National Parks Concealed Carry Blocked

[JohnMitchell 14]

I was going to enjoy being a legal hiker this Summer because of this legislation. Looks like the whiny little gun haters are going into extra innings on this one. They sure must love criminals.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4634

[b1jercat 0]

Hope the NRA wins.

blues

jerry

[quade 3]

I just read the final ruling.

When the Department of the Interior, under the Bush (43) Administration, decided that it was ok to allow concealed carry into the parks in accordance with individual state laws, they screwed up. They failed to file an environmental impact report on the topic, which is required by federal law.

Honestly I don't care if people with concealed carry permits carry in parks according to the laws of the states, but . . .

Laws HAVE to follow other laws. That's just the way it is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

There are bears in national parks, right? Do you support the right to arm bears?

[BIGUN 1,070]

Which is not just about the "Environment," but about liability and insurance also.
And, as you say is an addendum to just about any bill that affects public land.
Unless, we're leveraging that public land for loan collateral.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Laws HAVE to follow other laws. That's just the way it is.

Not true.

The NPS does not have to file environmental impact reports for some activities, in some cases. The primary case is when the NPS can claim to be following the lead of another agency (for example, if you want to make a BASE jump in NPS land, if you have a county government making the request for you, then you don't need the environmental impact report). In this case, if the NPS wanted to allow concealed carry, they could easily claim to be following the lead of the state that issued the permit (or allows carry) or whatever jurisdiction surrounds the park in question.

There's always a way for the government to bend the rules for itself. You just have to have the right bureaucrat on your side to get it to happen for your benefit.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 3]

Quote

There's always a way for the government to bend the rules for itself. You just have to have the right bureaucrat on your side to get it to happen for your benefit.

Certainly you're not suggesting this is the way it ought to be? Really? Just find a government official you can corrupt to do your bidding?

Sorry, but that shit HAS to stop.

(Of course, that's a pipe dream, but it should at least be the goal.)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

There are bears in national parks, right? Do you support the right to arm bears?

1-That's an old joke.

2-If you want to make it a fair fight and eat up as bear food, go ahead.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There's always a way for the government to bend the rules for itself. You just have to have the right bureaucrat on your side to get it to happen for your benefit.

Certainly you're not suggesting this is the way it ought to be? Really? Just find a government official you can corrupt to do your bidding?

He said nothing of the sort.

Implementation has always been much more grey than the black and white of bill writing. The EIR in this sort of implementation is paper pushing, not substantive process.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

They failed to file an environmental impact report on the topic, which is required by federal law.

I promise to dig the lead bullets out of anything I shoot, or carry non-toxic ammo, whichever is required.

[quade 3]

Quote

The EIR in this sort of implementation is paper pushing, not substantive process.

Not disagreeing with your point, but it's still required.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Certainly you're not suggesting this is the way it ought to be? Really? Just find a government official you can corrupt to do your bidding?

No, that's not how it ought to be. But realistically, that is the way things are, have been, and always will be.

Quote

Sorry, but that shit HAS to stop.

The only way to stop that shit, outside a pipe dream, is to take that power out of the hands of government. Limiting governments reach is really the _only_ option for stopping corruption, influence peddling, or whatever you want to call it.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The only way to stop that shit, outside a pipe dream, is to take that power out of the hands of government. Limiting governments reach is really the _only_ option for stopping corruption, influence peddling, or whatever you want to call it.

it's funny how that statement is pretty much what everybody says - unless they are a fanatic, or serving in one of 2 or 3 branches of government

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

I'd say the only way to stop corruption, influence peddling, etc. is to make people stop behaving like human beings. Whether government is making decisions, or the free and open market is making decisions, human frailty and vice will always play a role.

Government is made of people, but so are businesses.

Corruption will continue until our robot overlords finally show themselves.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Uh Huh, uh huh,...

interesting, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter


perhaps our saviors will pass a law requiring all people to stop behaving like human beings - it'll be the change we've all been looking for.

And the peasants rejoiced. For it was GOOOOOD

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Whoosh.

Do you really think that if government went away all of our problems would be solved? "Just let the free market decide" works great for the price of cantaloupe in Boise, but not so well when your talking about human rights, including the right to bear arms.

Do you really want your 2nd Amendment rights policed by the free market? Whoever has the most cash gets to decide what your rights are?

Sure the government makes stupid decisions all the time, my point was that the stupid decisions are the result of the fact that they are people, too. They'll make the same stupid decisions working for Globocorp as the ones they make while working for BLM.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

whoooooosh

actually, I was jumping on the bandwagon with you and adding to the mockery - I thought you were having fun with the "robot overlords" comment - but if you were serious, I'd still like the subscription


how much does a muskmelon in Boise cost anyway - mmmmmm -

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

They failed to file an environmental impact report on the topic, which is required by federal law.

That's just the convenient bureaucratic excuse to stop the gun carry. It's not the environment that the opponents of this rule are concerned about, because it's quite obvious that there is NO impact to the environment from someone carrying a piece of steel in their car or their backpack.

What the opponents spend all their time talking about is safety - they fear that campers and hikers will start shooting each other. And that's bogus reasoning too. Because all this rule says is that the National Parks will adopt the same rules as their host state.

So if someone is vetted and licensed to carry a gun outside the park, then they would just be allowed to do the same thing inside the national park.

The gun-o-phobes seem to think that someone like me, licensed by the State of Texas to carry a handgun on my person, will suddenly turn into a murderous lunatic on the rampage, when I enter a National Park within my home state. And that's ludicrous. And as proof of that, there are no problems with people carrying guns inside Texas State Parks. If there was some magical problem with guns in parks, it would have already become evident within the state parks, in the 10 years or so since that ban was lifted. Such problems don't exist. National Parks won't be any different than State Parks.

Any nut who wants to take a gun into a park to hurt people, can already do that, and the rule against guns in parks does nothing to stop them.

This is all about the anti-gun crowd trying to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.

It's not about gun violence, and it's not about the environment.

[quade 3]

You can attribute whatever motives you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that the environmental impact report wasn't done and THAT is why it was over turned.

FFS, if you want to change rules . . . FOLLOW the rules on how to change them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You can attribute whatever motives you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that the environmental impact report wasn't done and THAT is why it was over turned. FFS, if you want to change rules . . . FOLLOW the rules on how to change them.

I'm simply describing "the rest of the story", of what's actually going on behind the scenes.

So as soon as that "i" is "dotted", then you're all in favor of this rule?

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

You can attribute whatever motives you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that the environmental impact report wasn't done and THAT is why it was over turned. FFS, if you want to change rules . . . FOLLOW the rules on how to change them.

So as soon as that "i" is "dotted", then you're all in favor of this rule?

Yes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[councilman24 36]

From the opinion:

"In other words, the Final Rule has
no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any
environmental impacts. By relying on this tautology, Defendants (1) abdicated their
Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not, and"

Read... even though the final rule does not allow discharge you have to take into account the ILLEGAL actions of others as forseeable environmental impact.

So now a government agency has to FORSEE Illegal activity and evaluate the environmental impact of such activitiy base on allowing a new activity. By definition people that brake the law are going to carry and shoot on such lands illegally. Where is the ADDED impact from law abiding citizens caused by this rule? This is asking an aweful lot of an agency.

Whether it's guns or not this is silly.

This is not a clear cut violation of the regulations requiring an evironmental study. The litigated issue is whether or not there IS an environmental impact to be evaluated. This part of the opinion implies there is only environmental impact by people NOW carrying legally acting ILLEGALLY. Sounds like a judge implying EXTRA regulations as much as another agency ignoring regulations.

IT IS NOT as clear cut as you imply. And I'd have more simpathy if brought by the Sierra Club instead of the Brady institute.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[quade 3]

No. It's not that the Department of the Interior has to look into a crystal ball and see into the future. It's whether or not they even thought about the subject to begin with and as it turns out, they didn't.

In their haste to push through the law, they did not follow the rules. If you can't agree that lawmakers need to follow the rules about how laws are made then there is no hope for your cause or any other.

I'm nearly certain you don't want whatever side happens to be in power just changing laws willy-nilly on whims.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterrig 1]

I want to know when, the government is going to do something about the gun weilding, clandestine growers of pot in our national parks?! They are all bowed-up about citizens, licensed to carry a pistol yet, they do nothing about my first statement. When the topic first appeared on dz.com, about carrying a firearm into our state and national parks, I was against it. On further thought and considering the fact we (Texas) has a park on the Rio Grande (Big Bend) and shots are frequently fired in the direction of rafters and other park goers, I changed my thinking. Yosemite Park has cartels growing weed in the park, thus, changing my thinking.


Chuck

[councilman24 36]

No it's not about following the rules. It' about interpreting what the rules are. They didn't do an evironmental impact study not because they ignored the rule but because they believed there was NOTHING to study. They believed that carrying a firearm has no forseeable impact. Shooting one does but that was NOT part of the rule. So they are being asked to do an impact study on ILLEGAL shooting (target, unwarrented use, poaching etc.) as a forseeable impact.

Do YOU believe agencies should be held to doing impact studies on things that are NOT allowed by their rules? Where does it end?

BTW there are many example of government being exempt from following their own rules. (this isn't one of them) In my comunity the City government gets to ignore all of the zoning ordinances if they want. We usually don't but for instance the City doesn't follow our sign ordinance.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE