Is this true?

[flyfishooltewah]

Disappointing advocates of stricter gun laws, the Obama Justice Department is defending a midnight regulation that allows concealed firearms in national parks. Three groups, including the Brady Campaign, have filed a lawsuit to overturn the law. The Obama administration has countered that the rule will not affect the environment, public health or safety. Nonetheless, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for a review of the rule. (Washington Post)

[Guest 2HOW]

DOJ Defends National-Park Carry Rule: The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster. In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled… In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety." But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday… (While the rule change occurred on Bush’s watch, I think it’s a stretch to say that he enacted it.)

[G27]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obama-defends-bush-rule-permitting-guns-national-parks/

[musicman]

Wow, didn't see that one coming! Guess that's not exactly what most of us were thinking he'd do. Am I going to have to eat my words at some point?

[Guest canynracer]

Wow, didn't see that one coming! Guess that's not exactly what most of us were thinking he'd do. Am I going to have to eat my words at some point?

not that it would be new to you....

I kid I kid...you know we love ya James

[BrasilNuts]

"They also claim that the new policy could discourage some visitors from visiting national landmarks."

I am sure it will encourage many visitors as well.

[Guest mustangdave]

for sure...wouldn't want to offend any of the indigenous wildlife...by having a gun for self protection now would we?

[K191145]

Wow, didn't see that one coming! Guess that's not exactly what most of us were thinking he'd do. Am I going to have to eat my words at some point?

My guess is that they just don't want to go too fast with any gun control agenda right now, it's just one of those wait and see things. My hope is that they realize that a gun control agenda is politically more damaging than leaving the issue alone.

[Mike.357]

I was in the SMNP Sunday. Did not hear any gun shots, did not see blood on the trail and no, the steams did not flow red either.

I did feel even safer than normal while there.

[Guest jackdog]

I was in the SMNP Sunday. Did not hear any gun shots, did not see blood on the trail and no, the steams did not flow red either.

I did feel even safer than normal while there.

So did you forget to bring ammo:D

[saintsfanbrian]

I totally missed this. GW did a great thing there. So now I can go to Yellowstone!!!!

[Guest m&pc9]

So did you forget to bring ammo:D

:rofl:

[ukerduker]

I'm still waiting to see the bait and switch involved in this decision. They probably think this will cause gun owners to let their guard down.

This can't make the Brady bunch happy.

[Guest m&pc9]

The deal is: Its ok to carry in a NP if you have a permit, So they are going to do away with all permits:stir: So it wont matter

[Guest Grout]

I was in the SMNP Sunday. , did not see blood on the trail and no, the steams did not flow red either.

I did feel even safer than normal while there.

That just means the bears weren't hungry or nobody had hemmoroids.

[Smith]

"They also claim that the new policy could discourage some visitors from visiting national landmarks."

I am sure it will encourage many visitors as well.

I think the point of carrying is to discourage some of the "regular visitors" from visiting the parks!

[Mike.357]

Nah, had plenty of ammo.

The only thing I dislike about this new found freedom of toting a gun in the park is that it must be concealed.

I assume concealed means you can't be found carrying a gun just by sight.

I carried a less bulky revolver and made extra effort to conceal it.

[Guest jackdog]

Nah, had plenty of ammo.

The only thing I dislike about this new found freedom of toting a gun in the park is that it must be concealed.

I assume concealed means you can't be found carrying a gun just by sight.

I carried a less bulky revolver and made extra effort to conceal it.

Hey I'M just glad we can do it. It may help us win the battle for state and municipal parks as well.

[Guest 270win]

Concealing a handgun at a national park is a good idea. You never know when some bed wetter may call the park police and you unknown to you could be in a 'gun free' federal area, like taking a leak in the bathroom. I've always carried concealed in public in whatever state i've traveled to and never been questioned or detained by police...because they didn't know I was carrying!

[bvarnell]

Concealing a handgun at a national park is a good idea. You never know when some bed wetter may call the park police and you unknown to you could be in a 'gun free' federal area, like taking a leak in the bathroom. I've always carried concealed in public in whatever state i've traveled to and never been questioned or detained by police...because they didn't know I was carrying!

+1

Why invite a confrontation.

[Guest ProguninTN]

My guess is that they just don't want to go too fast with any gun control agenda right now, it's just one of those wait and see things. My hope is that they realize that a gun control agenda is politically more damaging than leaving the issue alone.

Obama is probably remembering Bill Clinton's attack on the 2A back in 1993 and 1994. After the Brady Bill and the AWB, the Republicans took over after the '94 elections.

[Mike.357]

I think it would take a real hard ass to bust you for having your concealed weapon in a restroom. But if it is concealed no one will know anyway.

I would like a definitive answer to if a restroom qualifies as a federal building. In my mind the purpose is to keep the sheep in the vistor centers safely unaware.

The libs and anti's point out the very low rate of crime in a national park. It is true I suppose. But why I want to carry in a park is that a crime there seems to be more catostrophic than just a wallet snatch or cooler robbery. People get kidnapped and killed when a crime is committed in the park, thats what I worry about and that is what I am defending. Not too mention the real time for crime is entering your hotel/motel room. Gun needs to be ready at that moment as well.