Wow Lumberjack! Didn’t take ya long.

I’m sure you make the average gun freak proud.

I’m sure Socrates is throwing up, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from buying you a beer for you bullet-proof argument (no pun intended).

‘aint nuthin gonna happen to the 2nd amendment. Good thing your gun right is now secured to the Bill of Rights after Supreme court review.

Obama is in over his head, and this will become a least of his worries.

He would first have to stack a favorable Supreme court, and then make the attempt. He is a one term president in my view, and will not have the opportunity.

Let’s look at some other pieces of information:

National parks are meant to be laid-back places where the stress and strain of work and home are left behind for a more mellow experience.

But increasingly, those rangers in their Smokey Bear hats who give talks on nature and lead campfire singalongs – especially the ones trained in law enforcement – are facing crime and violence.

A watchdog group last week warned that law enforcement work in national parks is the most dangerous in federal service.

“National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents,” the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported. “National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98.”

Or this

SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST, California (CNN) — Beyond the towering trees that have stood here for thousands of years, an intense drug war is being waged.
Authorities uncovered more than $1 billion worth of pot plants in Sequoia National Forest this week.

Illegal immigrants connected to Mexico’s drug cartels are growing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in the heart of one of America’s national treasures, authorities say. It’s a booming business that, federal officials say, feeds Mexico’s most violent drug traffickers….
Authorities have arrested 38 people and seized 29 automatic weapons, high-powered rifles and other guns, Boudreaux said.

Perhaps running a Google search would show that there is a serious issue with crime in national parks.

So, do you want to be that 1.65 per 100,000?

Bob S,

I’d have thought by now you’d have figured out that good policy is driven by the rule, not the exception.

Advanced societies dismiss percentages under 5% when factoring. The fact that you are using a 1.6% numbers may provide us a hint as to WHY the NRA GOT ITS ASS KICKED.

Are ya feelin’ it Bob?

By the way Richard,

Nice dodge….care to answer whether or not you want to be the 1.65 / 100,000?
Or how many violent assaults are needed before people can defend themselves?

The election of Obama has precipitated the addition of thousands of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. The gun and ammunition buying craze is continuing unabated. From the point of Obama’s election this has been the case.

In the city of Grand Junction Colorado one gun dealers sold his 20,000 pieces in 1 month and then closed up shop and left town.

Needless to say, those who purchased now will no doubt fight to keep their weapons politically. Obama isn’t forever, and he is shaping up to be a proper establishment type water carrier anyway.

Richard,

What does your email have to do with anything?

Does it tell you how many crimes, how many violent assaults could have been prevented if the people were armed?

Since firearms are already allowed in National parks, and the violent crime rate is so low, obviously there isn’t a problem with the law abiding folks using their firearms. Right?

So what harm does it do for them to be concealed on a person instead of in a car?

Richard,

You can’t have it both ways.

Can’t claim that violent crime is so rare that people aren’t in danger, then turn around and point out the fact that gun crimes are frequently occurring as a reason to keep guns out of the parks. ‘

The ruling doesn’t allow everyone to carry in the parks, only those already licensed to carry concealed. The anecdotes you cite could, probably would occur regardless of the change in the rules.

Now, how about an answer…how many violent crimes have to occur before people are allowed to carry accessible firearms?

Less then the 4,512 that occurred?

Richard,

You say armed people are all over the place, but there isn’t the crime data to support there is a huge problem. If there was you would be posting it, not anecdotes about people shooting in place too close to camp.

The armed citizenry, for the most part, isn’t getting into violent confrontations.

As for as irresponsible people, there are irresponsible people operating ski boats, 4 wheelers, ski-doos, lighting firearms, etc. We can’t keep irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things.

Have any evidence to support your contention, your opinion that carrying a firearm increase your chance of “getting involved in a violent, life threatening incident”?

Many who carry concealed are more likely, not less likely to walk away from a confrontation because they know the consequences of getting into that confrontation.

So, are you saying that carrying a firearm shouldn’t be done unless it is your job to get into “violent, life threatening incidents”?

Richard,

How does that work….armed people won’t hesitate to shoot armed people but will be unwilling to shoot unarmed people?

You are doubling back on your self here.

Now, let me get this straight….violent crimes are rare according to you. 1.65 per 100,000 but violent confrontations are common during the summer and hunting season?

So which is it?

According to this:

The National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults.

That works out a little higher then your stated 1.65 per 100,000. Doesn’t it?

As far as carrying a concealed weapon not helping, what you are saying doesn’t make sense. Firearm would have to be carried openly….breaking the rules for them to be pointed at me during the confrontation.

