as I understand the proposal it will allow some Superintendent input but generally default to the prevailing adjacent state regulations. I don't know how conflicting state regulations might be resolved. Presumably, even if there is no imput from the
Superintendent of a particular park, then the state as the defining authority can establish special rules for federal territory with the state boarders.

This overall discussion is just an intellectual exercise.
FF

For anyone interested the final rule (7 pages) is published and available at the URL below:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29249.pdf

2F

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan