Obama admin defends *another* Bush admin change: guns in nat'l parks

[FlamingMoe]

Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns

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.

This is a stunning development. The part I don't get is the environmental review part. How can you conduct a study of the environmental effect of something that has no effect on the environment? Allowing concealed carry in the parks has as much effect on the environment as allowing purple shirts.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hunting concerns, probably.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Anyone who is going to hunt in a national park where hunting is already illegal won't be stopped by another law saying you can't have your guns.

Ergo, there is still no environmental impact.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You're using common sense logic to figure out why a bureaucracy works. This doesn't always work.

 

[FlamingMoe]

I work for the feds. I should have considered your point.

 

[Texas]

I work for the feds. I should have considered your point.

It's all the lead clean up

 

[gumboot]

Anyone who is going to hunt in a national park where hunting is already illegal won't be stopped by another law saying you can't have your guns.

This is true, but if it's illegal to have guns at all Federal officers can arrest and successfully prosecute you simply for having a gun, and don't need to prove you were there to hunt, which could be quite difficult unless you were caught hauling a grizzly (or whatever it is they hunt) out of the park.

Using minor mundane offenses to shut down criminals who are too clever to leave evidence of more serious crimes is quite common.

 

[WildCat]

This is true, but if it's illegal to have guns at all Federal officers can arrest and successfully prosecute you simply for having a gun, and don't need to prove you were there to hunt, which could be quite difficult unless you were caught hauling a grizzly (or whatever it is they hunt) out of the park.

Using minor mundane offenses to shut down criminals who are too clever to leave evidence of more serious crimes is quite common.

Since it's difficult to conceal any gun except for a handgun I don't think this is a hunting issue.

Granted, some people do hunt with handguns (many states have handgun hunting seasons for deer for example) but if you're a poacher a handgun would be a bizarre choice.

And frankly, if I was carrying a handgun as a last-ditch defense against a bear attack I'd want nothing less than a .44 magnum, which are rather large and more difficult to conceal (particularly in warm months), though certainly possible.

So IMHO this seems aimed at self-defense against people, not animals.

 

[dudalb]

And frankly, if I was carrying a handgun as a last-ditch defense against a bear attack I'd want nothing less than a .44 magnum, which are rather large and more difficult to conceal (particularly in warm months), though certainly possible.

Are you feeling lucky today, Yogi?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

See? Obama is the most Liberal president evar.

 

[Tricky]

Reconsidering my post. I need to research more.

 

[BPSCG]

If I see a man in a national park with a gun, I'll kill him.

 

[FlamingMoe]

If I see a man in a national park with a gun, I'll kill him.

Uhh, park rangers?

 

[peptoabysmal]

It appears to be about removing a double standard. IF you have a permit for concealed weapon, why should it be any different in the city or in a national park?

Rangers aren't worried about poaching, they are worried that someone with a concealed weapon might overreact and shoot a bear or something out of fear.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/06/guns.html

 

[KingMerv00]

Uhh, park rangers?

Looks like you are new here so there is no reason you should know but BPSCG is parodying another poster.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yeah. Personally, I'm fine with the notion of letting people with CCW having.. their guns on parks and such.

 

[BPSCG]

Yeah. Personally, I'm fine with the notion of letting people with CCW having.. their guns on parks and such.

CCW laws are state laws - I don't believe they apply on federal property. Anyone who disagrees should test his hypothesis by trying to go into the U.S. Capitol with a concealed weapon.

Set up a PayPal account so we can bail you out afterwards.

 

[BPSCG]

If I see a man in a national park with a gun, I'll kill him.

Uhh, park rangers?

Here ya go, Moe. Enjoy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Aren't there federal equivalants to CCW?

 

[Springfork]

Aren't there federal equivalants to CCW?

Not for civilians. If Illinois and Wisconsin (the last two holdouts) would pass concealed carry, there wouldn't be any need for a federal CCW.