National Park Carry to be Announced This Month

waynesan · November 7th, 2008, 03:14 PM

Decision expected on rule about guns in parks | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA

Quote:

Decision expected on rule about guns in parks

JEFFREY P. MAYOR; jeff.mayor@thenewstribune.com
Last updated: November 6th, 2008 12:40 AM (PST)

The Department of the Interior is expected to announce this month its decision regarding changes in rules governing guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
When he visited Mount Rainier National Park for the Oct. 10 opening of the new Jackson Visitor Center, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the announcement would be made soon.

“We’re going through the process. We anticipated we’d get a lot of responses, and we did,” Kempthorne told The News Tribune.

At the end of April, the department proposed a change that would allow people to carry a concealed firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge if the individual is permitted to carry a concealed weapon and is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

The department received 130,000 to 140,000 comments on the proposal, said Chris Paolino, deputy director of communications for the department.

“That’s on the higher end for comments but not extreme. By contrast, we received nearly 300,000 comments on proposal relating to a narrow change in Endangered Species Act regulations,” Paolino said.

“The majority (of the comments) support leaving the current rules in place,” said Sean Smith, Northwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, which opposes the changes. “In other words, the public comments support the current firearm restrictions, not the NRA’s proposed changes.”

The debate began last December, when 47 U.S. senators wrote Kempthorne asking that him to review the existing laws and allow citizens to transport and carry firearms consistent with state law where the National Park Service’s sites are located.

Current regulations require weapons to be temporarily inoperable or stowed so they are not easily accessible.

The NRA, which pushed for the change, argues park visitors have the right to protect themselves against wild animals and people. It also argues the existing law is confusing because it differs from regulations allowing loaded weapons on other federal recreation lands.

Groups such as the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the NPCA oppose any change. They say allowing guns in parks and refuges will only put people and wildlife in danger.

While the rule may not change in our favor, I don't think I would consider the opinions of those quoted above as a true assessment of the situation as it is.
Man, I hope this change goes through before January 20th.

tns0038 · November 7th, 2008, 05:28 PM

Considering 47 Senators what it changed, I would hope the park service will make those changes.

And accredit the bad emails to the typical tree hungers, who are afraid of there own shadow.

Thanks for keeping us posted...

tinkerinWstuff · November 7th, 2008, 06:07 PM

I was wondering about the status of this and combed the net last week looking for an update. Thanks for sharing.

TriggerFingr · November 7th, 2008, 09:24 PM

I take it this over rides active and retired LEOs? What about HR 218 ?

Stranger · November 7th, 2008, 09:32 PM

I remember looking at many, many pages of comments and a massive majority was for lifting the ban. There was maybe 1 against lifting the ban to every 20 for lifting it. This was before they extended the comment period...something just doesn't add up.

past60 · November 8th, 2008, 11:19 AM

The math doesn't make sense. If less than 140,000 people commented, that means less than 70,000 were in favor. Given the importance of this topic to most of us and assuming that there are 2 million CCW's in the country (?), that means that only 3.5 percent of us responded. That doesn't seem realistic.

Supertac45 · November 8th, 2008, 08:16 PM

Considering the recent election, this topic is dead. That was the reason for the delay on a decision, CCW will not be happening in National Parks. Just me.

Erik · November 8th, 2008, 08:23 PM

^ That's my read on the matter.

sohmdaddy · November 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM

I didn't know it was up for consideration, I wish I could have sent an email.

dogrunner · November 8th, 2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriggerFingr

I take it this over rides active and retired LEOs? What about HR 218 ?

Yep, it over rides LEOSA............but, I well recall when several local judges decided that no LEOs would carry in their court......Our response was an unequivocal "well, then you are on your own.......we will NOT attempt to intervene in an armed confrontation in your court".......Had the sum effect of really angering them but didn't result in any change.......Frankly, my reaction'd be the same with an ongoing assault on a park ranger...........disarm me and you'd best have no expectation of any help from me!

FlyboyLDB · November 8th, 2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supertac45

Considering the recent election, this topic is dead. That was the reason for the delay on a decision, CCW will not be happening in National Parks. Just me.

Yep, it is dead. I would say his appointed members have already weighed in on the matter. So to all who voted for him - Happy Obama Day!

sgtD · November 8th, 2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger

I remember looking at many, many pages of comments and a massive majority was for lifting the ban. There was maybe 1 against lifting the ban to every 20 for lifting it. This was before they extended the comment period...something just doesn't add up.

perhaps the Brady's and the members of the other groups who are against it did some serious work during the extension period?

HKR · November 8th, 2008, 09:53 PM

Decision expected on rule about guns in parks

Quote:

JEFFREY P. MAYOR; jeff.mayor@thenewstribune.com
Published: November 6th, 2008 12:30 AM
The Department of the Interior is expected to announce this month its decision regarding changes in rules governing guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

When he visited Mount Rainier National Park for the Oct. 10 opening of the new Jackson Visitor Center, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the announcement would be made soon.

“We’re going through the process. We anticipated we’d get a lot of responses, and we did,” Kempthorne told The News Tribune.

At the end of April, the department proposed a change that would allow people to carry a concealed firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge if the individual is permitted to carry a concealed weapon and is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

The department received 130,000 to 140,000 comments on the proposal, said Chris Paolino, deputy director of communications for the department.

“That’s on the higher end for comments but not extreme. By contrast, we received nearly 300,000 comments on proposal relating to a narrow change in Endangered Species Act regulations,” Paolino said.

“The majority (of the comments) support leaving the current rules in place,” said Sean Smith, Northwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, which opposes the changes. “In other words, the public comments support the current firearm restrictions, not the NRA’s proposed changes.”

The debate began last December, when 47 U.S. senators wrote Kempthorne asking that him to review the existing laws and allow citizens to transport and carry firearms consistent with state law where the National Park Service’s sites are located.

Current regulations require weapons to be temporarily inoperable or stowed so they are not easily accessible.

The NRA, which pushed for the change, argues park visitors have the right to protect themselves against wild animals and people. It also argues the existing law is confusing because it differs from regulations allowing loaded weapons on other federal recreation lands.

Groups such as the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the NPCA oppose any change. They say allowing guns in parks and refuges will only put people and wildlife in danger.

Tenring · November 8th, 2008, 10:11 PM

This entire subject got slow rolled until after the election by those wanting the restrictions left in place. They knew there was going to be a new Administration and knew what it was likely to look like.

No bureaucrat in his right mind is going to risk his job by approving relaxed rules now it's clear this viciously antigun Administration is taking control. They take the names of their enemies and act on them. Nobody is going to want to go against them on this issue.

The 2nd Amendment is going to get deep sixed again by the clever maneuverings of the Left.

DOGOFWAR01 · November 9th, 2008, 12:13 AM

The Park Rangers and whomever else are worried about their job security not the Citizens or the U.S. Constitution or the Second Amendment.

They voted for their pocket book just like most did last Tuesday.

KenInColo · November 9th, 2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

“The majority (of the comments) support leaving the current rules in place,” said Sean Smith, Northwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, which opposes the changes. “In other words, the public comments support the current firearm restrictions, not the NRA’s proposed changes.”

I think that's a lie.

I also think like a couple other posters: They dragged this out until after the election cause they had an idea how it would turn out.

I also think the park rangers were "fraidy skairt" to tell their [Dem/lib] bosses & committee chairmen how they really felt.

November 7th, 2008, 06:07 PM	#3
tinkerinWstuff Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Colorado Front Range Posts: 1,211	I was wondering about the status of this and combed the net last week looking for an update. Thanks for sharing. __________________ "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun." Who is John Galt?

November 8th, 2008, 11:19 AM	#6
past60 Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: michigan Posts: 69	National Park Carry to be Announced This Month The math doesn't make sense. If less than 140,000 people commented, that means less than 70,000 were in favor. Given the importance of this topic to most of us and assuming that there are 2 million CCW's in the country (?), that means that only 3.5 percent of us responded. That doesn't seem realistic.

November 8th, 2008, 08:16 PM	#7
Supertac45 VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan's U.P. Posts: 3,355	Considering the recent election, this topic is dead. That was the reason for the delay on a decision, CCW will not be happening in National Parks. Just me. __________________ Les Baer 45 Sig Man N.R.A. Patron Life Member M.C.R.G.O.

November 8th, 2008, 08:23 PM	#8
Erik Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 385	^ That's my read on the matter. __________________ God, country, family.

November 8th, 2008, 10:11 PM	#14
Tenring Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 57	This entire subject got slow rolled until after the election by those wanting the restrictions left in place. They knew there was going to be a new Administration and knew what it was likely to look like. No bureaucrat in his right mind is going to risk his job by approving relaxed rules now it's clear this viciously antigun Administration is taking control. They take the names of their enemies and act on them. Nobody is going to want to go against them on this issue. The 2nd Amendment is going to get deep sixed again by the clever maneuverings of the Left. __________________ "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. . . ." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright (June 5, 1824)

November 7th, 2008, 05:28 PM	#2
tns0038 VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 2,017	Considering 47 Senators what it changed, I would hope the park service will make those changes. And accredit the bad emails to the typical tree hungers, who are afraid of there own shadow. Thanks for keeping us posted...

November 7th, 2008, 09:24 PM	#4
TriggerFingr New Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Northern California Posts: 11	I take it this over rides active and retired LEOs? What about HR 218 ?

November 7th, 2008, 09:32 PM	#5
Stranger Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 93	I remember looking at many, many pages of comments and a massive majority was for lifting the ban. There was maybe 1 against lifting the ban to every 20 for lifting it. This was before they extended the comment period...something just doesn't add up.

November 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM	#9
sohmdaddy Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 17	I didn't know it was up for consideration, I wish I could have sent an email.

November 9th, 2008, 12:13 AM	#15
DOGOFWAR01 Ex Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: WYOMING Posts: 562	The Park Rangers and whomever else are worried about their job security not the Citizens or the U.S. Constitution or the Second Amendment. They voted for their pocket book just like most did last Tuesday.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode