TY44934
12-10-08, 11:45
Rule's passage is old news. But here is the link to the editorial board's op/ed piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
"We don't feel safer . . . We hope that one of the incoming Obama administration’s first steps in bringing common sense to bear will be the reversal of this absurd and dangerous rule.
Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.
The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks. The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.
There already is ample provision for carrying unloaded and properly stowed guns in transit through the parks. This is a rule that was bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association, and it reflects its obsession with overturning even the most sensible restrictions on gun use.
Right now, the National Parks are among the very safest places in this country, according to the F.B.I. The presence of concealed, loaded weapons is likely to change that, and it also is likely to pose an increased threat to wildlife.
The parks were set aside to preserve their natural beauty and provide enjoyment for visitors. Loaded guns — concealed or unconcealed — are completely inconsistent with that purpose and with the enjoyment of visitors who do not wish to come armed.
Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next. "
Reversing the rule will take some time. But, prohibiting CCW was one campaign promise.
Anyway, I looked up the rule in the Federal Register. I re-printed some of the comment summary and response section below for you to show you how the current Department of the Interior, National Parks Service has responded to public comment on the rule.
Does anyone seriously believe that the next Department of the Interior will offer these sorts of responses?
See: 73 FR 74966-02
Issue 4: There is no reason to allow visitors to carry a concealed firearm for personal safety since visitors to a national park area or wildlife refuge are statistically unlikely to be a victim of violent crime or criminal assault.
Response 4: The available data indicates that National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are less prone to criminal activity than other areas in the United States. However, we also recognize that current statistics show an alarming increase in criminal activity on certain Federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior, especially in areas close to the border and in lands that are not readily accessible by law enforcement authorities. In 2007, for instance, the NPS reported 8 murders, 43 forcible rapes, 57 robberies, and 274 instances of aggravated assault. The fact that these crime rates may be lower than the national average does not mean that parks are free from violence, nor do these figures suggest that people should be less cautious or prepared when visiting a national park unit or national wildlife refuge. Congress recognized this fact in 1994 when it enacted a statute which requires the Department to (1) "compile a list of areas within the National Park System with the highest rates of violent crime" and (2) "make recommendations concerning capital improvements, and other measures, needed within the National Park System to reduce the rates of violent crime, including the rate of sexual assault." 16 U.S.C. 1a-7a(b)(1)-(2).
The Department has recently proposed substantial budget increases to resolve some of these problems, and our law enforcement officials will continue to work with their colleagues in tribal, state, and local law enforcement to prevent criminal activities on Federal lands. We do not believe it is appropriate to decline to recognize state laws simply because a person enters the boundaries of a national park or wildlife refuge, or because there is a lesser chance that a visitor will be harmed or potentially killed by a criminal in a national park unit or wildlife refuge.
Issue 5: Visitors should not carry a concealed firearm for self-defense because NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are more than adequate to protect individuals from harm.
Response 5: The Department believes that NPS and FWS law enforcement officers work hard and perform valiant public service in their respective capacities. We also recognize that the NPS and FWS together employ approximately 3,000 full and part-time law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling and securing millions of acres of land, a substantial portion of which is remote wilderness. In these circumstances, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are in no position to guarantee a specific level of public safety on their lands, and cannot prevent all violent offenses and crimes against visitors. See, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no Federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) ("the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen").
Issue 13: National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are designed to be havens of peace and safety. In this respect, visitors who do not like guns will not fully enjoy their visit to a National Park or Wildlife Refuge if they know that another visitor in close proximity is carrying a loaded and operable firearm permitted by the state.
Response 13: The Department seeks to provide opportunities for all those who visit national park areas and national wildlife refuges to enjoy their experience. Insofar as the final rule adopts the State law that also governs outside the national park or refuge area, the Department believes that its applicability to these Federal areas will not diminish the experience of most visitors, particularly where, as here, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers already carry firearms which are visible to the public.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
"We don't feel safer . . . We hope that one of the incoming Obama administration’s first steps in bringing common sense to bear will be the reversal of this absurd and dangerous rule.
Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.
The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks. The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.
There already is ample provision for carrying unloaded and properly stowed guns in transit through the parks. This is a rule that was bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association, and it reflects its obsession with overturning even the most sensible restrictions on gun use.
Right now, the National Parks are among the very safest places in this country, according to the F.B.I. The presence of concealed, loaded weapons is likely to change that, and it also is likely to pose an increased threat to wildlife.
The parks were set aside to preserve their natural beauty and provide enjoyment for visitors. Loaded guns — concealed or unconcealed — are completely inconsistent with that purpose and with the enjoyment of visitors who do not wish to come armed.
Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next. "
Reversing the rule will take some time. But, prohibiting CCW was one campaign promise.
Anyway, I looked up the rule in the Federal Register. I re-printed some of the comment summary and response section below for you to show you how the current Department of the Interior, National Parks Service has responded to public comment on the rule.
Does anyone seriously believe that the next Department of the Interior will offer these sorts of responses?
See: 73 FR 74966-02
Issue 4: There is no reason to allow visitors to carry a concealed firearm for personal safety since visitors to a national park area or wildlife refuge are statistically unlikely to be a victim of violent crime or criminal assault.
Response 4: The available data indicates that National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are less prone to criminal activity than other areas in the United States. However, we also recognize that current statistics show an alarming increase in criminal activity on certain Federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior, especially in areas close to the border and in lands that are not readily accessible by law enforcement authorities. In 2007, for instance, the NPS reported 8 murders, 43 forcible rapes, 57 robberies, and 274 instances of aggravated assault. The fact that these crime rates may be lower than the national average does not mean that parks are free from violence, nor do these figures suggest that people should be less cautious or prepared when visiting a national park unit or national wildlife refuge. Congress recognized this fact in 1994 when it enacted a statute which requires the Department to (1) "compile a list of areas within the National Park System with the highest rates of violent crime" and (2) "make recommendations concerning capital improvements, and other measures, needed within the National Park System to reduce the rates of violent crime, including the rate of sexual assault." 16 U.S.C. 1a-7a(b)(1)-(2).
The Department has recently proposed substantial budget increases to resolve some of these problems, and our law enforcement officials will continue to work with their colleagues in tribal, state, and local law enforcement to prevent criminal activities on Federal lands. We do not believe it is appropriate to decline to recognize state laws simply because a person enters the boundaries of a national park or wildlife refuge, or because there is a lesser chance that a visitor will be harmed or potentially killed by a criminal in a national park unit or wildlife refuge.
Issue 5: Visitors should not carry a concealed firearm for self-defense because NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are more than adequate to protect individuals from harm.
Response 5: The Department believes that NPS and FWS law enforcement officers work hard and perform valiant public service in their respective capacities. We also recognize that the NPS and FWS together employ approximately 3,000 full and part-time law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling and securing millions of acres of land, a substantial portion of which is remote wilderness. In these circumstances, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers are in no position to guarantee a specific level of public safety on their lands, and cannot prevent all violent offenses and crimes against visitors. See, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no Federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981) ("the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen").
Issue 13: National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are designed to be havens of peace and safety. In this respect, visitors who do not like guns will not fully enjoy their visit to a National Park or Wildlife Refuge if they know that another visitor in close proximity is carrying a loaded and operable firearm permitted by the state.
Response 13: The Department seeks to provide opportunities for all those who visit national park areas and national wildlife refuges to enjoy their experience. Insofar as the final rule adopts the State law that also governs outside the national park or refuge area, the Department believes that its applicability to these Federal areas will not diminish the experience of most visitors, particularly where, as here, NPS and FWS law enforcement officers already carry firearms which are visible to the public.