Are you claiming that most of the violent crimes are only committed with firearms?

Help me out here Richard.

Richard,

First, you would guess wrong. As someone with a CHL, I have thought seriously about engaging in a gun fight.

Someone reaching for a gun is going to get shot by the guy who already has his gun out.

Sorry but that is not always true, search YouTube, Veoh or any of the video channels for the all the robberies gone bad. Usually the bad guy has a firearm out, but the store owner still manages to shoot the bad guy. Just having the firearm isn’t enough, having the training, skill and mindset to use the firearm is just as, if nor more important.

You are going back on yourself again. Does that make it the third or fourth change.

You’ve said

National parks, thanks in part to the long-standing rule that people generally have to keep guns unloaded and out of sight, are safe. Inside a national park, you are much less likely to encounter armed Yahoos. I like that. Let’s not change it.

and you’ve said

Wait until the summer and hunting season, I’ll post some law enforcement reports that will give even you the heebie-jeebies. Violent confrontations? You bet.

So which is it?

If violent confrontations are rare, someone having a concealed carry license isn’t going to have much need to get into a violent, life-threatening incident

If violent confrontations aren’t rare and especially if gun toting “rednecks” are common, then shouldn’t a person have a right to have their own firearms accessible?

How does that compare to the FBI stat, which you say equates to 4,512 violent crimes in the national parks per year?

I didn’t say that the FBI stat. I used the information you gave, 1.65 /100,000 and the number of visitors to parks, 273 Million something.

The park service said there were 116 thousand offenses in the parks.

How about answering the question: How many violent assaults does it take before people are allowed to effectively defend themselves?

This isn’t about firearms Richard, its about our rights. You have the right to go anywhere unarmed, I simply want the right to carry in National Parks if the state I’m in allows carrying in their parks.

Concealed Carry License Holders are, statistically not the problem. So why shouldn’t we be allowed to exercise our rights. Exercising our rights does not interfere with you exercising your rights.

Federal Farmer is right that the left does seem to get its undies in a bit of a bunch over guns. But make no mistake, the left has no monopoloy over underwear climbing up the butt crack. The right gets its garments regularly bunched-up over a whole host of issues as well (can you say Gay Marriage FF?). So save the lecture.

You may not like guns, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

You may not like abortion, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

You may not like the fact that the cops need a warrant based upon probable cause to conduct a search. Too frickin’ bad. If they want to conduct the search, they need a warrant. Deal with that.

You may not like sharing the front of the bus, the water fountain, or the classroom with Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. That’s really too frickin’ bad. Separate but equal is so passe’ (and unconstitutional). So deal with that, biggots.

And gays have the right to the same “priviliges and immunities” and “equal protection” as straights. So you can try to frame the issue any way you want, but deal with that h8ers.

Have I failed to offend anybody? If so, I apologize for the oversight.

- Rico

Yes, Fed is right. Gun ownership is Constitutional. You can’t pick and choose. If wiretapping offends you, so should reversing gun rights.

Cliff, nice spin. You remind me of this guy:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, Cliff.

Also, what’s all the huff about a “last minute rule”? What makes a ruling “last minute”? A year of public comments? First the Department asks for a comment period, and are swamped with replies. Then, because they felt that they didn’t get enough comments AGAINST the measure, they extend comments….and still end up with the scale tipped toward modernizing the rules.

The “Last minute” crap is just that.

As as getting “spanked” in the elections…well, it’s easy to win if you only back sure winners.

From Howard Nemerov

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would have us believe that the 2008 election was proof that the American people have mandated the anti-self-defense policies promoted by Brady and their endorsed candidates. However, closer examination shows that Brady manufactured their election “success” by:
· Endorsing House candidates primarily in states with historical predispositions to support the Brady agenda,
· Endorsing a larger percentage of House candidates who ran in uncontested elections,
· Using a 2001 dataset in an attempt to prove its relevance to a 2008 event, and
· Endorsing Democrats almost exclusively and riding the pro-Democrat victory wave as the American people voted against the possibility of continuing Republican policies of the last 8 years.

So…nope. Sorry, Cliffy.

Has anyone ever seen Cliff and Robert Bork in the same place at the same time?

Things that make you go “hmmm….”

(BTW, I’m just bustin’ your hump a bit Cliff. Don’t get all spazzy on me.)

Richard, a gun is a tool.

The rule change acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of States have “shall issue” concealed carry laws (unlike when the original law was enacted). Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws. Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead.

The Department of the Interior simply decided that people who are deemed trustworthy enough to carry a gun concealed in public within their own States are trustworthy enough to carry concealed in a National Park. The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners

One of the most basic rights we as lawful citizens enjoy is the right to defend our families and ourselves. The right to self-defense should not end simply because someone crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge.

Honestly, Richard, if you have a problem with people carrying concealed handguns, you are living in the wrong State. As of March 2008, there were more than 112,000 concealed permits issued in the Utah. There must be shootouts over parking spaces and the last pack of gum every day, no? Blood in the streets? Wild Wild West? Dodge City?

And Larry’s sign is probably full-o-bullet holes, isn’t it?

Your irrational fears, Richard, are just that.

Richard, with all respect: “A firearm is not a “tool.” It’s a deadly weapon”

Lots of things are deadly weapons, cars, knives, louieville sluggers, candlesticks, boxcutters.

Any attempt to do so will be seen as an act of TREASON.

Not one pro-gun freak has EVER attempted to explain the first part of the second amendment.

They are so afraid of that DEPENDENT clause, they don’t even quote it.

Imagine that trying to argue a right in which only they refuse to quote the entire sentence.

Hmmm.

Cliff,

Leaving aside the derogatory “gun freak” you missed information posted on your own site, in response to your own post.

From Tomare

Tomare Utsu Zo Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

The right to bear arms is actually in our Constitution twice. First, is the 2nd which does make mention of the militia. That mention of the militia is a reference to every American citizen. It was understood that the militia consisted of the great body of the people. Samuel Adams said, “The Militia is composed of free Citizens.” Richard Henry Lee, who is recognized as being the most influential writer with regards the Bill of Rights, wrote “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in the greater measure unnecessary … The constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include … all men capable of bearing arms”. And, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”. Also, the right to keep and bear arms can’t be only tied to the militia (which even if it had been wouldn’t matter because the militia is every Citizen) but the text of the 2nd includes the words “the people” which, in the body of the Bill of Rights, has never been construed to mean anything other then individuals.

Of course I touched on this before also. and here

Want to go through the whole argument?

How about simply looking at what the people who wrote the Constitution thought, the people around at the time it was written, the people that just fought a war for our freedom:

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “STANDING Army” to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

“Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Let me know if you want to continue….be more then happy to cover all this again. I’m sure there are some people new to the board that might not have reviewed this information.

Enjoy using your site to educate folks about their rights…especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Richard,

You ability to twist the obvious is only surpassed by Cliff.

# Ken Bingham Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

If there is one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is for the Federal government to take away our 2nd amendment rights.
# Ken Bingham Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Any attempt to do so will be seen as an act of TREASON.

Note carefully that Ken isn’t talking about taking away our rights to carry in National Parks….because we lost that right decades ago and we didn’t fight a civil war then.

# Richard Warnick Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

What have we learned?

(1) “Gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are.”

(2) Gun owners are prepared to fight a civil war against the federal government over a relatively trivial issue of whether loaded guns can be carried inside national parks.

# 1 is obvious for those that want to see it. All the evidence, statistics, crime reports, anecdotes, everything shows that gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are to use JD’s words.

There are over 270,000,000 firearms. with less then 500,000 firearm related crimes . Even assuming that each crime involves a different firearm, that means only 0.18% of the firearms are used in crimes each year.

The fact that violent confrontations in National Parks isn’t a problem also shows that firearms aren’t a problem. As you state, the firearms are already allowed in the parks. So people aren’t getting them out and using them to force people to turn down their radios or stop making noise.

Cliff, if concealed carry weapons aren’t being used to defend anything, and evidence show that concealed carry holders aren’t committing vast numbers of crime (actually they are statistically among the most law abiding); what harm does it create to let people carry?

Richard, how, exactly, do you get this

Richard Warnick Says:

(2) Gun owners are prepared to fight a civil war against the federal government over a relatively trivial issue of whether loaded guns can be carried inside national parks.

From this?

Ken Bingham Says:

If there is one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is for the Federal government to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

Ken Bingham Says:

Are you deliberatly trying to misconstrue what Ken says?

If Democrats even try to touch gun control they can watch their gains in the west go up in smoke.

I’m Sorry JD, I can respond to this kind of disjointed logic. It is so far from the legal debate and interpretation. We would be wasting each others time.

Your nascent characterization of the Nat’l guard does not impact the intent of 2a

and Cliff, once again the simple hopes of the dependent clause has little to say now that the personal right has been established by Supreme Court review. Not to mention the wording of the 2nd applied to the context of history of personal firearms ownership and absolute rights to bear arms, when the Bill of Rights was written.

Yes Shane, that is the per capita murder rate.

Richard,

Since the 1930s, in non-hunting units of the National Park System, firearms had to be kept unloaded and stowed away

Just realized that if you don’t have a problem with firearms in the parks, then it must be the people who would be allowed to carry them, right?

So, what is it about the statistically law abiding concealed carry holders that endangers such pant soiling hysteria ?

Richard,

There is a difference between wanting to carry, wanting to exercise our rights to carry and the fear exhibited by the anti-gunners. I and I can’t find anyone else on this site that said they would be afraid to go to the national parks without carrying.

Would you want to go a national park without exercising the right to free speech or the right against unreasonable search and seizure?

Why should we have to give up our rights….because you and others are afraid?

Let’s look at how you describe the people who want to exercise their rights:

…. no gun-toting would-be vigilantes are needed.

Take your deadly play toys somewhere else please.

Where, pray tell, can I camp where I can be sure there are no gun-toting rednecks? Where?

My safety and peace of mind is much more important to me. How about you and your gun-toting buddies stay out of MY national parks if you don’t like the rules?

Carrying a firearm only increases your chance of getting involved in a violent, life-threatening incident. So it’s never a good idea unless it’s your job, and you’re well trained.

Over and over again, the hysteria shows up in your phrasing and word choices. On the other hand what doesn’t show up in anything is any statistical evidence that concealed carry holders are a problem.

That is all the rule change does, allows concealed carry holders the right to carry in the parks just like they can outside the park.

Federal Farmer is right that the left does seem to get its undies in a bit of a bunch over guns. But make no mistake, the left has no monopoloy over underwear climbing up the butt crack. The right gets its garments regularly bunched-up over a whole host of issues as well (can you say Gay Marriage FF?). So save the lecture.

You may not like guns, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

You may not like abortion, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

You may not like the fact that the cops need a warrant based upon probable cause to conduct a search. Too frickin’ bad. If they want to conduct the search, they need a warrant. Deal with that.

You may not like sharing the front of the bus, the water fountain, or the classroom with Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. That’s really too frickin’ bad. Separate but equal is so passe’ (and unconstitutional). So deal with that, biggots.

And gays have the right to the same “priviliges and immunities” and “equal protection” as straights. So you can try to frame the issue any way you want, but deal with that h8ers.

Have I failed to offend anybody? If so, I apologize for the oversight.

Rico, I am simply pointing out the fact that as much as the Left tries to portray themselves as champions of the common-man, they are certainly quick to play the elitist when it comes to convenient social issues.

That is the problem with many Democrats in Utah. The party is polluted by the wine-and-cheese “intellectuals” who cannot connect to the population of their state because these elitists despise everything about the majority of Utahns. I used to vote Democratic in this state until I became better acquainted with some of the leadership in my area, and after becoming familiar with their blatant anti-Mormonism and hateful snobbery, I have rarely felt inclined to support such a party.

It is funny that Cliff is willing to create “rights” out of thin air (due process rights for enemy combatants), yet when the “right to bear arms” is explicitly defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, Cliff would rather offer his own version.

If you are stuck on the “militia” argument, you must concede that you can’t create nor maintain a well-regulated militia without an armed population. That is the difference between a militia and standing army.

And nice job, jdberger, it’s good to see someone else who is willing to stand up to the dishonesty of Cliff and Warnick, who would rather discredit their opposition than disprove their points… there are too many “Uncle Ricos” who would rather play the role of a groupie than challenge Cliff.

Federal Farmer,

Say that “Cliff is willing to create “rights” out of thin air” does not make it true. In fact is says nothing.

Try again.

Neither have you presented any evidence to have a haphazard patchwork of laws, Richard.

If you are going to prohibit an otherwise normal activity, you better damn well have a good reason. You haven’t offered one.

You did completely distort what Bingham said, though.

Oh wait…what’s this?

“Park rangers are the most assaulted federal officers,” Jordan said. “Urban police officers had a lot more crime to deal with, but we have less staff.”

It used to be that being a ranger in Washington state’s national parks and forests meant guiding people through the great outdoors and serving as caretaker to plants and wildlife. But as cities and suburbs rapidly encroach upon wilderness areas, drugs and violence have crept into the outdoors.

Whether it’s meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior.

While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers in Washington say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry.

I’m surprized the sign isn’t shot full of holes. Must be a new installation.

Coming to a state near you: insuring your Second Amendment rights.

By force.

Richard,

You got me curious about exactly what the NEPA required. I a little skeptical that it says what the Brady Campaign is claiming.

Let’s make sure we are clear on the change…
firearms were already allowed in National Parks, correct?
Prior to the rule change, the firearms were required to be locked away, correct?
According to the rule change, only the location of the firearms is being changed, correct?

So, are you claiming that moving firearms from a car to someone’s hip is creating an environmental impact?

Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Section 102 requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as environmental impact statements (EISs). Section 102 also requires federal agencies to lend appropriate support to initiatives and programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment.

Now, I haven’t reviewed the exact wording of the law, but I wonder if the Bush Administration didn’t follow the law

Summarizing the NEPA
NEPA process consists of an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal undertaking including its alternatives.  
There are three levels of analysis depending on whether or not an undertaking could significantly affect the environment.  
These three levels include: 1. Categorical exclusion determination; 2. Preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI); and 3. preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

Now, let’s see what those filing the lawsuit says:

Defendants have declared themselves excused from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and have declared with certainty — albeit without any analysis or data upon which to make such a conclusion — that the new regulations could not possibly have significant environmental impacts on the national parks,” said the lawsuit.

Doesn’t that meet the requirements?

Or is there another reason why the suit was filed?

“In promulgating the new regulations, defendants have downplayed the overwhelming opposition to their change in long-standing policy, including the opposition of seven former directors of [the National Park Service], and have given short shrift to the numerous, substantive concerns raised by those who commented on the regulation.”

Perhaps someone – the anti-gun crowd perhaps– got their knickers in a twist because the Bush Administration restored rights to law abiding folks?

Really Richard, isn’t it a pretty outrageous stretch to say that allowing people to move firearms from the trunks of their cars to their hips is going to create a significant impact to the environment?

Maybe it will on the other hand…giving all the pant soiling hysteria going on now; if people start seeing ‘scary firearms’ the sewage systems might not be able to keep up. Then again maybe most people are more mature then the anti-gun crowd.

Can you show evidence that it is a major federal action as defined by the NEPA?

And please don’t show me the lawsuit by the Brady campaign.

You are also obscuring the point.

Does the prior rule allow firearms to be brought into national parks? Yes or No.

Let’s look at what was written up for the rule change,

Issue 8: Visitors who carry a concealed firearm permitted under state law are likely to use their handguns to shoot or injure wildlife.

Response 8: The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and a number of state parks and refuges currently authorize the possession of concealed firearms consistent with the laws of the state in which they are located. The available data does not suggest that visitors to these lands misuse their legally permitted firearms for poaching or illegal shooting, or that there is additional danger posed to the public from lawfully carried concealed firearms. See, e.g., National Research Council, Committee on Law and Justice, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004), p.6; Dodenhoff, David, Concealed Carry Legislation: An Examination of the Facts, Wisconsin Public Policy Research Institute (2006), p. 5; see also, Jeffrey Snyder, Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun (October 1997); Kopel, David, et al., Policy Review No. 78 (July & August 1996).

Looks like the evidence was reviewed and it was determined that what you state isn’t true.

Issue 9: The rule will inhibit the ability of park rangers to halt poaching because brandishing a firearm would no longer be probable cause to search for evidence of wildlife parts.

Response 9: We disagree. The final rule continues to maintain existing prohibitions on poaching, unauthorized target shooting, and other illegal uses of firearms, including laws against brandishing a firearm in public. As with any other law or regulation, we expect visitors to obey those requirements. Individuals who break the law by using illegally their concealed firearms will be subjected to arrest and/or prosecution

Obviously, there will be a serious environmental impact if the efforts to prevent national park visitors from shooting the animals are hampered in any way.

Again Richard it certainly appears that you are saying concealed carry holders are going to be breaking the law….do you have any evidence to prove that is the case?

You’ve claimed that violence wasn’t a problem in National Parks — that shows firearms aren’t a problem.

You’ve claimed that violence is a problem in National Forests and other lands– but this rule change doesn’t affect that in any manner.

You’ve claimed concealed carry holders will initiate or not back away from violent confrontations– evidence doesn’t show that to be the case.

You’ve claimed that there isn’t an individual right to keep and bear arms (or was that Cliff?) – that right pre-exists the Constitution, was protected by the Constitution and confirmed by the SCOTUS in Heller v. D.C.

It was claimed that people have to belong to a militia in order to have firearms — that has also been shown to be wrong….again see Heller v. D.C. and the Miller Decision.

You claim the Bush Administration didn’t follow the law, but look at what I found in the rule change:

National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the final rule under NEPA and determined that the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under applicable regulations.
See 43 CFR 46.210. First, the rulemaking is in the nature of a legal change to existing rules that will not have any actual effects on the environment. And second, the Department has determined that no ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded. Id. This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at http://www.doi.gov/.

Every argument put forward has been shown to be false.

Cliff,

Your right still exists, you don’t have to carry a firearm if you don’t want to.

Don’t I have a right to be able to enjoy my National Parks JERKS FREE, nope You, Richard and the other gun banners are allowed in also.

If I’m willing to take the chance that I may not be able to protect myself and family from an armed assault with a gun, do I not have the right to take the risk?

You absolutely have that right…what you don’t have is the right to tell me that I have to take that risk. You have no right to control my choices. That is what this is about…controlling people’s choices.

The benefit to me is that my stress level is lower if I believe there aren’t a bunch of loaded weapons around.

Show me an authorizing document or law for this country that says you have a right to a stress free life or even a lower level of stress.

…especially in that noisy camp over yonder where a bunch of yahoos are getting hammered every night.

Richard has pointed out, often, that crime isn’t a problem. If you are scared by the people in the other camp, you have every right to call the park authorities, you can talk to them yourself (that is what grown ups do, by the way) or you can leave.

You, again, don’t have the right to tell me to disarm so your “stress level” doesn’t rise.
(Is stress level the new code for “pant shitting hysteria”?)

What about my right to be in gun-free spaces that are paid for with my tax dollars?

Vote and elect people that will restrict the rights of people to carry in the state parks. The Federal law says that National Parks will follow the laws of the states for concealed carry.

Also, care to show me any authorizing document that says you have a right to prevent other people from exercising their rights in a shared environment?

“you will find yourself with nothing”.

We will have our guns.

Everyone on their best behavior at the National Parks now ya hear? Never know who could be legally packing.

Have a nice day.

There you go again Bob; comparing everyday utilities with a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill another human being.

You Sir are hardly qualified to decide if I am “proven wrong” when you cannot understand the argument.

Yes, I think it is an excellent idea to do an intelligence test before letting people handle a human killer weapon.

But I don’t think people should be judged by their personality. Too hard to measure.

Why I wonder did you suggest personality over intelligence. Are you bad test taker?

Cliff,

You seem to enjoy the rehashing of arguments. We’ve been over this many times. Are you sure you aren’t secretly pro-firearms….you certainly provide an opportunity to show how wrong the anti-firearm side is.

You claim, wrongly, that firearms are a weapon

whose sole purpose is to kill another human being

Then how do you explain this:

On the program of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008

* • 10m air pistol (60 shots) Men
* • 10m air rifle (60 shots) Men
* • 25m rapid fire pistol (60 shots) Men
* • 50m pistol (60 shots) Men
* • 50m rifle 3 positions (3×40 shots) Men
* • 50m rifle prone (60 shots) Men
* • double trap (150 targets) Men
* • skeet (125 targets) Men
* • trap (125 targets) Men
* • 10m air pistol (40 shots) Women
* • 10m air rifle (40 shots) Women
* • 25m pistol (30+30 shots) Women
* • 50m rifle 3 positions (3×20 shots) Women
* • skeet (75 targets) Women
* • trap (75 targets) Women

Again your elitism is showing when you arrogantly write things like this:

You Sir are hardly qualified to decide if I am “proven wrong” when you cannot understand the argument

Did you not wrongly claim the 2nd amendment pertained only to Militia?
Did you not wrongly claim the 2nd amendment didn’t protect an individual right?

Now, I may not be qualified to decide if you are wrong…but the Supreme Court is definitely qualified and that august body did declare your arguments to be wrong.

I guess I have a higher standard for quality of life than you JD. I’ll take mine. You move.

Bob, Once again, you simply don’t get. What does a list of sporting guns have to do with concealed carry in National Parks?

I don’t have a problem with sports that involve guns. I have a problem with people like you a JD carrying loaded ones in public.

You guys are NOT Olympians WHO by the way MAY NOT carry their guns loaded except in designated areas in most Olympic Cities including Salt Lake 2001.

Are you TRYING to embarrass yourself?

No, Cliff. We’re not Olympians.

We’re citizens.

Actually, it’s you that might want to consider relocating. Utah has something like 122,000 licensed CCW holders. In addition, it allow for “open carry” of firearms.

Maybe you should think about somewhere further East. Just stay out of Vermont. You don’t even need a CCW to carry concealed in Vermont. Virginia allows open carry. So does Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

NYC and DC are pretty gun restrictive, though. Maybe you’d feel safer there?

Cliff,

Actually I can argue that point quite eloquently. It is a little advanced so it might go over your head. Try to follow long, I’ll use small words.

Automobiles have many purposes, some of them are designed and used to climb rocks and hills – a sport.
Some Automobiles are designed and used to go around in circles on tracks built for that purpose. This automobiles can go much faster then most cars. That is a sport
Some Automobiles are designed and built to go in a straight line for a very short distant…that is a sport.
Some automobiles are designed to carry large amounts of goods, products, people and or a wide variety of things….this is different purpose –not a sport.

Any of these activities can cause the death of people participating in them. Any of the vehicles used in these activities can be used to kill people.

Now follow along here, some automobiles are designed and built to help people; police cars, ambulances, etc. Now just because some vehicles can be used to kill, outside of their purpose; this doesn’t negate the beneficial purpose of automobiles.
Just because some automobiles can and have been used to kill people doesn’t mean that all automobiles are used to kill people?

Have I illustrated the difference between design and intent sufficiently?

Firearms are designed to propel a piece of metal down a tube. The target of that design is up to the individual holding the firearm. The Olympic athletes use firearms designed to produce holes in paper targets with precision and accuracy. While this is a sport, those firearms can be used to kill people also….but that isn’t what they were designed for, it isn’t what they are intended for.

then turn around and say not all guns are owned or carried for the purpose of killing people.

Now, Have I clearly explained this? Even firearms carried for the intention of self protection aren’t carried to kill. They are carried to STOP THE THREAT. Now unfortunately, the best way to stop a threat often ends up with the CRIMINAL dying.

But that isn’t always the case and it isn’t the preferred case for those that carry concealed, regardless of the slurs you try to throw.

Some times no shots are fired
The officer lost sight of the suspect, but received information that a black male armed with a gun had forced open the door at a residence in the 200 block of Strasburg.

The home owner observed Noel inside of the residence and immediately armed himself.

While the suspect attempted to remove clothing, the home owner was able to hold the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.

Self Defense is a human right Cliff.

Nice how you continue the personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. Standard anti-civil right tactics.

You’ve just about covered the gamut of excuses….what are you going to try next?
Maybe we don’t need to carry firearms because the law enforcement will be there to protect us?

Richard,

You are being blatantly dishonest here

Because the Bush administration says their new rule won’t interfere with anti-poaching efforts, that’s a meaningless statement. It’s plainly false to for them to claim that there is no illegal shooting on national forests or BLM land, I have a weekly summary of incident reports to prove it.

The rule change does not affect national forests or BLM land. Why should the illegal shooting on those lands have anything to do with the changes for Concealed Carry in National Parks?

That is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. You can’t argue it both ways.

1. If crime isn’t a problem, then firearms aren’t a problem and the people carrying them, in their cars or on their bodies aren’t a problem.

2. If crime is a problem, then people have a right to defend themselves- pant soiling hysteria from some people or not.

Let’s post what that email says

Jacob Hoogland
04/03,/2008 09:15 PM EDT
To: Jerry CaseANASO/NPS
cc: Jennifer LeeANASO/NPS, Bert FrosUWASO/NPS, Mary Foley/Boston/NPS, Karen
Taylor-GoodrichANASO/NPS, Don CoelhoANASO/NPS
Subject: Applicability of CE for Firearms Regulation Revision
Jerry:
As you know, the NPS NEPA procedures provide for a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for some types of modification or revisions to existing regulations.
Specifically, the language states that a CE applies in cases of:
“Modifications or revisions to exisitng regulations, or the promulgaiton of new regulations for NPS administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions or new regulations do not:
(a) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and
character of the area or cause physical damage to il.
(b) introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.
(c) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses,
(d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.”

In addition to determining whether a CE applies, the NPS must also look to
the 13OI provisions concerning extraordinary circumstances. The DOI revised
the list of extraordinary circumstances in 2004. That listing provides
that: Extraordinary circumstances exist for individual actions within CXs which may:
2.1 Have significant impacts on’ public health or safety.
2.2 Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic
characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wildemess areas; wild or scenic dvers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas.
2.3 Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve uhresolvod conflicts
concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)].
2.4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
2.5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
2.6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.
2.7 Have significant impacts on properlies listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office.
2.8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of
Endangered or Threatened Species., or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. DOI-2009-01216
2.9 Violate a Federal law, or a Slate, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.
2,10 Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898).
2.11 Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007),
2.12 Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range o! such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).”

With the proposed revision to the firearms regulation we are faced with a situation similar to the NPS position in the Edmonds Institute v. Babbitt. There the NPS invoked the use of a categorical exclusion in a proposed first time implementation of a “Cooperative Research and Development” agreement. The Court there indicated that it was likely that the extraordinary circumstances would apply and required additional NEPA evaluation in the form of either an EA or an EIS.
As in the Edmonds case, the proposed modification to the firearms regulation may result in actions that could trigger many of the extraordinary circumstances described under the DOl’ s procedures. Because of this, at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on
the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.
I would be happy to talk with you about this, or provide you additional information.
Thanks
Jake
Jacob J.Hoogland
Chief, Environmental Quality Division
National Park Service
Washington, D.C. ~
Office.202-513-7188
Fax.202-371-1710
DOI

Now out of all that, there is only one section that is applicable at all

2.1 Have significant impacts on’ public health or safety.

Since when is the Chief of the Environmental Quality Division an expert on the impact of concealed carry on public health or safety?

