PDA

View Full Version : Administration leaves new Bush ccw rule alone


ravenbkp
02-17-2009, 11:17 AM
Taking a go slow attitude on guns maybe? : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obama-defends-bush-rule-permitting-guns-national-parks/

Seem like good news we will see in time.

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 11:21 AM
I suppose he figures it's a moot point if he does any of the other things he wants to do.

ravenbkp
02-17-2009, 11:25 AM
Could be just have to wait and watch its a positive for now ........maybe just not worth the effort to undo it.

Cypren
02-17-2009, 11:28 AM
Keep in mind that bureaucracies have inertia, even when the political overlords change. This may be something that didn't bubble up high or fast enough to get the approval or notice of the President or Attorney General. (We know Holder is as anti-gun as you get, so I would be surprised if this got past him.)

It may also be that, as yellowfin2 said, the Administration considers it a moot point if they can get more restrictive laws passed. Or it may be that they simply don't care because they figure that CCW permit issuance in a state is already the status quo one way or the other, and this doesn't alter that.

Glock22Fan
02-17-2009, 11:29 AM
So, they are worried that carrying a loaded concealed gun has a greater environmental impact than carrying an unloaded, locked up, gun?

The only environmental impact I foresee is the additional biomass of dead badguys dropped into ravines. :D

thegratenate
02-17-2009, 11:31 AM
Maybe the law was written in the same language as the tax codes and he doesn't have anyone in his office that can figure out what it says.:D

Or maybe he believes only a select few people have CCWs and there fore the law only affects the priveledged, who he intends to look out for.

bwiese
02-17-2009, 11:33 AM
It just means the regulation was properly formulated & issued by Bush admin and there's no way they can challenge it on that front.

The Bradys are trying an environmental attack and Dept of Interior head Ken Salazar may listen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601151.html

Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns

But Interior Is Reviewing Measure, Which Allows Concealed Firearms in Parks

by Juliet Eilperin (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/juliet+eilperin/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 17, 2009; Page A03

The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

The three groups seeking to overturn the rule -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- have argued that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also argue that the new policy could deter some visitors, such as school groups, from visiting national landmarks.

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

"Secretary Salazar believes the Department should put forward its legal arguments in defense of the rulemaking procedure, and allow the courts to reach a conclusion," Lee-Ashley wrote in an e-mail. "In addition, in order to ensure that the actions of the government are based upon the best information, Secretary Salazar has directed the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, under the auspices of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, to undertake a 90-day review of any environmental considerations associated with implementation of these rules and to provide him a report on the results of that review."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, said in an interview that he did not understand why the new administration was defending a rule that embodied "bad policy and bad procedure."

"It is hard to tell who is calling the shots on this at this point," Helmke said. "You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past."

Gun rights groups had lobbied hard for the rule change under Bush. When the administration issued the regulation in December, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, said the shift in policy "brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks. We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."

Bush's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, Lyle Laverty, pushed for the policy change, according to documents disclosed as part of the ongoing case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In an Aug. 22 letter to the directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, he wrote, "This proposed rule is one of my top priorities."

But Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall and National Park Service Director Mary A. Bomar, both Bush appointees, informed Congress shortly before the rule was finalized that they opposed allowing concealed weapons in refuges and parks. "After careful review of our records and actions, we believe that the existing regulations provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System," Hall and Bomar wrote House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000011) II (D-W.Va.) in a Nov. 9 letter.

The national park system has a relatively low rate for crimes or for attacks by wild animals. In a July 31 letter that Bomar wrote to a Reno resident inquiring about the new rule -- which was unearthed during the proceedings -- she stated that in 2006 there were more than 270 million visits to the national park system and 384 violent crimes. In the course of more than 1.3 billion visits to the system since 2002, she added, there have been two reported fatalities and 16 serious injuries caused by "encounters with non-domestic animals."

nicki
02-17-2009, 3:09 PM
I don't think Obama and crew have a sudden respect for the 2nd amendment, rather I think that they may realize that if they ban carry in the national parks again, they may have just given legal standing to several million CCW permit holders to take part in a massive class action 2nd amendment case and the core issue will be "bearing arms" and what constitutes a "Sensitive zone".

For those of you who were at the Nordyke hearings, the Alameda lawyers tried to argue that the Alameda County fairgrounds were a "sensitive zone" as grounds to ban guns at the county fairgrounds.



Nicki

Cypren
02-17-2009, 4:37 PM
I think that they may realize that if they ban carry in the national parks again, they may have just given legal standing to several million CCW permit holders to take part in a massive class action 2nd amendment case and the core issue will be "bearing arms" and what constitutes a "Sensitive zone".

