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
You should notice that the Chief factotum of the Brady Bunch, Paul Helmke, specifically says "allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks". There is absolutely nothing in the regulation change that says anything about "semiautomatic" but it's a key buzz word around the anti-gun set designed to strike fear in the general populace. All the statistics show that concealed carry permit holders (the only ones allowed to carry under the new rule" have been involved in virtually zero criminal activity. Also, look at the statistics for violent crimes in National Parks and Monuments which has been constantly escalating and you'll see that they aren't nearly the safe haven that the anti-gunners make them out to be.
As I have posted before on this topic, guns are not the one's to blame for crimes. It is the illegal type people that will carry and use them that makes crimes with guns a problem. I have been in law enforcement and do not have a problem with people carrying a firearm to protect themselves. I understand...trust me I do that it will make the Rangers jobs a little more difficult, but it is a law abiding citizens right to carry a firearm for protection. I am currently in Great Smoky Mountains NP and have been hiking all over the park, haven't needed a firearm yet, but would feel alot more safe and secure if I had one with me. A law abiding citizen will not be one of the people you have to worry about carrying, hence the fact they are the one's who actually have permits and usually years of training in the use of firearms. As with alot of the NP's, there are alot of illegal activities within the park lands across the country, including drugs, alcohol...and etc. I know here there are several thousand acres that people use to grow marijuana and area's that people use to make moonshine in homemade stills. So if you think the NP's are free from illegal types of people than you need to think again. As for me, if I run into some of these people, I want to be able to protect myself at least somewhat. I know they will do the same to protect the locations of their illegal activities.
I applaud the Brady Campaign for leading the opposition to another unnecessary ruling that was so obviously created to politically placate the gun owners lobby.
Jim Brady, himself a victim of gun violence, did not give in to fear as a result of the assault he suffered. He did not join the Libertarian-ruled gun-owners lobby (a morally and politically courageous choice) to create for himself a false sense of safety in what had become for him a dangerous world. He and his organization seek and support SENSIBLE gun laws and legislation.
The logistics of allowing legal carry of a loaded firearm in a National Park Service site (with it's many public access Federal buildings, and individual State carry laws to be considered) will add too much to the already over-worked protection Rangers plateful of responsibilities. And THAT reality will undermine the safety of our parks. It just doesn't make sense to create multiple additional responsibilities for these fine Rangers that are already spread too thin.
The Bush Administration knew this, or at least Kempthorne and Bomar did, that's why they waited until the final hour to push this ruling through.
It just amazes me that the members of the gun owners lobby, usually a very independent and politically astute community, cannot see this new ruling for what it is. The only reason Kempthorne, President Bush, et al. created this ruling was to try and build a little political capitol for the Republican Party while it still could. That's what I call a political agenda.
The NRA may have taken on the issue of legal loaded gun carry in the National Parks back in 2003, but the current administration didn't touch it until the last few weeks of their time in power. Doesn't that tell us something? Or is the gun owner lobby ignoring this slight just because we think we're finally getting our way?
Face the reality: even President Bush and his political cronies, Libertarians in Republican Clothing each and every one of them, wouldn't support the "I'll take my loaded gun anywhere I damn well please" trend until they could do so in hit-and-run fashion. Because they realized that in a larger socio-political sense, the legal right to take a loaded legal weapon anywhere and everywhere we please just doesn't make logical sense for our parks , our communities, or our nation.
It also amazes me how so many comments we read concerning this issue (on this blog and elsewhere) have an unspoken undercurrent of racism. And so far I appear to be the only reader of this blog to mention it.
Let's all be very careful when we compare Big City gun owners to Country gun owners, because this comparison carries with it multiple levels of sociological factors (such as economic stratification, civil equality and justice, and political manipulation/exploitation of communities) that must all be addressed and throughly discussed.
For instance, how do so many guns get into the hands of "gun-gamers" in the Big City? Where does that supply chain start? What messages are Big City residents getting from the media that tell them guns are the only way to exercise power in their lives? Why do the Big City residents feel so powerless in our society? What economic factors are at play? Why do those economic factors exist?
It's just too easy to rely on simplistic comparisons of City vs. Country (another way of saying Liberal vs. Conservative) when discussing the issue of lawful gun carry, and the resulting conclusions of such a simplistic comparison are potentially very very racist.
Ultimately I guess I'm just old-fashioned. Adjusting to change can be good when warranted for the betterment of the whole.... but I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The National Parks have managed to survive without allowing legal carry of loaded firearms for DECADES. And the millions of visitors that pass through their gates every year continue to enjoy their visits despite the absence of a legal rationalization for having a loaded gun tucked into their belts while they look at the birds and the bees.
Why change that? Just so the Republican Party can politically placate a relatively small portion of the population that feels their "rights" are being infringed upon?
There are no violations of societal civil rights involved in this specific issue. This ruling doesn't make sense for society as a whole, and and for the National Park Service in particular. To support a political agenda of so few at the expense of violating the democratic principles upon which our country was built just doesn't make sense.
How sad and cynical to feel that the only way one can be "safe" in the world is to carry the ability to harm or kill another person.
"Also, look at the statistics for violent crimes in National Parks and Monuments which has been constantly escalating and you'll see that they aren't nearly the safe haven that the anti-gunners make them out to be.".....Ralph F.
Kurt, is it possible for you to re-post those statistics, or at least point to them with a link to your previous post?
Warren, you took the words right out of my keyboard with your last post. No matter which side of this issue you may find yourself, it is indeed a sad statement about our society that ANYONE (any individual) cannot feel safe in a National Park surrounded by families on vacation, children and nature's wonders, without the security of a loaded weapon pressing against their side.
I truly believe that where you stand on this issue has a lot to do with how you were brought up, and all the arguing in the world is unlikly to change very many minds. I have mentioned before that I was brought up in the inner city. Friends of ours who owned a neighborhood market were killed with guns. They had guns of their own, and police determined that it was attempting to pull those guns that resulted in the shootout that resulted in their deaths. Drug deals, prostitiution, gang wars.....you name it, occurred outside my bedroom window at night as I was growing up. Still, my dad did not believe in guns and would not have one in his house. He did believe in an ounce of prevention: strong doors and locks, and an alarm system that he put together himself that could be heard six blocks away. Except when testing, it never went off and we were never the victums of a serious crime. Many of our neighbors who had guns were. In fact I think that's why. A gun was far more valuable to steal than an old TV set.
Now, someone raised in a rural setting where guns were an honored family tradition, tools used to keep coyotes away from the hen house, put meat on the table and maybe target shoot with dad on a long summer evening; someone who had never been sent to buy a gallon of milk only to be the first to find close family friends shot full of holes, lying in an ocean of their own blood, are going to have a vastly different attitude toward them than I, and I understand that.
It's not that I think that National Parks are suddenly going to turn into shooting galleries. Indeed, if you have a permit you are likely to be responsible (though I DO think that poaching is likely to increase somewhat). Rather it is that overwhelming sense of sadness that Warren speaks of. The feeling that we would be losing something very dear to a lot of people. That sense of innocence, of special-ness, of isolation, real or imagined, from the rest of the world, that parks provide.
Warren says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I say, If it ain't broke, don't break it!
Frank N. started off with:
No "presumably" about it - the Court did explicitly acknowledge that no Right is without limitations, including the Second Amendment. However, 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. In their treatment of limitations on guns, the Court made quite clear that this would not be a 'loophole' by which the gun-opposition is going to create or elaborate barriers to the armed citizen.
Frank N. then stuck his foot in a gopher hole:
I'm surprised to see you make this error, Frank. This is exactly the 'clever tactic' that got Washington D.C.'s law hung out to dry. "No-no, no-no! We're not saying you can't have guns - just that they must be disabled & make inaccessible!" Get a grip, Frank: The Second Amendment is not about allowing people to have unloaded weapons stashed away where they can't readily get to them. This is precisely the not-clever trickery that D.C. sabotaged itself with. An argument like this is known as a "sophistry".
Frank N. correctly noted:
True. First, D.C. vs Heller was in fact a close call, a split Court ruling. Second, we have a new, historic President promising "Change".
However, hopes that Obama will act on behalf of the more-Liberal point of view really should be fading by now. There were always clear-enough signs that he intended to set aside even his own left-leanings, to implement his "Change" by leading the country as a whole, and demure from championing one partisan platform - even that to which he himself is by nature inclined. Now that we have watched him fill most of his Cabinet, and take other measures that have often dismayed the Left Wing, appealing to the hope that the new President will exert himself to 'tip' the Court seems decidedly unjustified.
Frank N. repeats:
The longevity of an inappropriate regulation does not 'make it ok'. I previously responded to this argument with the mild example of Washington D.C., which also 'got away' with depriving the citizen of effective armament. Since my mild rebuttal did not show you the folly of this argument, I will use a more-impressive example.
In formal legal & ethical terms, depriving a group of citizens of the clearly-stated Constitutional Rights by making 'clever' regulations which have the (intended) results of making the Right unavailable to the group, was very much in reality the way that "Jim Crow" operated.
"Jim Crow" was a clever set of regulations & laws put in place in some parts of the United States, to keep Negroes in a subordinate social position. Blacks plainly had certain rights under the Constitution, etceteras, but by 'inventing' tricky laws to prevent them from exercising their Rights, some parts of the Country held Negroes subservient in society, for nearly 100 years after they had become legally equal to Whites.
Because the Nation launched a major project to dismantle the Jim Crow barriers, and the Court was a chief player in this project, the legal & ethical similarities between Jim Crow and "obstructive" laws such as those of Washington D.C. and those of the Parks that were put in place in such a manner as to forestall people having & exercising a Right guaranteed them quite plainly & prominently in the Constitution, will not be missed.
The subversive gun-regulations of the Park System of the last 72 years are neither as egregious nor as harmful overall to the nation as was the Jim Crow system. However, they are indeed "subversive" of the Constitution, in the same manner as were the Jim Crow laws.
Finally, Frank N. makes his case that Parks law-enforcement will have a more-difficult time, if citizens are allowed to have operational guns. Being a cop is one of the tougher jobs in society ... but other jobs are even more dangerous, causing more injuries and more fatalities, and much larger numbers of ordinary citizens serve as workers in these roles. It's tough being a commercial fisherman; it's tough doing your job for the Army in Iraq; it's tough doing your job in the coal mines of Virginia, or with the logging industry in Oregon - and it's dangerous work in those jobs, more dangerous than Park law enforcement. Overall, law enforcement is the 10th most dangerous job, put a good chunk of America more in the line of deadly fire than cops.
Another option that might make better sense that trying to maintain a fragmented independent Park enforcement, is to hand over enforcement-duties in some Park units to the cities, counties & States in which they are embedded. These jurisdictions already have fully-developed police-systems, and are often, probably usually, better-prepared to do what needs done on Park turf, than the Park itself.
The way the new concealed carry Parks gun regulation was worded to put the basis of firearms-authorization with the local jurisdiction (the State & County) in which the Park is located, is suggestive that we might be headed in this direction. In many Park-situations, I think this would be an overall enforcement-improvement.
Frank N, this is probably the story you're recalling considering crime stats for the national parks.
Warren Z. said:
I am aware that there are various 'forces' & 'camps' in the gun-opposition line-up, but I have not seen anything that communicated to me that the Brady entity is recognized by other gun-control groups as their leader, or that Brady acts as de facto leader of the field. Is your characterization of Brady as the leader actually meant to be descriptive? If so, can you provide a reference that independently makes this clear?
Warren Z. thinks the new Parks' gun-regulation was:
Hmm. There is a powerful gun-lobby, of course. Has been, for many decades. The lobby per se is able to do some things, but like other comparable lobbies, they spend much of their time & effort generally greasing the wheels of politics. Most fellow gun-owners that I know, however, view the NRA etc as basically a more politically-agreeable Greenpeace or Sierra Club, in that we take it for granted that the real object of NRA's passion (and all other such lobbies), is themselves.
Owning a gun does not make me or most others so brain-dead as to imagine that, like the Brady group, their main promotional objective isn't themselves. It is. They're in politics, for the politics. They are their own stock in trade.
I think you'd do better, digging a little deeper for a more-realistic explanation of how the new Parks' gun-regulation came to be.
More realistically, a very large constituency of voting Americans support the Second Amendment, and it is their clout at the ballot box that our Legislators are primarily responding to (as they should) rather than any "lobby".
Warren Z. plays fast with the facts:
Those who have been watching the process know that it is of several years duration, and describing it as happening in "the last few weeks" of Bush's tenure is hyper-rhetorical, at best.
Warren Z. makes a major sub-plot of painting the problem as "Libertarians". Sir, I've been following the Libertarian platform since JFK was running circles around it ... and neither I nor anyone else has ever seen them make a going concern of it. The Libertarians are an ineffective political delusion, and whatever is haywire with the country, they certainly never had the wherewithal to force it upon us. Venting at Libertarians is tilting at windmills. (Besides, what happened to the Neocons?)
Warren Z. tempts me:
And now, they can survive & thrive with firearms, in overdue lawful compliance with the Constitution, for CENTURIES.