Obama defends NPS carry ???

[OM44]

I think he's tyring to get us to think he is on our side, just before he
hits us "up side of the head".

He's trying to get on our good side so we'll go to sleep and let him
get away with his real plans.

Stay awake, y'all!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[miklcolt45]

I dunno, he flip flops more than any politician I can remember. ( although I'm happy about this flip)
I expect tomorrow we'll wake up to find that Obama is really a white guy in his 60's.

I keep hearing he is the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter,
so...

[JusticeDun]

Let me guess, he supports it until he doesn't support it anymore. Don't be fooled people, Obama is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

[DaveH]

Probably realise they don't have an overwhelming chance at overturning it. When you can't beat 'em, join 'em. This allows the administration to say, "see, we are pro gun rights and ONLY seek REASONALBLE gun restrictions." (when they come up with the next attack on gun rights). They will be able to point at the National Parks carry law as one they supported.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I'm not a believer, yet. I'm not from Missouri, but I need more to show me.

[miklcolt45]

Okay, here is a link and the text of the article from the Washington Post.

washingtonpost.com

Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns
But Interior Is Reviewing Measure, Which Allows Concealed Firearms in Parks

By 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.
ad_icon

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 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."

[Rock and Glock]

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9

First, the Regulation has been published, and had a specified "Effective Date";

Second, Salazar was a pro 2A IIRC (but I just moved to CO);

Third, who knows how Holder thinks?

Like my wife says, "Who knows what a dog thinks......."

[mcp1810]

I see a couple of possibilities here. They go public supporting it now, but then say after the review that it has to go. Or, they support it as others have said knowing it will be renered moot by some later act. Or, they have discovered the environmental benefit of all the gun grabbers staying out of the parks because they are so scared!

[tinkerinWstuff]

I'm not a believer, yet. I'm not from Missouri, but I need more to show me.

I'm not sure if you understood me. I wasn't saying the administration is pro 2A. I'm saying this was a tacticle play and about choosing battles they feel they can win and will have the most affect. The administration can't just willy-nilly oppose every gun law out there or they will get a reputation and the opposition will build against them. If they weren't going to win this battle anyway, they may as well claim to have supported it. That way they earn some "political capital" to spend when it counts.

"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."

Aren't the tree huggers complaining about overcrowding and over use of the parks anyway? Sounds like a win-win to me!

[Glock30SF]

[InspectorGadget]

Maybe with the "Obama scare" increasing gun ownership, CCW permits, etc, the Obama administration is realizing that we are a force in numbers, and won't be winning our votes by ******* us off...

...hahaha! unlikely...but who knows?

Actually that is more likely than anything else. We (Concealed Carry and Open Carry) are a force to be reckoned with both Republican and Democrat. If he picks this fight a lot of Moderate Democrats will turn on him and he will start having serious problems passing bills. Being publicly Anti-Gun has sunk a number of national politicians. They now avoid gun issues altogether on the national stage.

[Hopyard]

Guys, hate to break it to you but this has nothing to do with politics at all. No grand strategy whatsoever. What is happening is just the routine of the justice department defending the regulations put in place by one of the US's Agencies. A suit was filed and Uncle has to defend the suit.

The Justice Department will defend about any existing regulation challenged in court because they have no choice. Its a dirty job and someone has to do it.

[DOGOFWAR01]

I hope no one believes this crap. Why would he care what you carry if there is nothing to shoot from the gun?

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...rted-ammo.html

All American - Roger that. You are 110% on track, divert the brain washed attention, suck them in then cut ammo supply from overseas (all those AK's, SKS's, etc only ammo you have is what you have today) that only leaves a few ammo makers in the USA to deal with then we drive them out of business by 2016 with requiring a serial number on every round ! then in 2016 all those reloading supplies and stored ammo "those people" have is illegal to own, we can just throw them in jail as Felon's. the end.

[BlackPR]

It is what it is. Brady is suing. The environmental review that the DOI is doing is probably a good idea, since that's the premise of the whole brady suit. So the DOI does the review, Justice gets to say, "throw out this case, because we're doing the review and we don't expect anything to change...." and zing -- the case gets tossed.

That's what I expect to happen, anyway. This isn't a bad thing. This is Obama's DOJ kicking Brady squarely in the cajones.

Although it is standard for the DOJ to support the DOI's rules, I disagree with the previous poster who said it's just a standard fight. The government can be pretty good at not fighting back.

[cdwolf]

Actually that is more likely than anything else. We (Concealed Carry and Open Carry) are a force to be reckoned with both Republican and Democrat. If he picks this fight a lot of Moderate Democrats will turn on him and he will start having serious problems passing bills. Being publicly Anti-Gun has sunk a number of national politicians. They now avoid gun issues altogether on the national stage.

I think he will keep out of this fight at first. He will be attacking ammo supplies from backstage.
If the bailout turns out to be a failure and he's looking at defeat in the next election the Democratic party will wield him like Excalibur.

He's a yes man..How many times did he vote present.

They want as much done as possible while they hold the majority in the house and senate.
How much damage could they do??
He hasn't been President a month yet.

ETA:oh yea..on topic.. I agree with Hopyard

[64zebra]

here we go (sarcasm on) I think the catch to this is:

the EPA/environmental wackos, etc will find that people bringing loaded firearms will be depositing lead and other harmful metals in our Nat'l parks therefore causing environmental damage
OR
if they discharge a firearm the burning powder is more likely to start forest fires
(sarcasm off)

its most likely just a bit of cookie crumb for gun owners, to plant just a glimmer of HOPE in our minds that there isn't much going to CHANGE in our 2A rights

if it stands, and we can still carry under the new rule, Obaminsky will just consider it a baby step back since he takes thousands of steps forward with other provisions hidden within things like, oh...a stimulus bill