Guns In National Parks: Government Documents Show Bush Administration Warned About Ignoring Law

Whether or not you agree with a policy idea, the government is supposed to follow the rules before it can give that policy the force of law. That is essentially the principle now at issue in a case pending in U.S. District Court here in Washington, DC.

A last-minute rule adopted by the Bush administration after the election forces states to allow loaded, concealed weapons in National Park lands within their borders - even if states specifically prohibit the practice in their own state parks. Whether you believe that's a good idea or not - and clearly we do not - just-uncovered government documents show that the previous administration ignored warnings from Interior Department officials that the rule was being changed in violation of Federal law because of a rush to get things in place before Bush left office.

These internal Bush administration documents were acquired by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in response to our lawsuit against the Interior Department. You can read the documents here.

These documents show that the Bush administration ignored the procedural concerns and safety warnings of at least two federal agencies in order to push through the rule in time to deny the Obama administration a chance to review it.

For example, on April 3, 2008, the National Park Service's Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule "required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis" and that "at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation."

In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that "The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw."

Documents also show the rule was strongly opposed by the National Park Service, whose Bush-appointed Director, Mary Bomar, wrote a letter in July 2007 saying, "We believe that the [previous] regulations [restricting guns in parks] provide necessary and consistent enforcement parameters throughout the National Park System."

Nevertheless, the Bush administration Interior Secretary responded with a memo on August 22, 2008, stating that the rule is "one of my top priorities." The rule was later issued without the environmental analysis required by law.

This incident highlights a lame-duck Bush administration more concerned with handing the gun lobby a parting gift after they were soundly defeated in the November 2008 elections, rather than following the procedures required by law. Appropriate action needs to be taken by the courts and the Obama Administration to review the validity of this rule.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[fishyjay]

It seems to me that the most important facet of the Kellerman study does not depend upon its veracity.

Many gun control advocates such and the Brady Campaign often say: "We do not want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; we just want laws that keep guns away from criminals and children". But those same people just as often quote the Kellerman study, which focuses on the supposed negative consequences of gun ownership by the "ordinary" citizen. It is important to remember that gun control advocates are ACTIVISTS. They do not merely "recommend" that which they believe promotes the public good; they want LAWS. It is naive to think that those activists who continually remind us of the dangers of gun ownership by citizens would stop at taking guns from only criminals and children, and allow continued gun ownership by the rest of us who supposedly incur death by gunshot at a rate "43 times" that of defensive use. Thus, the frequent promotion of the Kellerman study by gun control advocates, regardless of truth or falsehood, serves to remind us of their true goal of drastic reduction or elimination of gun ownership, and the deceit of their frequent claim that "We do not want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens; we just want laws that keep guns away from criminals and children".

[djkrlsn]

And what Kelli and the BC won't admit even when you strenously point the fact that when the data that Kellerman admits/brags he leaves out of his study (namely including ALL SELF DEFENSE USAGE INSTEAD OF ONLY THE RAREST (death)) it goes from 43 to1 against private ownership to 500 to 6 IN VAVOR OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

[ProGunAmerican]

I forgot the link for the Haynes V United States case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[ProGunAmerican]

Another comment for the gun control folks here, you do realize, that in 1968 in Haynes V United States, the U.S Supreme court ruled that felons do not have to register thier firearms, because it violates the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination. Imagine that, the constitution protects felons. So what purpose does registration serve, other than to harass law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms. Its not about crime control, never was. Its about a certain segment of the population that hates our way of life, our beliefs, our rugged individualism, and self reliance. The left wing extremist's in this country want to eliminate any and all self reliance, the govt is the answer to everything, including you're protection.

I have a very simple method of defeating any registration scheme the govt might get passed. All we have to do is stand together as a collective, all 100 million of us, and say " we aren't going to register squat". What are you going to do, arrest us all? lol

I'd like to know how Kelli plans to reconcile here community rights agenda, with my individual right to own guns, per the Supreme Court, and my human right of self defence, a gun is by far the most effective method.

Kelli can call me a "gun rights extremist" all she wants, I'll wear it like a badge of honor.

[mike102]

"The left wing extremist's in this country want to eliminate any and all self reliance, the govt is the answer to everything, including you're protection­."

Good point. They can't seem to get it through their heads that the government (police) is NOT responsible for their protection, as per that same Supreme Court.

And, after 373 posts, I'm still waiting for one shred of evidence to justify their fear of law abiding citizens carrying a concealed handgun in a national park. The people whom they don't want to be carrying guns ANYWHERE (criminals) are already doing it. And this "poaching" stuff is a lot of milarkey. It's merely the anti-rights faction clutching at straws again.

"So what purpose does registration serve, other than to harass law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms. Its not about crime control, never was. Its about a certain segment of the population that hates our way of life,"

It's also so the JBTs know whose door to kick in when the government decides they are going to confiscate all the firearms, just like they did in post-Katrina NOLA.

[ProGunAmerican]

Let me clarify my last statement, the Bill of Rights refers to INDIVIDUAL rights, not community rights.

[ProGunAmerican]

Here's another simple concept for you Kelli, INDIVIDUALS have rights, COMMUNITIES do not!

[ProGunAmerican]

Hey kelli, if you think just because Obama is in the White House, that the Brady's have a blank check to push for all these rediculous laws, you're dreamin'. I can guarantee, that many of these laws, that the Brady's are pushing for, will be challenged in court, from our side, based on Heller. Checkmate!

The NRA also has a lot more money and resources, than the Brady's do, to base these challenges.

[MajorTom125]

Re- Kellermann study:

"Truly, you have to understand what is being studied & tested (and when errors or inaccuracies are found to occur ~ which does sometimes happen in even the most careful studies ~ how those are remedied, etc.). Until you more fully understand those basic ideas associated with quantitative ~ or even qualitative, in terms of case studies for example ~ research methodology, I really can't help you, Dimensio!"~ shedances

Ok Kelli, let's talk about research and methodology.

1. The Kellermann study was funded by the well known, anti 2nd Amendment Joyce Foundation. Hardly objective financing there.

2. Kellermann himself admitted that his so-called "research" could not be duplicated with any reasonable hope of obtaining a similar result. That in itself renders his study worthless.

3. Kellermann never submitted this research for peer review. Odd, to say the least. I have to wonder (not really) what he was afraid of, and what he was trying to hide (again, not really).

On top of that, the man cherry-picked stats, and ignored many other factors, in order to have the result of his study turn out in favor of his benefactors.

Until you more fully understand those basic ideas associated with quantitative ~ or even qualitative, in terms of case studies for example ~ research methodology, I really can't help you, shedances.

[molonlabe]

Paul or Kelli, or any other opponents of CCW in NP's-

In the early-mid 1990's the Brady Campaign argued that liberalized CCW laws would lead to Wild West Shootouts(tm) and Blood in the Streets(tm), neither of which has happened, even though we now have some form of CCW in 48 of 50 states.

If National Parks represent a microcosm of society as a whole (ie, law-abiding and criminal individuals both co-existing in the same environment where the law-abiding are adhering to the laws and criminals are disregarding the laws) what makes you think that your hypothetical "potential problems" regarding law-abiding CCW in NP's have any more merit than your previous hypotheticals which never came to fruition? I'm curious?

As always, your response in support of your postition would be greatly substantiated with actual facts and statistics supporting your position. Not that I expect anything other than emotionalism and hypotheticals.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--one of these years it just MAY sink in that the right of others to keep and bear arms IS NOT SUBJECT to your permission

[shedances]

I'll give you my honest read/proverbial two-cents on your latest comment, djkrlsn.

What I tend to think might be happening since the landmark Supreme Court decision last year, is that some more extreme gun-rights activists (yourself included possibly), along with the NRA (our nation's dominant gun lobby), are trying to exploit the Heller ruling to push for greater gun 'rights' that they really don't have. Some of these attempts may succeed; others will fail ... but I can guarantee you, they will not go unchallenged, as in the case of our national parks.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--the wording of the 2nd amendment ("the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED") certainly indicates a broad right. What makes you think that laws banning civilian ownership of ANYTHING the police or military has ever used (fwiw--EVERY common civilian design has been used by both the police and the military) is reasonable? Do I think people should be allowed to drive around Los ANgeles, New York, DC or Chicago with a fully functional Quad 50 mounted in their pickup truck--no--do I support the right of law abiding individuals to have a regular defensive handgun in most places--absolutely.
Also Kelli--I see no reason to give up anything in terms of 2nd amendment rights until I am convinced that your goal is no longer DC/Chicago style gun bans.

[djkrlsn]

2nd posting--the very words of the 2nd amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) indicates a broad and comprehensive right

[shedances]

Toonadude:

Where it gets too narrow to read, you ask about Kellermann. You are right ~ his research on guns & homicides does not extend to environmental discussions. To clarify, I defend his important work whenever I can; because a few posters like to cast a shadow over all of his findings based on a correction he made in a prior NEJM article in the late 1990s. He wrote:

"To the Editor: An independent review of the data from a case–control study of gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home ... (Oct. 7, 1993, issue), has identified an inaccuracy in our response to the letters to the editor about the study ... we reported, "Ninety-three percent of the homicides involving firearms occurred in homes where a gun was kept, according to the proxy respondents. What we should have said was that 93 percent of proxy respondents for victims of homicide involving firearms provided information about the presence or absence of a gun in the home. Sixty-two percent of this group reported that the victim lived in a home where one or more guns were kept ... This figure is still substantially higher than the percentage of all case households with guns (45.4 percent) and the percentage of control households with guns (35.8 percent). Although I regret the error, it does not change the validity of our original response ...,"Arthu­r L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H. (Emory University).

* Loved your comments, BTW ~ Shedances.

[djkrlsn]

2nd posting--Kellerman is STILL discredited--and despite ALL claims to the contrary--since it is you that would restrict rights, it is still up to you to prove that CCW holders will be any more problem in the parks than they are anywhere else. Don't let your fear get in the way

[Dimensio]

" To clarify, I defend his important work whenever I can; because a few posters like to cast a shadow over all of his findings based on a correction he made in a prior NEJM article in the late 1990s."

Why do you defend research that is inherently intellectually dishonest?

[djkrlsn]

And Kellerman ADMITTED to using only the rarest result of defensive firearm usage--when the attacker died--in his research

[shedances]

Truly, you have to understand what is being studied & tested (and when errors or inaccuracies are found to occur ~ which does sometimes happen in even the most careful studies ~ how those are remedied, etc.). Until you more fully understand those basic ideas associated with quantitative ~ or even qualitative, in terms of case studies for example ~ research methodology, I really can't help you, Dimensio!

[MycroftHolmes28]

Thanks to molonlabe for finding out where Bryan Miller has been hiding.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2009/02/happiness_is_a_warm_gun.html

He's abandoned his old blog for a new haunt and boy howdy is it a PSH in progress.

[mike102]

"Paul's right to mention in the article that it doesn't seem like people know what they're doing on this issue. Also, despite loud objections by a few individuals here ~ who do not necessarily represent ALL gun owner's attitudes,"- Kelli

What's to know? People carry guns in state parks, and it's not a problem, whether you acknowledge it or not. Come to think of it, that's obviously why you have not acknowledged it, though it's been brought up several times in this thread. But you go right ahead and keep your fingers in your ears.

And you can bet that we represent the attitudes of damned near "ALL gun owners". There aren't too many genuine gun owners who are against concealed carry. In case you're thinking about throwing the AHSA in our faces, with their 200 or so members, don't bother. They are a well-known anti-gun group trying to pass themselves off as a pro-gun group; a wolf in sheepdog's clothing, you might say, since Ray Schoenke used to be on the board of Handgun Control Inc..

[Thirdpower]

Mike, It was his wife who was on the board. He just contributed thousands of dollars in donations to them.

[mike102]

No kidding? I read, on a pro 2-a forum, that it was Ray himself. No matter. Thanks for the clarification, TP.

[shedances]

Paul's right to mention in the article that it doesn't seem like people know what they're doing on this issue. Also, despite loud objections by a few individuals here ~ who do not necessarily represent ALL gun owner's attitudes, I would argue ~ the Bush Administration rule-change allowing loaded, concealed guns into our national parks (pushed forth heavily by the NRA) isn't necessarily a done deal. Yes, it has gone into effect. And yes, Pres. Obama couldn't do anything about that once he took office. However, just because news reports state that the federal government is defending itself in a lawsuit rather than rolling over, doesn't necessarily mean the national parks change will prevail. It's just as possible that a settlement with the parties might be reached ... & one that, perhaps, might include the return to the former rule which seemed to be working fine and which conservation & retired park officials seem to overwhelmingly support, along with gun control advocacy groups.

That's it for me on this topic. Now, enjoy telling me how wrong I am, gun-rights advocates! Looking forward to those comments. LOL

[benEzra]

Well, it definitely shows where your true priorities lie, and whom you see as the focus of your efforts. Lawful carry in National Forests and state parks by CHL holders has not been a problem, and you know it.

And explain to me why we should trust you and the BC with requiring a license to own a gun, given the abject fearmongering about those of us who hold carry licenses..­.

[shedances]

Just a thought, benezra ... but it may in fact be better if you consider more carefully both the similarities and the differences between our NPS areas (i.e., safety, tourism characteristics, numbers/popularity of use, specific geographies &/or issues, etc.) along with other places mentioned.

[twogunmojo]

if you insist...t­he government has the ability to expand on your rights whenever it chooses i.e. they may decide that the 4th applies to city streets and that all the cameras have to be taken down because cameras are an intrusion into your private life even though you are pursuing your happiness in public...s­ame with the 2nd...this rule adds to our rights within the framework already establishe­d...heller killed gun control for the foreseeable future..th­ey affirmed what pro-rkba people already knew...tha­t the right to own a gun pre-existed before the bill of rights and individual citizens can own a gun or guns if they choose....­lets play your game....th­e army now uses the baretta 9mm as its sidearm therefore it should not be available for civilian use or purchase..­.if they change sidearms and go back to the 1911 will i be required to turn in my just purchased springfield in order to comply with your vision of america...

[djkrlsn]

And because double action revolvers are still used as backup guns by the police--civilian ownership of revolvers are banned as well (as well as pump rifles and shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles)

[Sneaky]

Uh, no, a settlement on this can't be reached. That's not the way these kind of suits work.

[djkrlsn]

Best settlement available-­-nationwid­e shall issue CCW--with the only real exemptions being in court houses and in secure areas of airports, on airplanes and secure areas of government buildings

[ProGunAmerican]

Here's a chart concerning accidental gun death's, children ages 0-14. Its been falling dramatically for over a decade. The Brady's are propoganda artist's.

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2008-Accident_Rates.shtml

Here's a chart concerning Colorado CCW permits, 6241 permits issued as of 2006, 233 were denied or revoked, which is .037%. Face it Shedances, you're arguments, as well as the Brady's, is bunk. You can cherry pick instances where someone got a permit, that shouldn't have, but the percentages are so small, its irrelevant.

http://www.rmgo.org//faq/CCW%20Permits%20by%20county.pdf

[ProGunAmerican]

Another thought for Shedances, since I'm fearfull of a drunk driver killing me on the highway, does that me we ban beer, because I have this fear? See where you're argument will never stand up to scrutiny? By the way, Prohibition was a huge success...­...not!!!

[benEzra]

Not to mention that alcohol kills at least 100 times as many Americans annually as "assault weapons" do. Probably more.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/intro.pdf

Kelli should be much more worried about people carrying alcohol in parks (and by law, probably the only people who CAN'T legally drink in National Parks are CHL holders lawfully carrying).

And no, I don't support alcohol bans, either.