In its apparent haste to rewrite the rules so national park visitors could arm themselves, the Bush administration might have shot itself in the foot.
According to documents obtained by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, the Interior Department was advised to perform, but refused to do so, an environmental analysis of the rule change's impact on national parks.
The Bush administration in December finalized a rule to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded. The rule change took effect January 9, before President Obama was sworn in.
When his group announced back in December that it would seek to overturn the rule change in court, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said the 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 named as defendants Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, claimed Interior officials violated several federal laws to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office. Specifically, it charged that Interior failed to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule might 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.
Now, in a column Mr. Helmke wrote Thursday, he says there is evidence that the Bush administration ignored NEPA requirements:
...the previous administration ignored warnings from Interior Department officials that the rule was being changed in violation of Federal law because of a rush to get things in place before Bush left office.
These internal Bush administration documents were acquired by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in response to our lawsuit against the Interior Department. You can read the documents here.
These documents show that the Bush administration ignored the procedural concerns and safety warnings of at least two federal agencies in order to push through the rule in time to deny the Obama administration a chance to review it.
For example, on April 3, 2008, the National Park Service's Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule "required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis" and that "at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation."
In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that "The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw."
Comments
"FYI MH, there are tons of reports of CCDW carriers stopping crimes"-Amststz
Hmmm, there are many more reports of people without guns stopping crimes.
But the real point that I want to make is from something that you said later in your comment. "...the law says that after training, testing, and a shooting test I am aloud to carry in certain places, abiding by certain rules. It allows me to protect my family if need be and others if I can do it safely."
There you said it, "certain places", not all, and the reason for that is guns are not appropriate in all places. Part of understanding if guns are appropriate in parks is to study their impact (i.e., do and EIS).
As for an earlier argument about cars in parks causing more deaths to both people and wildlife there is one very important difference between cars and guns.... purpose. Additionally, before any road in built in a park today an EIS is done to help quantify its potential impact.
The very difficult task will come in defending the statistics used in an EIS. How do you compare potential human lives lost/saved/ or even changed to environmental impacts? I think the key there will be in the Organic act... it helps argue the purpose of the parks and in the end, the parks are there for preservation of the environment (not for the ungoverned use of the people).
Also... notice that is discussion is being framed around NPS sites and not around wildlife refugee sites.
MHopper1000,
I'm right there with ya, buddy. I'm tired of leftist liberals trying to destroy the constitution..."from my cold dead hands," filthy hippies! Bring it!!
1. It's spelled Amst U tz. 2. I'm talking about violent crimes not jay-walking or littering. 3. Places you cannot carry are already protected by officers with guns. ie. Court house, Police station, etc. 4. What negative impact on the park could guns have. I'm not being funny I am seriously wondering. Nobody has given one here yet. (unless I missed it.) And there are already guns in the NPs correct? If there are credible reasons I wouldn't have a problem with the law staying 5. Since you want stats here you go...just a couple to ponder....
Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.
99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection.
Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.
The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).
These figures are compiled from the FBI's annual report on crime (Uniform Crime Reports), and from other law enforcement agencies.
Re:2. OK Amstutz... I was not talking about jay-walking... I would include all crimes in my assessment of normal humans stopping crimes. It doesn't always take a gun. A gun may make it easier but it may not make it all situations safer.
Re:3. Parks are already protected by LE's
Re:4. Negative impacts on parks. The most important, and EIS related impacts, could occur to wildlife that encounter or approach people with guns. For instance, in Glacier NP, Yellowstone NP, and Grand Teton NP griz and black bears will often purposefully approach or suddenly find themselves in close proximity to humans. Today people must rely on bears spray and other non-lethal means to get themselves out of those situations. In fact, even in places where guns are allowed ( FS lands) bear spray in advised over the use of a gun in bear encounters. With bears having a low reproductive rate an isolated bear population (especially Griz) can be quickly impacted through the loss of just a few breeding females.
Yes there are guns in parks. The loaded ones are in the hands of 2 groups: Law enforcement and law breakers. Gun owners who travel to or through a park must remove ammunition from the weapon. This rule stands not just for guns but also for crossbows and bow and arrows.
As for the stats you present...they are interesting but they really don't tell the whole story... but they definitely support you stance pretty well!
But this one is confusing "34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed."
is it a percentage of the 2.1 million quoted earlier? or 34% of crimes committed against CCW permit holders? To me each explanation is not very impressive. Providing percentages without population or sample parameters makes understanding them very difficult.
Finally, the last percentages do seem to show that violent crimes are higher in restricted states... however it is not possible to directly link that change to the presence of CCW permit holders.
Many posting here have claimed that this rule change was the result of a last-minute push by an outgoing Republican administration, and was done at the behest of the NRA. This action was supported by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and other organizations, but it was initiated, and guided, by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL,) a Commonwealth of Virginia gun-rights organization that has the slogan, "Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself." VCDL began this effort in 2003, and the effort took so long because the NPS dragged its feet throughout the process, and defended their existing rule not with facts, but with opinion and speculation.
Just a few days before the public-comment period was to end in June 2008, anti-gun Congressmen persuaded the Department of the Interior to extend the period prescribed for public comment. (One might conclude that the comments to that time did not support their view.) As I recall, the legislators requested an additional 90 days, and were granted 45.
IF one considers five years of petitions and campaigns a "last-minute" decision, then that person's sense of time and mine are considerably different.
Still, NPCA, an organization to which I contributed for several decades (but which I no longer support,) and the leadership allegedly representing the retired NPS employees, are still struggling to obstruct the rule change. This opposition in spite of being able to provide no evidence to support their view, and in the face of recent academic studies from independent researchers that find no evidence that gun-control laws have any effect on reducing crime or suicide. I suggest that those really interested read those studies for themselves. (Google "gun control research.") My personal favorite is the multi-year, international study reported in a paper entitled. "Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence" published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy - March 22, 2007. It is available for purchase on Amazon, or to read on line at various sites. If you would like me to save you some time, the answer is, "No."
Thanks for enlightening us VCDL member. And I agree this was not technically a started "last-minute". However, the haste with which the rule was pushed through means it was sloppy and may have done more to harm the process than spur it along.
Also, Yes, there are lots of stats and evidence that guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens) do impact crime rates and save lives. However, where are the stats showing that crime rates in parks are high enough to warrant such a rule change? I have yet to see those. Also, in your list of sources I don't see anything about the unintended consequences of guns. In parks, the potential unintended consequences to wildlife and visitors are unknown. Because of that, this rule needs to be put on hold until we can study the risks that guns have to parks.
The last thing I want to say is the strongest argument against guns in parks has nothing to do with crime. It has to do with environmental impacts (in my opinion). And to understand the potential irreversible impacts on the environment studies need to be completed to help both sides of this argument reach a more educated and science based conclusion. And people keep asking for examples but other than the bear example I have seen few. BUT keep in mind that is not proof that the impacts would be few! It is instead evidence of how little we know.
This was not a last minute issue but it was a late change. It is not surprising that many not in the know of the beginning would not be aware that this rule change was attempted for 5 years. It is also known that NPS was against this rule change. But the DOI controls the NPS and they were not against the idea. They had a hearing of over 50 congressmen asking why Kempthorne was not allowing CCW in the parks. Kempthorne promised action and it took a while.
The major issue was not to protect against wildlife or people but because CCW holders who traveled roads and crossed NPS lines several time in a drive to work and back had to disarm and secure the firearm. I know roads that criss cross NPS boundaries 8 times in 5 miles.
This was ridiculous and this rule changed allow people to travel without having to stop everytime they cross a NPS boundary.
The other issue was that since states allow CCW and there has been no major problems to extend that into NPS since already allowed in NFS areas.
CCW holders know the restrictions about unlawful discharge and brandishing and these restrictions still apply in NPS.
This is not a big deal. Most visitors will not be aware since it is CCW holders only and they gun has to be concealed. Several here has displayed an unreasonable fear of guns . A few posters have been belligerant about their right to carry guns. Previous discussions were more reasonable about how this made it harder to show evidence of poaching since possesion of an gun provided evidence of poaching.
Personally I believe that to prove poaching they should not use the crutch of gun possession. That is akin to police using the same rational that a person carrying a gun is a criminal without any other evidence. If a true crime is committed use the evidence of the crime to make a case agaisnt the defendant.
Without even bothering to provide link after link to case after case of violent crimes occurring in national parks, specifically what superior anti-crime measures or magic spell causes criminals to eschew national parks?
Until someone can provide a 100% guarantee that criminals can not enter, then there is just as much reason to provide for self defense in those areas as in any other. In fact, the remote locations and relative scarcity of any type of official presence makes a good argument that such areas are MORE important to provide for one's own safety and self defense.
I hate to break it to you, but there are already, and always have been, armed people in national parks. They're called "criminals".
Sure, crime rates are relatively low in such places. Perhaps citing the statistics will make the victims feel better about the fact that they were victimized, or the families of victims feel less grief over the senseless death of their loved one.
Opining that there is no "need" to defend oneself and one's family in any specific place is akin to saying that there is no "need" to breathe there. We ALWAYS have the right and duty to defend ourselves and our families...no matter how remote the chances of actually being required to. Singling out certain places because of some emotion laden, completely irrelevant "feeling" that it's not "needed" is simply ridiculous.
Finally, the effort to change this rule began some six years ago, required two petitions for rule making to the Department of Interior, required a lengthy public comment period which was extended and the decision delayed in order to allow more public comment (which were overwhelmingly in support of the chnage, the Brady claims of being ignored notwithstanding), before the new rule (which had the support of over half the Senate) was implemented.
This was hardly a "last hour" action of the Bush Administration. That claim is nothing more than rhetoric and posturing from people who can't tolerate the idea of free people not acquiescing to their control.