| National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, |
A year of controversy ends with a bang on Feb. 20, 2010, when visitors will be allowed to pack guns into Glacier National Park.
The rule change - loaded guns have not been allowed in parks for decades - first was floated as an administrative rule change in the last days of the George W. Bush presidency, but later was challenged in court. Congress then attached the gun language to credit card legislation, which was signed by President Barack Obama on May 22.
Under the new rules, "all firearms - loaded, concealed and otherwise - can be carried, by anyone," according to Glacier Park spokeswoman Amy Vanderbilt. National parks and wildlife refuges now will have the same gun rules as the states in which they are located.
The guns will not, however, be allowed in federal facilities - such as park headquarters, visitor centers and ranger stations - or in places where federal employees regularly work - such as the auditorium at Glacier's Lake McDonald Lodge.
In Glacier, management still recommends carrying bear spray as a "proven and effective deterrent for aggressive or charging bears," Vanderbilt said. "A gun should be considered only as a last resort. Wounding a bear, even with a large-caliber gun, can put you and others in even greater danger."
The move to allow guns in parks and refuges - crafted by the National Rifle Association - was strongly opposed by coalitions of Park Service retirees, as well as by park ranger organizations. Vanderbilt said rangers in Glacier will "investigate to the fullest any reports of firearm discharge in the park."
Reporter Michael Jamison can be reached at 1-800-366-7186 or at mjamison@missoulian.com.
|
By Lisa Mascaro (contact)
Sun, May 24, 2009 (2 a.m.)
Washington — Take the freeway out of town and soon you’ll see the huge headquarters of the National Rifle Association just a short way away in suburban Virginia.
The NRA moved here in 1994, the year the gun lobby helped Republicans win control of Congress in midterm elections. The group’s logo, in a power font, bears down with influence.
The NRA exerts enormous sway over members of Congress. Lawmakers are reluctant to be at odds with the gun lobby. As much as this country may be shifting left on many issues, experts say voters remain solidly behind the Second Amendment.
Case in point: Every single member of the Nevada delegation voted recently to allow guns to be carried in national parks.
The legislation was tacked onto to a popular credit card reform bill that prevents arbitrary interest rate hikes and other practices consumers find unfair. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Friday.
Parks advocates are aghast at the notion of people packing pistols while coming to see Old Faithful or other national park treasures. The nation’s parks are special places, they argue. Current rules required guns to be stored and disassembled. The new law will take effect in nine months.
A duel had been under way for more than a year on the guns-in-parks measure.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked the provision from advancing several times.
A supporter of gun rights who can comfortably fire a shotgun, Reid nevertheless held off attempts by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to attach the gun amendment to other bills.
The outgoing Bush administration eventually changed administrative policy to allow guns in Nevada’s Great Basin and national parks elsewhere.
But a judge early this year struck down the Bush-era rule, and Coburn pressed forward.
Finally Reid allowed the vote this month, and 67 senators, including Reid and Nevada Republican John Ensign, voted yes.
Every member of the Nevada delegation in the House followed suit.
Democratic Reps. Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, both in urban Clark County, voted for the credit card measure with the newly attached gun provision.
In fact, given the opportunity to duck the vote by approving only the credit card portion of the bill, neither of Nevada’s Democratic lawmakers did.
Gun rights “is something that is important to a lot of people in Nevada and her district,” Titus spokesman Andrew Stoddard said. “I don’t think it was a difficult vote.
Berkley, too, said she felt comfortable allowing guns into the parks.
Republican Rep. Dean Heller voted for the gun provision, but against the credit card bill.
In the final Senate action, Reid voted for the full package, and Ensign was absent. He was at his son’s golf tournament, but would have voted for it, a spokesman said.
It’s hard to know what motivated Reid to move on something he had blocked so many times.
Reid had been seen as protecting reluctant Democratic senators from taking a pivotal stance in advance of the fall elections. A gun vote could help shore up the conservative credentials of red-state Democrats, particularly those facing scrutiny back home for their support of the financial bailouts and stimulus that some voters oppose.
Reid’s own reelection in 2010 cannot be ignored, as he burnishes his standing among Western voters in Nevada.
But perhaps just as likely Reid knew that Coburn would be back again and again, potentially holding up the Obama agenda.
Reid, ever the deal maker, called the vote to be done with it.
“We are very appreciative to Sen. Reid for allowing this common-sense measure to go through,” chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said.
On a beautiful afternoon in the Rose Garden, Obama signed the credit card bill into law. The sun was shining and, as Obama noted, “change is in the air.”
Not a single word was uttered about the newly-signed law also allowing guns to be carried in the nation’s national parks.
|
Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.
Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.
“America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said. “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law. This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”
On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”
Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.
The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.
“The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”
|
By NBC17, NBC17, 1 day, 12 hours agoDURHAM, N.C. -
The grassroots community organization, ACORN, is fighting for a new law it says will save lives.
"Stop the Bullet" is a campaign that would make it harder for felons to buy ammunition from stores.
When you buy a gun, gun shops have to run a background check first to make sure you're not a convicted felon.
Although it is also illegal for convicted felons to buy bullets, a background check is not required. As it stands now, gun shops aren't required to ask any questions before selling bullets, as long as the buyer is 18 and can present identification.
Community organizer for the local NC ACORN group, The Rev. Melvin Whitley, says it's too easy for criminals to buy ammo, and he plans to close that loophole.
ACORN'S initiative would expand the law to include ammunition, and may even include a requirement for bullet permits.
"The problem with the law is that it allows criminals to have access to bullets. And it's the bullets that's killing us," according to Whitley.
But gun shop owners disagree.
They feel it's just another way organizations are trying to take away their Second Amendment rights.
"We have to make it clear we are not talking about gun control, we're talking about bullets," said Durham City Council Member Howard Clement III.
Whitley stated his case before the Durham City Council Thursday in hopes that the council will add it to its legislative agenda. The council's legislative committee will determine whether the initiative has legs.
Whitley hopes to get the bill passed in a year.
According to the National Sports Shooting Foundation, at least 18 states have tried to pass laws to stamp bullets with serial numbers or tax individual bullets. None have passed.
Learn More About Bullet Serialization
A bill requiring serial numbers on bullets failed the Kentucky State House this year. See Bill
New York lawmakers proposed bullet control legislation in 2007. Read More
|
Targeting Gun Rights Instead of Criminals: S1774 is a Bad Dose of Old Medicine
Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual citizen's right to own handguns, it's time for public officials to start prescribing a new antidote for gun crime: target violent criminals who actually misuse handguns, instead of passing scattershot laws with toxic side-effects like disarming victims, bullying honest gun owners, and demonizing firearms themselves.
Unfortunately, a bill pending in the State Senate and up for committee vote 12/8 (S1774) is a bad dose of old medicine. It's a proposal to ration the Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns beyond the existing regulatory thicket, which already slows exercise of those rights to a trickle. It ignores violent behavior and known sources of illegal trafficking, instead restricting only persons investigated and pre-certified as acceptable to own firearms. Even mainstream media recognize the ineffectiveness of this approach.
State handgun permits currently take months to receive, and can be further delayed or denied to anyone unsuitable. Applicants go to their local police, disclose personal and employment information under penalty of perjury, get fingerprinted, consent to criminal and mental health background checks, submit references, pay fees, and then wait, sometimes six months or longer.
Meanwhile, law enforcement conducts a 13-point background investigation. If a permit issues, it must be used within 90 days or the process repeats. A federal background check occurs at purchase, and transaction details are reported to police. If multiple permits are used within 5 days, another report is filed with BATFE.
S1774 criminalizes use of more than one permit per month, no matter how long the applicant waited for them or when they expire. It ignores the background checks and pre-certification, treating honest citizens like criminals and interfering with self defense and property transfer. If a gun recently bought for protection from a stalker or batterer malfunctions or is stolen, it cannot be rapidly replaced when needed most.
So how, exactly, are criminals impacted by S1774? It's hard to say. The theory goes that criminals and their surrogates apply for permits and legally buy their crime guns from licensed dealers, so selling fewer guns overall will reduce crime. That's like saying selling fewer cars will reduce drunk driving, which is absurd.
Who actually believes that criminals willingly submit to police as prospective gun buyers, undergo fingerprinting and background checks, wait for permits, buy guns in government-monitored sales, only to turn around and sell them illegally or use them in crime? Were that true, personal data gathered in the process would lead authorities straight to them. But that doesn't happen, because criminals don't get guns that way.
A recent BATFE statistic is cited to misleadingly claim that 27% of "crime guns" traced in New Jersey began as lawful purchases. Conveniently omitted is the fact that many traced guns have absolutely no connection to crime but are given a "crime" code nonetheless by the BATFE database, which requires such a code to initiate a trace. So-called "crime guns" include firearms from house fires, floods, natural disasters, gun buy-back programs, estates, dealer inspections, court-orders, and lost or stolen firearms. Just because a firearm is traced doesn't mean it was used in crime.
While politicians debate whether rationing guns to sportsmen will reduce crime, no one is paying attention to a primary source of crime guns: theft rings. An Eatontown FedEx worker was recently charged with stealing 146 handguns from shipments and illegally selling them in Jersey City and Newark - cities plagued by gun crime who vocally support S1774 even though it ignores firearms theft.
Violent criminals who use handguns should be locked up, and we should throw away the key. Maximum sentences, no plea bargains, no early parole - it's just that simple, because it addresses the real cause of gun crime without limiting rights of honest people.
One might think New Jersey would have enacted such a straightforward law long ago, but it hasn't. Instead, it has spun a tangled web of hypertechnical laws obsessed with blanket regulation of gun possession by everyone rather than punishing criminal behavior. Many of these laws place sportsmen in jeopardy of 10-year prison sentences for "crimes" like stopping for food or fuel on the way to a target range, or allowing a spouse to access firearms.
Criminals laugh at laws that regulate hardware, because they don't get hardware legally, and they're not deterred when one tool becomes less available.
Gun rationing schemes have been tried before, but have been voided, repealed, or shown ineffective. A state court voided Jersey City's ordinance, finding "no rational relationship between restricting the number of guns that a licensed gun dealer and a licensed gun owner can transact per month and the frequency of illegal gun possession and crime." That decision was affirmed on appeal. A similar South Carolina law was repealed in 2004 as ineffective.
If we make the mistake of demonizing firearms instead of punishing criminal behavior, we disarm victims and neglect true causes of crime. We need tough laws severely punishing violent criminal behavior with guns, not laws that restrict the Constitutional rights of honest people.
|
Aggie Senator to Propose Concealed Handguns on College Campuses Save Email Print
Posted: 10:25 PM Nov 30, 2008
Last Updated: 11:49 PM Nov 30, 2008
Reporter: Ashlea Sigman
Email Address: Sigman@kbtx.com
69 comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggie Senator to Propose Concealed Handguns on College Campuses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A | A | A They're small, hidden, pack a powerful punch, and permit holders can carry them most places in Texas. However, when it comes to handguns, a college campus isn't one of those places.
"That's in my opinion, a big problem," said Matthew Rogers. Rogers started Texas A&M's chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
"All we're asking is that you allow us to make that choice. If I can legally carry somewhere else, allow me to make the decision whether or not I want to carry here on campus," said Rogers.
At least one person in the Texas Legislature agrees. State Senator Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, an Aggie himself, has promised to propose a bill that would allow those with a permit to pack heat on campus.
However, not everyone on campus thinks that's a good idea.
"I don't believe that we should be putting firearms in the midst of students who are going through trauma and stress and situations that can push students to the limits," said Texas A&M senior, Darrin Barton.
Supporters say the bill wouldn't change current requirements, like age; license holders would still be at least 21 years old.
"I don't see that there's going to be a big behavior change from when I can carry at home and when I can carry here," said Rogers.
Although some students said they supported gun rights, they said they would feel uncomfortable with guns in a college classroom.
"When was the last time you ran into a student that said they were uncomfortable off campus because of all the people around them carrying concealed handguns?" said Rogers. "The fact is they don't know. It's concealed, that's the point."
"It's not about whether you can see it at the time they have it concealed, its about when they use it," said Barton. "At any point when is that going to become an option for someone to use?"
It's a debate that will continue in Austin, in January, when Texas' 81st Legislature convenes.
Officials at Texas A&M declined to comment, saying administrators will wait until the bill is filed before taking a position.
|
|
