OBAMA'S JUSTICE DEPT DEFENDS BUSH-NRA ALLOWING GUNS IN PARKS.

[glockman22]

Good info here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation


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.

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."

[unclesam099]

It's only because they can't overturn the law because it can't be done. Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. If they don't go after guns, they will go after ammo, registration schemes, and others that make guns cost-prohibitive to anybody.

[eXceLon]

It's only because they can't overturn the law because it can't be done.

Of course they can. It's a National Park Service regulation, not a piece of legislation. It doesn't require any sort of legislative approval.

They would have to go through the process of reviewing and changing the regulation, which would take some time to do, but they certainly could do so if they were so inclined.

[CoyoteJack]

Well it is still under interior review even though at the moment they are supporting it.

[shooter357]

I'll always wonder how those that oppose such legislation would feel should one of their family were to be one of those "insignificant" numbers that were killed, attacked, raped, or just assaulted. It would be amusing to watch one of those asshats explain to the family that one of their loved ones was killed because he/she was one who didn't like the idea of the victim being able to properly defend themselves.

[imperialism2024]

I'll always wonder how those that oppose such legislation would feel should one of their family were to be one of those "insignificant" numbers that were killed, attacked, raped, or just assaulted. It would be amusing to watch one of those asshats explain to the family that one of their loved ones was killed because he/she was one who didn't like the idea of the victim being able to properly defend themselves.

You must have missed Gun Control 101.

It's the gun's fault that someone was killed, attacked, raped, etc. Even if no gun was used in the crime, it's because of the "gun culture" that the criminal was inspired to commit violence.

[scotty2hotty89]

hmmmmmmm.................. Maybe Obama is only 99.99999% evil?

Or he is trying to trick us into thinking he isnt after our guns.

[OvadekP]

hmmmmmmm.................. Maybe Obama is only 99.99999% evil?

Or he is trying to trick us into thinking he isnt after our guns.

Obama is not evil, twisted...yes, wrong...yes, corrupt...yes, naive...yes, liberal...yes evil...no.
Pelosi and Hillary now there's some evil!

[customloaded]

I know I'm a simple man about alot of things but to me, National Park=Federal Goverment owned=public property=I should be able to carry any gun I want, whenever I want. I own it, I'm part of the citizenry that own it. I have a constitutional right to bear arms on "MY" property!!!

But hey, like I say, I'm just simple.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Obama is not evil, twisted...yes, wrong...yes, corrupt...yes, naive...yes, liberal...yes evil...no.
Pelosi and Hillary now there's some evil!

You forgot "liar". If you believe one word this guy - or his administration says - you need to be slapped. He may not oppose this today, but tomorrow is just a day away.