No Appeal of Concealed Carry in Parks Decision:
The Obama Administration has decided not to appeal a federal court decision striking down an Interior Department rule allowing concealed carry in National Parks. A federal district court had voided the rule due to the government's failure to conduct an environmental impact statement, or even an environmental assessment, before adopting the rule. According to the NYT, the Administration is "not completely discarding the Bush rule and that officials intended to complete an environmental impact statement on the possible effects of the rule, as well as a range of alternatives."
Related Posts (on one page):
- No Appeal of Concealed Carry in Parks Decision:
- Does Concealed Carry Significantly Affect the Environment?
Oh you mean Reagan?
1) why did Reagan institute the rule to begin with?
2) why didn't Bush I revoke it?
3) why didn't GOP pass legislation during Clinton when they had the house and the senate?
4) why didn't Bush II do this at the beginning of his presidency, along with stem cells and mexico city?
This is annoying. One of the main arteries where I live is a federal parkway. I was hoping that federal law would come into line with my state's law.
Hopefully though, the sheer idiocy of the argument that won in a friendly courtroom will help spur a legislative solution. Assuming of course that Obama signs Sen. Baucus et al's bill.
I've spent extensive time in my life in Western Federal Parks, as well as BLM managed wilderness areas, in high country and on desert floors. Often I've encountered strangers who carried sidearms openly in these places. This has not caused me undue concern, and generally, I consider it to be a sign that these strangers are not a personal threat. If I encountered a stranger in these places, who subsequently offered a glimpse of a concealed holstered weapon, I would immediately feel threatened by this individual, and wonder what caused the person to believe they needed to obfuscate the fact they were armed with a deadly weapon. This does serve to secure the peace, nor is it a deterrent against assault. It is instead the act of a coward.
The problem is that the current rule prohibits ANY carrying of a loaded firearm. Many of those of us who are now defending the adopted rule actually wanted the rule to allow open carry as well as concealed carry to the extent allowed by state law. Not allowing open carry in parks is unrealistic during hot summer days.
I do not believe the weapons ban in Federal Parks is proper, but this still is a far thing from concealed carry, which I personally believe is a theft of my personal liberty, in that individuals are allowed to hide the fact that they are armed with a deadly weapon. This is the behaviour of card cheats, outlaws, and other lowlifes. Quit trying to make a 2nd Amendment issue out of concealed carry.
Nope. You've got the right that people not assault you. You never had any right that they not be able to assault you, or share with you how effective they'd be at doing it.
What's next, you're going to demand that martial artists have "MA" tattooed on their foreheads, so that you know that guy walking by you could take you out with one punch?
Your personal liberty doesn't extend as far in mandating what other people do as you'd apparently like.
I do wonder at jumping to do an EIS. Normally you do an enviro assessment, or EA, to see if that is necessary or not. A small team should be able to put together an EA on a rule like this in, oh, 1-3 months. An EIS is a massive project. Even if they started on it tomorrow, it'd take a year or more, cost a load of money and eat up lots of agency time. (Of course that may be part of the objective). And it'd be rare that they could start tomorrow. Agencies have rules in the pipeline, and the folks you need for this EIS may have 3-4-5 or more other EISs already in process, so they may not be able to start for six months or a year.
The fact is that most of the places in this country are infested with people who are scared to death of firearms. If all you knew about guns was what you saw on television you would be too. Their parents never owned guns. They have never handled a gun. They have no interest in learning and may even fear that learning about guns would somehow be damaging to their very souls. They fear such knowledge would make them evil.
I carry concealed to avoid daily hysterical reactions from the people around me. It is a small price to pay to get along in urban society.
Knight - are you still in NV? And if so where?
Seems to me that this only makes them easier to shoot the next time, but what do I know? :)
I would guess that only the US government has standing to back regulation. And as much as I would like to see this particular change allowing any party to defend any regulation seems like a terrible road to travel.
.
In this case, the private group "Brady Against Violence" was granted standing on the basis that the psychological impact on its members represents a threat flowing from harm to the environment.
.
The NRA has exactly the same basis for standing, on that logic. Which proves thatteh logic is developed on a situational basis, not on an intellectually honest basis.
A previous article did say the NRA was considering an appeal but did not give further details.
ap
I noticed, but I never thought the Bush administration was particularly pro-gun to begin with, or doubted that Obama was worse.
"Anyone that legally carries concealed and "offers you a glimpse" is violating the terms of their license. "
That depends on whether the state is an open carry state or not. In a lot of states you don't need a license to carry openly, but you do need one to carry concealed. If a concealed weapon becomes accidentally or deliberately unconcealed, then the license isn't violated, it's just moot.
As to the danger to humans argument, that is facially absurd since concealed weapons license hodlers are an incredibly law-abiding bunch, and orders of magnitude less likely to commit a violent crime than an ordinary citizen.
Agreed!
Is it any wonder that people are holding tea party rallies? This is the smothering bureaucratic state write large.
A piece of legislation passed under Nixon that requires the government to evaluate the environmental impact of actions it takes is "smothering bureaucratic state?"
glangston:
Anyone that legally carries concealed and "offers you a glimpse" is violating the terms of their license. Then again, maybe your assumption was wrong and they don't have that license.
</blockquote>
This is true in Texas which requires that handguns must be carried concealed. Only a few states have a similar duty. In many states in the West, handguns may be carried openly with or without a license.
I feel threatened by your obvious failure to understand self defense. Do my feelings count as much as yours here?
Ben P.,
Um, yeah! You maybe have Richard "Wage and Price Controls" Nixon confused with an actual conservative.
Yes, in this case it is. Nixon was one of the most significant statists since Roosevelt, increasing federal government power in areas like this more than Johnson.
When all of the bureaucratic actions described above are required to evaluate something that is completely and utterly obvious, it is smothering bureaucracy (which is a bit redundant).
Calling it a "last-minute" change, in reference to when it took effect as opposed to when the process began, is yet another deliberate semantic choice by the anti-gunners to demonize pro-gun acions. In this case by making it appear to the uninformed that the change was "snuck in" without proper review.
If they'd show a bit more intellectual honesty in their arguments, it might be easier to give their positions more credence.
As it stands those positions are consistently both duplicitous AND asinine.
As far as concealed/not concealed, I don't particularly care, although it is nice to let your rain parka keep some of the rain off your gun when you're on a two week hike in what turns out to be a monsoon, without breaking the law.
As far a not needing to be armed, look at the safety tips page at appalaciantrail.org. I count 16 tips. Four are crime neutral (carry a current map, let someone know your plans, etc). Nine are crime related (Don't camp or linger near trailheads, don't sign registers with gender specific names, say 'we' instead of 'I', etc).
A couple could be classified either way. One refers to legal safety: don't carry firearms (good legal advice, there is no legal way for a thru hiker who is not an LEO to legally carry the length of the trail). Their advice - use a whistle instead.
For years, a local Nat'l Park had police composite sketches of a gent who was attacking solo female hikers. Ironically, the warning poster was stapled to the trailhead 'Firearms Prohibited' sign.
'Call 911 and let the police handle it' has some real problems for the solo female hiker a few miles down the trail.
When I used to take my daughter stream fishing in the Arizona mountains, I carried a concealed weapon. The reason for carry was protection against two-legged predators. The reason for concealment was courtesy.
When the law was interpreted such that "fanny pack holsters" were no longer legal, I had no choice but to carry openly, which unnecessarily disturbs others trying to enjoy the wilderness.
Is this just the ramblings of an incompetent judge who has never read the constitution or handled a gun, or is this the precursor to other restrictive gun rules by judicial fiat from the anti-gun left?
That's because there is none. It is merely the thrashings of the bureaucratic state.
Now there are forty.
Err...no; depends entirely on state law. In my state, for example, both open and discreet carry are entirely lawful if one has a carry permit.
Jonathan-
This aspect has been mentioned twice now. I know from your previous post that you believe that NEPA is a reasonable requirement for this change in policy (to re-allow guns on private land). This mentioned question-whether NEPA was performed when the ban was originally instituted-seems logically reasonable. What is your response?
Sk
That's super for you, unfortunately 90% of folks not as woodsy as you feel threatened by holstered firearms, and concealed they don't see, so no need to feel threatened. To a large segment of the population, guns are icky. Maybe those that obfuscate the fact they were armed with a deadly weapon realize this.
In Arizona, if you are lawfully carrying concealed, and you reveal the weapon on purpose, you can be prosecuted for brandishing.
In Texas, it is legal to carry concealed with a permit, but AFAIK it is never legal to carry openly.
In public it’s illegal to carry a handgun, with a couple of exceptions. The major one is carry with a license.
With a CHL you must carry in a manner that the average person won’t know you’re armed, but a violation is defined as “intentional failure to conceal.” Thus if your coat accidently blows open or your shirt rides up it’s a problem, not an offense.
Note that telling a person whether you are carrying is a failure to conceal.
Of course there’s an exception if you displayed your firearm in a situation where use of force is justified.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.