Point well taken. With Heller as the current precedent for the federal government, and five pro-2A Justices currently sitting, any kind of new federal restrictions risk opening Pandora's Box. The last thing Obama needs is to be remembered by his own troops as the guy who ineptly destroyed all weapons restrictions and gave those evil right-wing nutjobs their guns back.

Kid Stanislaus
02-17-2009, 5:18 PM
He'll just wait until he gets a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.

Cypren
02-17-2009, 5:37 PM
He'll just wait until he gets a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.

That thought is what keeps me up and shivering at night. I hope the five Heller justices have excellent doctors and even better security details.

tombinghamthegreat
02-17-2009, 5:48 PM
He'll just wait until he gets a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.

My thoughts exactly...that is where the real battle for gun rights is currently going on...

plm61
02-17-2009, 5:54 PM
He'll just wait until he gets a liberal majority on the SCOTUS.

Not likely to happen anytime soon.

None of the conservatives are itching for retirement. The most likely scenario is replacing a lib with another lib. Stevens in the oldest, with Ginsberg next in line. No great loss to to either of them leave.

rayra
02-17-2009, 6:10 PM
So, they are worried that carrying a loaded concealed gun has a greater environmental impact than carrying an unloaded, locked up, gun?

The only environmental impact I foresee is the additional biomass of dead badguys dropped into ravines. :D


hell they should be happy then, as that would be 'carbon sequestering' and a net reduction in CO2 exhalations.

Obama admin is probably figuring it isn't worth chasing, would take several months of new hearings to reverse. And Obama has plainly stated in the past that he wants a national ban on CCW, anyway, which would indeed render this moot.

bulgron
02-17-2009, 6:36 PM
I like the part where they say that the new CCW rules might keep some people from visiting the parks. What they don't say is that not being allowed to carry a firearm in a national park has probably kept some people from visiting the park. So which population should we care about, I wonder? :online2long:

bulgron
02-17-2009, 6:38 PM
And Obama has plainly stated in the past that he wants a national ban on CCW, anyway, which would indeed render this moot.

I wonder if he'll change his mind when we get the Supreme Court to admit that LOC is a constitutionally-protected activity.

That reminds me, I've been meaning to get a thigh rig for my P229. Don't want my coat to accidentally drape over my gun, you know!

CCWFacts
02-17-2009, 6:41 PM
That reminds me, I've been meaning to get a thigh rig for my P229. Don't want my coat to accidentally drape over my gun, you know!

No, don't bother with the holster, it's cheaper to get a sling for your rifle. :)

bulgron
02-17-2009, 7:02 PM
No, don't bother with the holster, it's cheaper to get a sling for your rifle. :)

Yeah, but an AR-10 on a sling doesn't make the same fashion statement that a Sig P229 in a thigh holster does. I mean, an AR-10 on a sling makes a fashion statement ... just not the one that I want to make. :D

Think of it as a matter of personal style.... :D

Mute
02-17-2009, 7:21 PM
It will take some work on their part to reverse it. Maybe they decided it's a minor point to give to the CCW supporters in hopes of garnering political favors for other agendas in which they want to sucker...er, I mean, garner, our support.

Meplat
02-17-2009, 7:41 PM
If we could just get Thomas to quit scarfing up them BBQ-ed ribs...........:DThat thought is what keeps me up and shivering at night. I hope the five Heller justices have excellent doctors and even better security details.

Meplat
02-17-2009, 7:57 PM
I wonder if it would help if we promise not to leave the carcases where a condor might find them.:43:

hell they should be happy then, as that would be 'carbon sequestering' and a net reduction in CO2 exhalations.

Obama admin is probably figuring it isn't worth chasing, would take several months of new hearings to reverse. And Obama has plainly stated in the past that he wants a national ban on CCW, anyway, which would indeed render this moot.

MP301
02-17-2009, 8:31 PM
hell they should be happy then, as that would be 'carbon sequestering' and a net reduction in CO2 exhalations.

Obama admin is probably figuring it isn't worth chasing, would take several months of new hearings to reverse. And Obama has plainly stated in the past that he wants a national ban on CCW, anyway, which would indeed render this moot.

Bingo! Its just a case of picking your battles... Why risk failing to reverse something so minor in the big picture when the risk isnt worth the pay off? Plus, a by product is, that it might cause some to let their guard down a bit.

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 11:31 PM
Yeah, but an AR-10 on a sling doesn't make the same fashion statement that a Sig P229 in a thigh holster does.
Just do both at the same time. No need to have to wonder which to do. :thumbsup: