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

[twogunmojo]

why would you have to do an environmental study on the effects of firearms in a national park...fir­earms are already in use in national parks...th­ese studies should already exist.....­and how many pro-rkba democrats backed by the nra won last november

[ProGunAmerican]

One more point, poaches use RIFLES, which are unaffected by this rule change. I don't think poacher Bob is going to try an shoot a deer, elk, moose, buffalo, ect, with a 45 ACP! LMAO at that! If anyone attempts this, then they deserve the darwin award.

[ProGunAmerican]

These gun control advocates on here are a few cents short on logic. Poaching is already illegal, so why would a "no guns allowed sign" stop a poacher, he's breaking the law anyway, so he doesn't care. Just like your "no guns allowed signs" stopped the Omaha mall shooter, or the Virginia Tech shooter, what a joke! Its such an easy concept, but so hard for a few people to understand, it boggles my mind.

As I said earlier, when I'm 10 miles down some hiking trail, camped out, I should be allowed to have my gun with me. I always do, when I'm in the national forest, now I can in the National Parks as well.

I think the fundamental point here is that the gun control advocates are fundamentally opposed to self defense, because it involves violence, well get over it! Life is tough and self preservation can be ugly!

Why should a half million anti-gun zealots get to determine how I can defend myself? When did the vocal minority set the rights of the majority?

[OdinsEye]

This ruling ONLY affects people with valid concealed carry permits. This is a very TINY segment of the gun owning population and an even smaller segment of the public at large. It ONLY affects the carry of handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

Again, to be affected by this ruling you must have a valid CCW for the state in which the park resides and the ruling simply says that such a person and ONLY such a person no longer must disarm and unload.

All the other stuff being brought up here is merely noise.

[OdinsEye]

So let's look at this a bit deeper:

Scenario 1) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have rifles with them. Before 2009 their rifles had to be unloaded. After 2009 their rifles have to be unloaded.

Scenario 2) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have shotguns with them. Before 2009 thier shotguns had to be unloaded. After 2009, their shotguns have to be unloaded.

Scenario 3) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have handguns with them. Before 2009 their handguns had to be unloaded. After 2009 their handguns have to be unloaded.

Scenario 4) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have concealed carry permits. They have rifles with them. Before 2009 their rifles had to be unloaded. After 2009 their rifles have to be unloaded.

Scenario 5) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have concealed carry permits. They have shotguns with them. Before 2009 their shotguns had to be unloaded. After 2009 their shotguns have to be unloaded.

Scenario 6) Joe and Dave go into a National Park. They have concealed carry permits. They have handguns with them. Before 2009 their handguns had to be unloaded. After 2009 their handguns can be carried concealed and loaded.

I hope that clears things up.

[OdinsEye]

Well, I guess that scared away UCClady and shedances.

[djkrlsn]

too bad they only respond out of emotion and fear

[OdinsEye]

Guess we shouldn't mention that we are 10 degree black belts in Hapkido and can kill using nothing more than our ch'i, or shedances and UCCLady will have us banned from national parks, eh?

[djkrlsn]

Sorry--my skill is in the Noble arts of Ruger, Smith and Winchester

[shedances]

Returning to the above topic ...

In my humble opinion, both the NRA and the former Bush Administration were wrong and possibly very ignorant to destroy the loaded-gun­-bans-in-o­ur-nationa­l-parks rule. Neither seem to have seriously considered what might happen to park visitors, when overturning such a rule; and it's also important to remember why loaded guns were banned (since the Reagan Administration) in the first place ... i.e., poaching of wildlife problems. As I see it, there really is an ongoing responsibility by our leadership to NOT put people unnecessarily at risk from firearms, even if the park visitor is licensed. As most understand, our pristine, protected national parks ~ with large numbers of tourists & families inc. many from outside the U.S. ~ have been incredibly safe places & one of those public areas where loaded guns are arguably more of a potential hazard, than a real benefit. Even our long-time, now retired park service rangers and employees have come out against this move by the NRA/Bush Administration.

Thanks.

[djcrsn]

Kelli--since CCW holders are NOT a threat to others outside of the park--there is no reason to fear them being a danger to people inside the park.. Sorry Kelli--your no guns for anyone at any time has not flown since Heller came down

[shedances]

If this rule-change is allowed to remain, I think you'll see more accidental shootings of both park visitors & gun owners, as well as thrill shootings of wildlife. National parks are not the place for loaded firearms in either adult or youth/kids possession, IMO.

[djcrsn]

Kell--switch off your fearmongering--CCWs commit fewer crimes on a percentage basis than LEOs outside of the parks--there is no reason to assume a change of behavior in the park. At least you are consistent--you oppose ANY CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AT ALL--get over it--Heller happened and there is AN INDIVIDUAL RKBA and you LOST

[Ohio9]

If after a few years this does not happen and you are proven wrong, will you admit it and stop trying to work against CCW? That would make you a much more respectable person then all other CCW opponents , since they always predict "blood in the streets" every time a CCW law is passed and never admit they are wrong when it doesn't happen.

[djcrsn]

She claims to be a trained journalist--this information she should have at her fingertips--yet she still advocates complete civilian disarmament (I think she would rather have Clifford TIP Harris (rapper, felon with several drug dealing convictions) possess firearms (because he is rich and famous) than her usual opponents that have no more than traffic school level traffic violations on their record)

[UCCLady]

"National parks are not the place for loaded firearms in either adult or youth/kids possession, IMO."

While I think you make great points several times, I don't think I can completely agree with this idea that the threat from loaded guns exists merely in parks. To me, there is no place that is the place for loaded guns. I think our argument, and our fight, is undermined by critics who say, "Well, if you think guns are such a problem to society, why do you want to ban them in place X but not ban them in place Y?"

To be honest, I am having difficulty with friends who pose that question to me. Of course, they know it is not a hole in my position, because I'm quite out in the open about banning guns everywhere. But they know it is a hole in many other anti-gun advocate's positions, and they want to know how it is prevented from being exploited by pro-gun people. I'm completely at a loss as to how to bridge the discrepancy.

[djkrlsn]

UCClady--might I suggest you become intimately familiar with the 2nd amendment, Heller and Miller. Post Heller--banning possession of firearms IS NOT POSSIBLE nor is it constitutional. If you do not like civilian ownership of firearms--deal with it or move. You have LOST this debate.

[OdinsEye]

The question "Well, if you think guns are such a problem to society, why do you want to ban them in place X but not ban them in place Y?" does two possible things. In the case of those who support bans in one place but not another, it proves that their position is not justifiable. In the case of those who, like you, support bans everywhere, it proves that gun banners do indeed exist despite the denial of people like shedances and the Brady Camp.

[fishyjay]

UCCLady, thank you for your honesty.

It is likely that many other gun control advocates also believe, as you do, in banning guns everywhere but they conceal their goal in order to facilitate an incremental approach.

However, I hope that you and I agree that honest political debate is preferable to "ends justify the means" tactics.

[djkrlsn]

UCClady--you forget that the 9 to none part of the Heller decision is that there is an individual right protecting possesion and use of firearms in common use (which is all non machine gun variations of rifles, carbines shotguns, and handguns)

[MycroftHolmes28]

"because I'm quite out in the open about banning guns everywhere­."

I also welcome your honesty.

But don't expect Helmke to welcome you with open arms, though.

Helmke is playing chess while you just want to tip the board over.

Either way, have a nice day.

[fishyjay]

shedances: "If this rule-change is allowed to remain, I think you'll see more accidental shootings of both park visitors & gun owners, as well as thrill shootings of wildlife."

Again, "I think." How about some FACTS?

First, there are 24 states that allow CCW permit holders to carry guns in state parks. There are probably national parks in many of those states as well. Just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks which have allowed CCW than in the national parks which have not.

Second, many states have allowed significant CCW only recently. Just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks after CCW was allowed than in those same parks before CCW was allowed.

For some reason, those who favor a gun ban in National Parks have failed to utilize these types of facts to make their argument. Shedances, where are your facts?

[OdinsEye]

Since the rule only affects CCW holders, that means that only handguns are affected. Since only handguns being carried concealed are involved, that means only people above the age of 21 are affected (21 being pretty universal as an age requirement to obtain a CCW permit). "Youth/kids" are not involved in the rule change.

[fishyjay]

Shedances, can you tell us how many "thrill shootings of wildlife" there are in state parks by people with CCW permits, in those 24 states that allow people with CCW permits to carry firearms in state parks?

No? Why not?

[djkrlsn]

Simple--none, because CCW holders neither poach or are involved in "thrill shooting of game"

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--you have made it clear that you oppose firearm ownership everywhere. When are you going to admit that Heller ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDES THAT? Remember Heller clearly states that there is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS IN COMMON USE--and yes that includes double and single action revolvers, semiauto pistols of all varieties, as well as all non fully automatic long arms

[vespasian1]

Then why don't you see this happening in state parks?

[djkrlsn]

Then why has this not happened anywhere with shall issue concealed carry?

[MycroftHolmes28]

Thrill shootings of wildlife?

Ya, I see.

Someone who has jumped through all the legal hoops to carry a concealed firearm in order to defend themselves from attack will now risk losing their right to own a gun at all, let alone carry it, because they wanted to take a pot-shot at bugs bunny.

That makes sense.

[UCCLady]

One of the things I must admit I'm a bit frustrated about in this discussion is the focus on just *loaded* guns in parks, as if getting rid of them stops all the problems. I really don't see why unloaded guns should be an exception. Poaching, which you rightfully point out is a problem and I completely agree we need to be rid of, is almost as easily accomplished by people riding around with unloaded weapons and their ammunition nearby ready to be loaded. I've long advocated for a complete ban on guns *and* ammunition in our parks and, to me, that really is the only true solution to eradicate ALL the problems associated with guns in parks.

Be that as it may, I understand that the incremental approach is a political reality. You can't eat the whole apple, except bite-by-bite. Eventually, though, I really do hope sensibility prevails and we eventually get through all the small steps to finally achieve the complete bans we need in our parks.

And, you're completely on point to demonstrate the support that our parks' employees have on this issue. I don't think people realize how passionately the employees feel about it, and I hope your info makes them go look up what the rangers and other employees have to say about it. They DO GET THEIR SAY in the matter, too, you know!

[djcrsn]

UCClady--there is an INDIVIDUAL RKBA--so civilian disarmament is dead. ALso--since on a percentage basis CCW holders are more law abiding than law enforcement--your poaching meme is demonstratably false. Also--the people who are determined to engage in poaching ARE NOT CCW HOLDERS and will bring guns and ammo into the park regardless of what laws you pass.

[Ohio9]

How many times do we have to explain that poachers are CRIMINALS? They don't care about the law! Don't you get it? If they are willing to break the law against poaching, why would a law against firearms stop them?

And as I said in my above post, the park rangers themselves have guns. Therefore we really should skeptical when they say that guns are not need for anyone else. If they really feel that parks are so safe that no guns would ever be needed, they should set the example and get rid of their own guns. I don't see that happening.

There is a saying among us gun carriers: "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away." But in a park, the rangers are more likely hours away. The rangers are well trained and do a great job when they are present, but the park areas are simply too large for them to maintain an effective presence everywhere. When a threat occurs, the victim will be on their own. As such, it makes sense for them to want to defend themselves.

Finally, I know you and sheedances are not big fans of presenting real evidence, but I'll ask anyway. Do you have any evidence that allowing CCW in parks increases poaching or crime?

[OdinsEye]

"How many times do we have to explain that poachers are CRIMINALS? "


Not to mention that poachers don't use handguns and probably do not have CCW permits.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli and other gunbanner always like forgetting that people holding CCWs are MORE LAW ABIDING the law enforcement officers--and so unless there is a problem with COPS COMMITTING CRIMES in national parks--people utilizing their CCWs should continue to be no problem inside the parks

[djkrlsn]

UCC--park employees have no more say in how some else exercizes their 2nd amendment rights than I have in how you choose to employ your 1rst, 4rth or ninth amendment rights

[LtBromhead]

"I've long advocated for a complete ban on guns *and* ammunition in our parks and, to me, that really is the only true solution to eradicate ALL the problems associated with guns in parks."

And what problems would those be? I ask, because this rule change has just taken effect, and there has never been a problem associated with firearms in state parks.

"Be that as it may, I understand that the incremental approach is a political reality. You can't eat the whole apple, except bite-by-bite. Eventually, though, I really do hope sensibility prevails and we eventually get through all the small steps to finally achieve the complete bans we need in our parks."

Ah, the "incremental approach". In other words, Kelli, when you are trying to disarm the general population, and the Supreme Court hands you your head, you have to chip away at what ever guns you can, where ever you can. "Bite by bite" indeed.


And let's not pretend that you nad Paul are just interested in banning guns from national parks, OK?

[LtBromhead]

PS-

"They DO GET THEIR SAY in the matter, too, you know!"

Uh, no, they don't.

[shedances]

I understand and appreciate your point about safeguarding our national parks & wildlife & rangers who tirelessly work there. I don't wish to see any unrestrained or stupid use of loaded guns in places like the Rockies campsites or the Grand Canyon, etc.; and it does make me angry to realize that some will bring loaded firearms into our parks ~ around families and other tourists ~ just because they can now ... & not for any real need or purpose there. On unloaded guns, I was thinking more in terms of transporting of firearms used during things like hunting season or sports, etc., where they may need to cross through federal lands. Hope that makes more sense! Thanks for your comments, UCC!

[Ohio9]

Sheedances, the rule change only applies to lawfully owned concealed HANDGUNS, not rifles or shotguns. Who goes poaching with a small handgun? Second of all, poaching is still illegal. Meaning if a person does it, he is breaking the law. If he's willing to break the law on poaching, he's obviously not going to follow the law on firearms anyway. So it's time to drop the smokescreen and admit this rule change has nothing to do with poaching.

As I see it, there really is an ongoing responsibility by our leadership to NOT put people unnecessarily at risk from violent criminals who have no regard for the law on firearms or anything else. As such, it makes perfect to allow lawfully trained CCW holders who carry guns everywhere else to be allowed to carry them into a park. There is nothing particularly stresfull or violent about the park environment that makes simply having a gun a dangerous act. As such, it makes no sense to prevent CCW holders from carrying in that specific area.

While the park ranger unions may be opposed to this, it's important to remember that they DO have guns, and have no intention of giving them up. They can talk all they want about how safe parks are, but parks are clearly not safe enough for the rangers to go unarmed. So why should CCW holders have to do so?

[fishyjay]

From shedances, we again see speculation as to what "might" happen -- yet actual facts should be easily available.

First, there are 24 states that allow CCW permit holders to carry guns in state parks. There are probably national parks in many of those states as well. Just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks which have allowed CCW than in the national parks which have not.

Second, many states have allowed significant CCW only recently. Just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks after CCW was allowed than in those same parks before CCW was allowed.

For some reason, those who favor a gun ban in National Parks have failed to utilize these types of facts to make their argument. Shedances, where are your facts?

Perhaps the facts do not support your position? For example, from the Anchorage Daily News (12-6-08):

"But park service officials in Alaska didn't appear particularly concerned.
'We've had guns in the ANILCA parks since 1980 with no real troubles,' noted Alaska region spokesman John Quinley. The legislation creating the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, parks has always allowed for guns to be carried."

Some park service officials may favor a ban, but we see that park service officials in state parks that permit firearms (the officials who would actually know the issue best) report no real troubles and thus are not particularly concerned.

[UCCLady]

That's not the way I interpreted shedances point. Let's look again at what shedances said:

"Neither [the NRA and the former Bush Administration] seem to have seriously considered what might happen to park visitors, when overturning such a rule."

Shedances point, to me, is that when one makes a change in policy, that change contains a demonstration that risks are considered. It may very well be that the NRA/Bush administration has material that demonstrates (to them) that nothing negative will happen to park visitors. But, if I read shedances accurately, she asserts they didn't present that material as a part of, or addenda to, the policy change.

That, to me, is a valid point. After all, pro-gun people demand that changes to gun regulation policies to the more restricive MUST contain solid foundational material.

So, let's read shedances a little more carefully.

[fishyjay]

Okay, I agree: The Bush administration could have done what I asked by presenting figures regarding state parks where CCW is allowed. I wish that they had done so.

However, the reliance on speculation rather than fact by those who oppose CCW in National Parks seems to indicate that the facts are against them. My Anchorage Daily News story indicates that as well.

Shedances has repeatedly engaged in such speculation on this subject, always without relevant facts. It seems to me that if a rule is to be in place, especially one that deprives citizens of effective means of self defense, then there should be facts to justify that -- not just speculation.

Shedances also refers to poaching "problems", again without facts.

And shedances also refers to support by some park service officials for a ban, but we see that park service officials in state parks that permit firearms (the officials who would actually know the issue best) report no real troubles and thus are not particularly concerned.

[OdinsEye]

When I read shedances, what I see are a lot of misstatements.

[djkrlsn]

You and Kelli also totally ignore the fact that CCW holders are even more law abiding than law enforcement personnel--and it is far better to err on the side of increased rights/liberty than the other way--and effective self defense is one of the most basic liberties there is--and just in case you have forgotten--gun control supporters lost the discussion in Heller. If there is little concern if a police officer or deputy is armed, there is no more concern if a CCW holder carries. Kelli also has a history of supporting illegal actions by law enforcement, in fact--quite recently she supported the ILLEGAL confiscations of firearms in post Katrina NOLA--in my book it is MORE reprehensible for law enforcement to use their uniforms and authority to commit illegal acts than it is for the Crips, Bloods or Vice Lords to do the same thing.

[Sneaky]

That's an odd twist. Perhaps it is because the Bush Administration found no discernible evidence to support keeping the ban in place. Ours is a nation set on the idea that citizens are given the benefit of the doubt, and those that abuse their freedoms and infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others are punished accordingly. The ban on 'carrying' into national parks was one done without any visible proof that a problem existed in the first place, and without any visible evidence of changing the conditions in the national parks (for better or for worse). Put simply, the ban on 'carrying' did nothing but prohibit an action by otherwise-lawful 'carriers' of firearms. Nothing else changed. If no proof is given that a limitation on the freedoms and rights on citizens is beneficial, should the limitation in question be implemented anyway?

[djkrlsn]

Perhaps Kelli wants many studies because she wants the researcher to do a Bellisle or Kellerman (who deliberately used the rarest result (when the attacker dies)) when handguns are used defensively to skew the results from 500 successes to 6 failures when ALL defensive uses are included to having firearms fail at a 43 to 1 ration (this is by Kellerman's own admission)

[shedances]

Thank YOU, UCCLady!

[Sneaky]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the removal of this ban on the carrying of a firearm into national parks will create a hazard for the conditions currently in place? Surely you must have something to substantiate your fears. After all, look at all of the similar examples of the many license-to-carry laws passed in the last 20 years...

[djkrlsn]

Especially since the standard response to non discretionary CCW is A DECREASE in crime. I remember that Florida car rental agencies had to change the plates on their cars because the gangbangers deliberately selected tourists because too many Florida residents had guns (which is decidely unhealthy for criminals). And like everywhere else--CCW holders make the cops look bad because the civilians packing heat are more law abiding than the cops.

[shedances]

* A little off-topic; but certainly appropriate for the day. Enjoy!

From Associated Press: "Trade a gun for a rose in SC on Valentine's Day"

Sat Feb 14 – "Police in South Carolina gave away roses on Valentine's Day. All you had to do to get one for your sweetie was turn in a gun. Hoping to get the weapons off the streets with the 'Guns for Roses' program, authorities in two central South Carolina cities set up a program where anyone who turned in a gun received a free rose and a Best Buy gift card. At a Columbia church, five cars lined up to give away guns before the exchange had even started. About an hour and a half later, police had collected 75 weapons. 'We've got a great turnout so far,' Richland County sheriff's spokesman Lt. Chris Cowan said. A handgun was worth a $100 gift card ... one man turned in six handguns, worth $600 in gift cards ... The weapons were checked to see if they were stolen, names and addresses were jotted down and ballistics tests would also be done to see if the firearm was used in a crime ...The program was modeled after a California one; similar exchanges have been done in New York and San Francisco ... [G]un donors were young and old, men and woman. Many had a big smile and some said it was a relief to get rid of the weapons," it was reported.

[mike102]

They engage in this sort of thing in Philly now and then, and all that is netted are pot metal junk guns, and grandpa's old shotgun that's been rusted shut in the cellar for 50 years.

The criminals aren't turning anything in, but I'm glad the news makes you feel better.

[UCCLady]

Thanks for passing on this news of the good fight to get guns out of the wrong hands. Despite the naysayers, I'm sure out of the weapons collected, many were more than junk guns or rusted old ones. I've been to a couple of police gun trade-ins, as a volunteer worker, and I saw for myself that many were in fair to good condition, and quite lethally operable.

Please continue passing on the good news as often as possible! It's been rather bad on my morale with the lack of anti-gun people, shedances. And, yes, I just said I'm anti-gun, because I'm not ashamed to admit what I really feel or what I'm really after even if people don't like it or it's not "politically correct."

[Ohio9]

UCCLady, can you point to a single study that shows gun turn ins are effective at reducing crime?

Regardless of weather or not the guns that were turned in were functional, the fact remains that it is highly unlikely they would ever be used in crime, since the ones who turned them in were clearly lawful. These programs represent gun control at its worst, as they are targeting the most lawful people with the weapons that are least likely to be misused.

Gun turn ins represent a horrific waste of police resources. At a time when many police departments are facing serious budget problems and are having to lay many cops off, these gun programs waste tons of taxpayer dollars on programs that take cops off their patrol beats to sit behind desks, collect weapons from lawful citizens, and fill out forms.

I don't want the police wasting their time at these events. I want them out on the streets keeping us safe and arresting criminals. Anyone, regardless of what they think of guns, should feel the same way.

[UCCLady]

I wouldn't characterize turn-ins as "targeting" anyone, as it is completely voluntary on the part of the person turning in their guns. If they feel they wish to retain their guns, they simply may elect not to participate.

A not insignificant number of the guns WERE misused before by someone other than the person turning it in, and a significant number of people are turning in guns illegally possessed by family members or friends that they are trying to "keep out of getting in trouble" or "already have caused problems" (i.e., committed a crime or threatened others) with the guns. The police do get a fair number of leads on unreported or unsolved crimes.

Which leads me to dispute your assertion that turn-ins don't "keep us safe" and work toward "arresting criminals.­" If the police follow their leads and solve a currently unsolved crime or detect an unreported crime and go after the criminal, that leads to getting criminals off the streets and in turn to a lower crime rate upon successful conviction and incarceration.

I do agree with you sometimes there are too many police resources, out of balance with volunteer resources. However, I have also been at events where the police are volunteers like me, and off-duty. The police DO need to always exercise smart management of their own resources, and the optimal event involves off-duty volunteer LEOs.

[Ohio9]

Notice you were not able to show any study that says gun turn ins are effective at reducing crime.

http://www.kc3.com/news/buybacks_fail.htm

"Piles of weapons handed over to the police for a few dollars make compelling photographs, but repeated studies of politically popular gun buyback programs across the country have found no detectable effect on violent crime or in firearms deaths.

independent follow-up studies of gun buybacks in Seattle, Sacramento, St. Louis and Boston found no evidence that the programs reduced gun crime."

In their more honest moments, the promoters of these events even admit that their goal is reducing gun ownership, not crime:

"The first purpose of this is not trying to stop bad guys from robbing banks or bad guys from shooting each other. The first purpose is to get guns out of homes," said Lee Jones, a spokesman for the U.S.Depart­ment of Housing and Urban Developmen­t."

Gun turn ins are useless "feel good" events that do nothing in the long term. Again, the overwhelming majority of guns that are turned in have never and will never be used in crime. The chance that any crime will ever be solved by the guns that are turned in almost non-existant.

Besides, anytime someone wants to get rid of a gun, they can turn it in to the police, sell it to a licensed dealer, or simply destroy it. You don't need a special event for that.

[OdinsEye]

And then there is the fact that most of the time people are getting ripped off at turn ins. They could get more money for their unwanted firearms through a pawnshop, dealer, or third party.

There have been some groups who would set up outside the turn in locations and offer free appraisals and in several cases have come across firearms worth thousands of dollars. Obviously such practices are frowned upon by the gun controllers.

[djkrlsn]

A friend of mine got a very nice Smith Chiefs Special doing just that

[OdinsEye]

"A not insignificant number of the guns WERE misused before by someone other than the person turning it in, and a significant number of people are turning in guns illegally possessed by family members or friends "

Source?

BTW, most buy backs (not this particular one) are no questions asked, no records kept, and as a result no crimes are solved. My dept has done several of these and we have yet to solve a crime or arrest anyone based on evidence collected from such a sale. We do them mostly as a public relations thing. Our own law enforcement leadership acknowledged as much to myself and several of my colleagues when we questioned the wisdom of such events.

[mike102]

"Source?"

Are you kidding?

[djcrsn]

And in the Los Angeles buybacks--they are good ways for criminals to dispose of guns that they do no want to get caught with because the guns can link them to specific crimes--and they usually get paid enough to essentially pay for the next gun they buy from a local gangbanger or drug dealer

[fishyjay]

UCCLady: I wouldn't characterize turn-ins as "targeting" anyone, as it is completely voluntary on the part of the person turning in their guns. If they feel they wish to retain their guns, they simply may elect not to participate.

I agree! It's in keeping with my overall position on gun ownership:

Don't want to own guns? No problem!

Don't think that others should own guns? No problem!

Want to persuade other people to not own guns? No problem!

Try to pass laws to keep most people from owning guns? BIG PROBLEM!

[djkrlsn]

The turnins in Los Angeles are deliberately designed so the firearms turned in CAN NOT BE USED TO SOLVE A CRIME. Destroying evidence in a potential murder/violent crime investigation is always such a super NEATO and most excellent idea

[Luxvonborn]

Sweetie, I'd love to make you feel better. However, not at the expense of the bill of rights. I'd love to have a conversation on what and why particulars of guns make you feel bad. The reason you see more pro-gun people is because liberals now know that guns ARE a liberal item. They take power, and put it in the hands of anyone that can operate a gun. This is the most radical kind of freedom, on the level of the right to vote for any legal resident over 18. I think felon voting right-removal is unconstitutional, though I support keeping guns from felons. See? I'm reasonable- I put more restrictions on guns than on voting, yet both are of the same status as American rights. However, I believe that, as has been proved in other countries that had endemic gun violence, and then regulated guns- it doesn't work. Looking at non-violent countries doesn't work, because they've never been violent. Guns are not to blame; just look at Britain, with their so-called "knife crime". Seriously, google knife crime. The problem is not the tool. It's the social structure that created persons or groups that wish to cause violence.

[vespasian1]

"And, yes, I just said I'm anti-gun, because I'm not ashamed to admit what I really feel or what I'm really after even if people don't like it or it's not "politically correct." UCC

I am anti-snow shovel. They cause countless heart attacks and terrible back problems for people every year. They are a dangerous public health problem, and should be banned. They need to be kept out of the wrong hands (mine).

They also need to ban snow shovels from our national parks. Some yahoo might wack a spotted owl with one. And then there are the people who might try to poach a bear with one. Oh my!

An expensive study needs to be done, to determine the environmental impact of snow shovels on our national parks!!!!

Do it for the children.

PS- Nice try Kelli.

[UCCLady]

I happen to be anti-snow shovel as well, so I agree with everything you said.

I assume you mean shedances when you say "Kelli," since I've only seen shedances posts signed with "Kelli." I'm not shedances. I realize I can't prove that, but then again the burden of proof is not upon me.

[shedances]

Nicely said, UCCLady ... and I love your thoughts! Keep 'em coming.

[djkrlsn]

especially since they are YOUR thoughts

[djkrlsn]

ALL HAIL SNOW BLOWERS WITH 2stroke engines and nice blue smoke from the exhaust

[mike102]

"I realize I can't prove that, but then again the burden of proof is not upon me.

You are proving it with every post, Kel.

[djkrlsn]

I seem to remember drurylane, shutterbug80 and the glassjawedevil making the same claim

[djcrsn]

UCC--these buybacks DO NOT DISARM criminals--and your hoplophobia (and Kelli's) not withstandi­ng--Heller emphasized and INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Does that mean you must have a gun--no--but it does meant you can not disarm your neighbors

[OdinsEye]

Buy back programs are the epitome of feel-good programs.

[HisXLNC]

Usually when I see one of those "compensated confiscation" programs, I look at it as a good opportunity to off-load all my broken guns. I trade in about $50 worth of old broken Rohm revolvers and get $500 in gift cards. I sell the gift cards and put the money towards a new Glock.

[mike102]

First of all Paul, nobody defeated the "gun lobby" in the election. Gun control had zero to do with Obama being elected, so stop flattering yourself.

Secondly, you have shown not one iota of evidence that shows why concealed carry should not be allowed. It's not a problem in state parks, so what makes you think it will be a problem in national parks?

The truth is, you don't forsee a problem. It's just one more place for your non gun-banning organization to ban guns.

Not TOO transparent.

[djcrsn]

In fact--it was the fact that gun control was not being touched by the Dems that helped get Obama elected--do you think he would have had a chance against McCain if there was a big push for a new AWB in 2008?

[djcrsn]

Also Toonadude-- you claim to be angry because of the condition that got GWB elected--remember to thank Bill Clinton and his assault weapon legislation--had Al Gore WON his home state of Tenessee--(which Clinton attributes to Clinton/Gore support of gun control)--Florida would have been irrelevent. If nothing else--opposing gun control and keeping the legislation Helmke supports from passing eliminates a major weapon against Dems in gun friendly districts (namely seats that Dems just took back from Republicans can switch back in the next election)

[Toonadude]

How do you explain Clinton's 2nd term if the totality of all Presidential election results can be attirubuted, as you seem to assert, to the candidate's position on gun control? Go check out a pro-life web site ..... I'll bet they say Bush "won" over Gore based on abortion matters and nothing else. Single issue voting is indeed one of our biggest problems.

[benEzra]

Because the Bobdole unit decided to make carpet-bombing gun owners part of his campaign strategy, endorsed the "assault weapon" fraud, ad nauseaum.

Most gun owners saw Dole as no better than Clinton on the issue, and in fact the NRA's slogan that year was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress" (they pointedly refused to endorse Dole). And gun owners did indeed did pick up seats in 1996, both (R) and (D), while letting Dole go down in flames. Sort of like Mitt Romney in the repub primary last year.

In '00, Gore would have won his home state of TN, and pro-union, mostly-Dem WV had it not been for his radioactive stance on the gun issue, and those two states would have given him. And as a former Florida resident, I can tell you with certainty that the gun issue was huge in the "Gunshine state" in '00 (I was there); had it not been for the AWB, Gore's margin of victory in FL would have been too large to contest.

Fighting to outlaw the most popular rifles in America, when half of gun owners are Dems and indies, is just foolish, particularly when rifles are so rarely misused (only 3% of all murders involve any rifle).

[djcrsn]

Clinton was and is tremedously popular on a personal level, do not forget he lost both houses of Congress following the AWB

[djcrsn]

Toonadude--a goodly number of people voted for Bush that support or accept the right to abortion. For instance, I support abortions where the fetus is disabled (and think Palin made a very valid choice for not aborting her disabled son--because it is her choice to do so (I still prefer life over killing and people with mental limitations can live productive and loving lives--in fact in college--the college aged disabled son (I believe his mental disability kept him from being able to speak) of the director of food service always chose me to help him get his apron and gloves on so he could help wash dishes)), or the health of the mother would be negatively impacted. I also support victims of rape or who get pregnant in early teen years having the choice on abortions/

[ProGunAmerican]

I have a valid Colorado CCW permit and carry a gun. Why should my rights under Colorado law stop at the border of a National Park? How is a National Park different than the mall, a restaurant, or anywhere else? The fact that I am an avid hiker and often travel deep into the backcountry, I should be allowed to carry a firearm, and I do, when I'm in the national forest. Now the Brady's want to dis-arm us in a place where we might need a gun the most, miles from help in the backcountry. I've read several articles about campers being attacked in Colorado, its just naive and stupid to travel the backcountry without a gun. My 357 magnum always goes with me, I don't give a damn what Paul thinks about it.

[1will]

I liked the Brady Campaign better when they were calling themselves by the old name, Handgun Control, Inc.
They seemed more honest in their intentions.

[mike102]

Isn't that when they had AHSA founders on their board?

[Ohio9]

Well I think they should change to "Gun control inc", seeing as they have given up their 1980's empty rhetoric about only wanting to control handguns.

[super8]

The number of crimes of homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assaults, stolen automobiles, burglary, and larceny committed in the ENTIRE National Park service in 2007: 862. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003727.2006.html

Total such crimes committed nationwide in 2007: 11,251,818 (1,408,337 violent crimes plus 9,843,481 property crimes.) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

National Parks account for about .00007 of the total, or 1 of every 14,285 crimes.

My fear of some yahoo and his gun, and of his propensity to shoot it at whatever he might feel like at that moment, outweighs his fear of the boogeyman.

If someone is really afraid of the crime in National Parks then he should give in to his unique brand of misanthropic agoraphobia and stay home.

[sdskelton03]

I have a couple problems with your analysis. First, it doesn't at all take into account the population density of the rest of the country vs. the national parks. Secondly, your fear of a yahoo does not trump my right to protect myself.


According to your logic, the crime rate inside my house is 0%, therefore there is no need for me to own a firearm and it shouldn't be allowed.

[super8]

Oy. Unless your house is public property and open to public enjoyment then your example is incoherent.

My analysis takes complete account of population density; the lack of people in National Parks per square whatever (choose your measurement) surely helps explain why (a) over 14,000 crimes are committed in OTHER places per 1 crime in National Park lands and (b) why it's bordering on clinical to insist on taking your loaded handgun there because you're so afraid of that .00007 chance your car stereo could be stolen at one.

If you like loaded handguns so much, that's cool, go to places where loaded handguns are. National Parks aren't one of them and they should stay that way.

[Thirdpower]

"they should stay that way"

Why? Because you're afraid of guns?

This is the same line of argument used against CCW. It was false then and it's false now.

[sdskelton03]

I am not afraid of my car stereo being stolen in a national park. I am worried about animal attack, survival and the off chance that I run into someone bigger than me with bad intentions.

Besides, if I carry my firearm in a secured holster on a three night camping trip, never unholster the thing and leave the woods, how have I bothered anyone?

[Dimensio]

" National Parks aren't one of them and they should stay that way."

Please justify your assertion that National Parks "should" remain under such a prohibition.

[djcrsn]

Super8--at this point your analysis ignores 2 minor factors--Heller and the 2nd amendment. Since there is an individual enforceable right to keep and bear arms and the right to self defense everywhere--your fear of irresponsibly armed yahoos is slightly irrelevent

[Tao21Zen]

According to your own established criteria , something as small as 0.00007 is too small to justify behavior based on the fear of something happening by those in that 0.00007 group.

It was pointed out that the the number of licensed CCW holders that commits the same type of violent crime is 0.00000012­5%. This is a much much smaller number and, according to your own established criteria, isn't sufficient to justify your desire to disarm law abiding citizens based on your fear of armed law abiding citizens.

[benEzra]

You can't shoot to defend your stereo. You can shoot to defend your life.

FWIW, my own father had a "save" with a lawfully carried firearm in the Croatan National Forest in eastern NC when I was a child. No shots fired; his would-be attackers saw he was armed, stopped, backed off, and left.

[djcrsn]

And this "oops" then scram is very common when the yahoo finds out the prospective victim is armed

[MycroftHolmes28]

If you are afraid of some yahoo in National Parks then you should stay home.

[super8]

I wouldn't give it a second thought if the yahoos weren't armed.

You see what I'm getting at. Sort of a chicken-and-egg thing.

[Thirdpower]

So you 'worry' every time you go outside?

[super8]

Well, I don't live in a National Park where crime is infinitesimal, so I don't have reason to expect not to run into armed yahoos from time to time. But I've lived in the city for decades without that happening, either, so not so much a chicken-and-egg thing here as apples and oranges.

As a rule I choose not to live in fear and to be unarmed at the same time. I join about 75% of the rest of the country in that, I think.

[MycroftHolmes28]

Key word there...

I "CHOOSE...­"

Some of us have made different choices, that's what's so super neato about freedom.

[mike102]

"As a rule I choose not to live in fear and to be unarmed at the same time. I join about 75% of the rest of the country in that, I think."

You think wrong. There are over 80,000,000 gun owners on the books in this country. That's about half the adult population.

Where did you get 75%, some BC fairy tale?

[Thirdpower]

No but unless you live in IL, WI, or Wash DC. you have been in a place where people are legally carrying concealed firearms.

So by your own 'logic', you give a 'second thought' every time you go outside because you are afraid of firearms.

[Tao21Zen]

According to your own established criteria , something as small as 0.00007 is too small to justify behavior based on the fear of something happening by those in that 0.00007 group.

It was pointed out the the number of licensed CCW holders that commits the same type of violent crime is 0.00000012­5%. This is a much much smaller number and, according to your own established criteria, isn't sufficient to justify your desire to disarm others based on your fear 'armed yahoos.'

[MycroftHolmes28]

I wonder if Paul was worried about the environment this little girl lived in?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492425,00.html

[benEzra]

And the number of murders committed each year in National Forests, state parks, and BLM lands, where the "new" rules have always applied...­ZERO.

Allowing states to set their own carry rules for National Parks, just as they always have for National Forests, BLM lands, and state parks, is not the bogeyman. Licensed, trained, responsible individuals with squeaky-clean records carrying legally when camping in the wilderness with their families doesn't affect you a bit.

The people you should worry about in National Parks _already_ carry guns, without state licenses, and don't care if the rules change or not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0610/p01s03-usgn.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/

The no-licensed-carry rules only disarm people so law-abiding that they would obey a no-carry rule KNOWING they would never be caught if they carried anyway.

[super8]

Of course you mean "licensed, trained, responsible individuals with squeaky-clean records carrying legally" like this guy in Tennessee who was just charged with murder?

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/02/handgun_permit_holder_kills_so.php

You mean like him? No thanks.

[sdskelton03]

After years, you got one.

When you get to thousands (that's how many lives have been saved by permits) let me know

[super8]

Hey everybody, Google's super neat-o! You should try it sometime.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-gunmain28jan28,0,2918397.story

"In an investigation of the state's concealed weapon system, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel found those licensed to carry guns in the first half of 2006 included: More than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified because of a loophole in the law."

Are we done now? I am, at least. Bye....

[Tao21Zen]

Notice that this same story admits that there are "more than 410,000 (Statewide CCW permits) today. "
That equates to (1,400/410,000) = 0.003415 or 0.342%

Who was it that was citing extremely small outliers as being a reason not to fear the overall segment containing these outliers?

---

Also, keep in mind the "loophole" you are talking about is:

"people charged with felonies [are allowed to] to obtain licenses to carry guns three years after they complete their sentences so long as a judge 'withholds adjudicati­on.'"

Withholding adjudication means their were not adjudicated guilty of the crime by the judge. So, this isn't a problem with the CCW system, it's a problem with a legal system not properly adjudicating criminals.

[OldSFMJT]

No, super! We're talking about the other 80,000+ permit holders in the state of Tennessee (that you ignore!) who HAVEN'T comitted such crimes. By my calculations, that equals a 0.00000012­5% chance of this recurring! I'll take those odds any day!

You've got an anecdote, not evidence! Try again!

Old SF MJT

[Tao21Zen]

Funny how a low figure like .00007 violent crimes being committed somewhere is supposed to be viewed as a reason not to fear such crimes and thus a reason to justify there not being a need for licensed CCW in parks

BUT

the fact that only 0.00000012­5% (a much much smaller number) of licensed CCW holders commits the same type of violent crime is not supposed to be sufficient proof that licensed CCW holders are not something to be worried about and thus justifying their not being anti-CCW laws.

You have to love anti-gun hypocrisy.

[MajorTom125]

Well done, Zen. I don't think the other side actually does the math, or they don't care to.

[Dimensio]

It is illogical to derive a trend from a single data point, and it is unreasonable to claim that illogically derived trend as justification for denying a right.

[Ohio9]

Hey I bet I can find plenty of licensed drivers who have killed people. Does that mean no one should be allowed to drive around national parks?

[djcrsn]

Super8--of course you realize that a higher percentage of LEO's are charged with crimes than CCW holders--in fact a former cop convicted of rape made the Los Angeles Times recently--he made it through a faulty county hiring system to become an X Ray tech at King Drew medical center and a county clinic

[Ohio9]

You just don't get it do you? If a person is willing to ignore the law on unlawful firearms usage, he's obviously not going to follow the law that prohibits firearms in the first place. So it's really not an issue.

If you are so afraid of lawful armed citizens, then you can stay home and leave the rest of us safe and sound.

[mike102]

They will never understand that gun laws only affect the law-abiding, so they push for more idiotic laws for criminals to ignore.

This leads me to believe that they are not actually interested in preventing violent crime, but are interested in disarming the public. In this way, the sheep become ever more dependant on the government in yet another aspect of their lives, namely their own personal protection. Odd, since the government is not responsible for their personal protection.

[mike102]

"My fear of some yahoo and his gun, and of his propensity to shoot it at whatever he might feel like at that moment, outweighs his fear of the boogeyman.­"

Well, since this doesn't happen in state parks, most of which have allowed concealed carry all along, what are you really afraid of?

"If someone is really afraid of the crime in National Parks then he should give in to his unique brand of misanthropic agoraphobia and stay home."

Tell that to those women who were found beheaded in Yellowstone, a couple of years ago. Tell that to people who were attacked by bears and mountain lions.

You, like your pals at the BC, are interested in only one thing. That is banning as many guns, from as many people, in as many places as possible. You want to turn the whole country into a crime free Utopia, like Washington DC.

No thanks. You stay home.

[mike102]

Correction- Those women were found beheaded in Yosemite, not Yellowstone.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5005463.html

As someone mentioned earlier, it is foolish to go out into the forrest without some form of protection, because you are absolutely on your own.

[PlaceboStudman]

Washington DC a crime free utopia....­that's a good one!

I lived there and it is riddled with crime

[mike102]

Yes Studman, I lived in the similarly crime free Utopia of Chicago Ill for a while. I'm assuming they are crime free because guns have been banned there for years, with the DC ban only having been overturned this past June.

What's that you say? They aren't crime free? DC has consistantly had one of the highest homicide rates in the US? Street and violent crime are rampant in Chicago? The only people without guns are the law-abiding citizens?

Do you mean to tell me I've been lied to by the gun-banners all along?

Who'da thunkit?

[djcrsn]

2nd posting--And if you include all defensive uses of firearms and not just the rarest--Kellerman's study goes from a 43 to 1 loss for guns used defensively to 500 wins for armed victims to 6 losses.

[vespasian1]

"My fear of some yahoo and his gun, and of his propensity to shoot it at whatever he might feel like at that moment, outweighs his fear of the boogeyman.­"

I see. We have a propensity to shoot at whatever we feel like. Sure we do. Happens all the time.
Since I know you can't site an example of anyone shooting up a state park with a concealed handgun, I won't ask you too.

And you're wrong. This "yahoo" has every right to the ability to protect himself and his family against the possibilty of actual danger. You DO NOT have a right to deprive him of that ability because of your fear of guns, and your imagined fear of his "shooting at whatever he might feel like at the moment".

It doesn't happen. It's all in your head.

[MajorTom125]

"Well, I don't live in a National Park where crime is infinitesimal, so I don't have reason to expect not to run into armed yahoos from time to time."

Ever been to a state park? All kinds of armed yahoos walking around, and nobody's getting shot. I wonder how that's possible.

And since you brought up boogeymen, let's ask ourselves where these imaginary boogeymen are really coming from. They are coming from the BC. Paul has zilch to back up his position that concealed carry poses any danger whatsoever, just as it hasn't posed a danger anywhere else in the US. He also had zilch to back up his position regarding legal firearms in Washington DC, so he created boogeymen to instill fear in people (children legally walking around the White House with assault rifles, terrorists setting up legal sniper nests along motorcade routes, that sort of nonsense), etc..

I'm sure we're in for some similar flights of fantasy regarding concealed carry in national parks. Wait for it.

[djcrsn]

The yahoos with guns that you have to worry about will continue to have guns no matter what laws are passed

[PlaceboStudman]

I suspect you dont really live very near national parks. Otherwise you would realize that this isn't just about crime, this is about some of us, such as the disabled, who can not protect ourself against things like, say, a bear, or a mountain lion, let alone any potential person that might see us as vulnerable and want to do harm to us, whether we carry a gun or not.

the right to own and use a gun anywhere we go, is sometimes a matter of life and death. It is vital not only to survival against other people who might want to do us harm, but against nature/animals whose very instinct to protect themself would cause them to attack us in self defense.

[fishyjay]

I notice that those who favor a gun ban in National Parks worry a lot about what "might" happen without a ban. Instead, it should be a simple matter to focus on facts. This can be done in two ways.

First, there are 24 states that allow CCW permit holders to carry guns in state parks. There are probably national parks in many of those states as well. So, just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks which have allowed CCW than in the national parks which have not.

Second, many states have allowed significant CCW only recently. So, just compare and see if there has been more gun misuse in the state parks after CCW was allowed than in those same parks before CCW was allowed.

For some reason, those who favor a gun ban in National Parks have failed to utilize these types of facts to make their argument. A likely reason is that the facts do not support their position. For example, from the Anchorage Daily News:

But park service officials in Alaska didn't appear particularly concerned.
"We've had guns in the ANILCA parks since 1980 with no real troubles," noted Alaska region spokesman John Quinley. The legislation creating the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, parks has always allowed for guns to be carried.

[djcrsn]

Depriving someone of an effective right to self defense because of what MIGHT HAPPEN is not legit. SInce CCW holders are the least likely group of people to commit a crime outside of the park, the logical presumption is that their law abiding ways would continue in the parks. SInce most of the people opposing this change would scream bloody murder at the rest of the BOR being treated the same way--they are being hypocritical here.

[IndieBlue]

Out of all the crazy shenanigans the Bush administration could have tried to push through in the 11th hour, this is what they chose? After eight years of trampling on the Constitution, launching an illegal and unjustifiable war, and impairing our standing in the wold, I'm almost disappointed by the frivolity of this.

[sdskelton03]

Why the hell would our tax dollars be spent to study the environmental impact of carrrying firearms into the woods. I don't even need to do a study to answer that question.

None.

Now give me a quarter million or whatever these lefties were going to pay for the study.

[Phideaux]

Mr. Helmke: Perhaps this will come as a surprise, but the bush administration will eventually be revealed as the most corrupt, abusive and nationally damaging administration on record, bar none.

Millions of open-eyed citizens recognized this over eight years ago when bush was INSTALLED into the office of president. We complained, we lobbied and we wrote to whoever would listen; to no avail.

Sadly, "We The People" have just endured eight years of subjugation to a tyrant, emerging just recently from a seemingly endless nightmare. The damage wrought by the bush administration is yet to be fully tallied.

So while I can empathize with your feelings of betrayal that the rule-of-law was usurped in order to push through this so-called legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons into National parks, rest assured sir that this abandonment of legal protocol is just one very small example of how the bush administration abandoned all pretense of legal compliance in almost every venue of our society.

Did you and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence protest earlier when great swaths of our other legal rights were being steamrolled over? We did.... and then we voted.

[Dimensio]

Do you have a comment that relates to the specific rule change that is the topic of this discussion?

[bliznik70000]

The Brady campaign is really taking advantage of the bad press surrounding the otherwise intensely negative stuff Bush did at the last minute. This is one of the few things Bush did in eight years I can agree with, whether he followed proper procedures or not. In case anyone didn't notice, he also created the largest federally-protected sanctuary in the world at the "last minute". Should we work to undo that, too? Work to undo the illegally-awarded oil and gas contracts by the national parks. This particular law only makes us safer.