And since there is no evidence presented by the anti-civil rights folks on this board or anywhere else that Concealed Carry Holders are a “significant impact on public health or safety”, this categorically does not require an impact statement.

Just like the Bush Administration claimed.

Sorry, but just because some people don’t like firearms does make them a significant environmental impact.

From the second portion:

1. NEPA
The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.
David is trying to determine whether to do an EA, EIS, or categorical exclusion. The last would be a beefed up version. There was no decision. Even an EA will delay the rule considerably.

I posted earlier from the very rule itself showing that

National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the final rule under NEPA and determined that the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under applicable regulations.
See 43 CFR 46.210. First, the rulemaking is in the nature of a legal change to existing rules that will not have any actual effects on the environment. And second, the Department has determined that no ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded. Id. This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at http://www.doi.gov/.

While the preliminary rule may have been published without the required NEPA statements, the final version certainly includes it. Are you denying that?

So try to come up with more arguments.
You claim it was a last minute rush job…JD showed that was wrong.
You claim the required documentation for the NEPA wasn’t done…the published final rule proves that wrong.
You claim violence isn’t a problem, if it isn’t a problem…then carrying firearms isn’t a problem because the firearms are already in the park.
You claim violence is a problem…just not in national parks…but if violence is a problem – shouldn’t people have the right to effective defense? The Supreme Court says people should in Heller v. D.C.

Over and over again, the arguments have been demolished.

#3 applies to National Parks, not the population in general.

Bob S,

Check you logic here;

3. From this we can reasonably conclude that people with firearms aren’t committing a large number of crimes, Correct?

ALL people who commit gun related crimes are “with fire arms.”

And just for pointing out the obvious.

Not all of the National Parks have readily available enforcement personnel:

The right to keep and bear arms in case of Monkey Attack shall not be infringed

An out-of-control, 200-pound pet chimpanzee apparently went berserk and mauled a woman in Connecticut, leaving her in critical condition.

The owner of the former TV star chimp Travis stabbed him multiple times, but to no avail. Police were called to the scene and say they had no choice but to shoot and kill the pet-gone-wild.

The bizarre scene unfolded in Stamford, when Travis suddenly attacked and tore up the face of 55-year-old Charla Nash, who was visiting his owner Sandra Herold Monday night.

Nash was taken to the hospital with severe wounds and listed in critical condition…

Police said they had no idea why Travis attacked Nash as she got out of her car to visit Herold. There was speculation that it may have been because she had recently changed her hairstyle and the animal could have thought she was an intruder.

Conklin said Herold wrestled with the chimp, then ran inside to call 911.

“She retrieved a large butcher knife and stabbed her longtime pet numerous times in an effort to save her friend, who was really being brutally attacked,” Conklin said.

Note the stabbing didn’t stop the attack.

Now monkey/chimpanzee attacks are admitted rare, but like the Scouts; one should Be Prepared.

Richard,

Nice propaganda but that is still what it is!.

Is that sign from a National Park?

Has that sign been shot up by people with concealed carry licenses?

For all I know, it could have been Cliff out there shooting it up to make the pro-civil rights folks like me look bad.

Now…according to you, crime in National Parks is low, correct?

According to the law, firearms have been permitted in national parks for a while, right?

According to the statistics, then firearm owners are not committing considerable crimes in National parks.

Deal only with NATIONAL PARKS, Please. That is what the Rule change deals with…..Can you stay on subject?

By the way….Obama’s Administration is defending the rule change….have you seen that great bit of news?

Finally, it’s very possible that the Brady’s suit will be tossed due to lack of standing.

Yep, there might be some serious standing issues. Brady Campaign in itself, as a corporation, is not affected by the rule. It has to argue organizational standing, that it should proceed as a surrogate for its members. That requires it to show (1) its members suffer harm in fact (so broadly defined that, yes, they can easily show that. Just get some to say they’ll quit going to parks that allow guns, or be apprehensive when doing so). (2) that the harm is “germane” to the organization’s purpose and (3) individual participation is not required (again, easily shown).

(2) *might* be a problem. The purported harm in fact is that members don’t go to certain parks, and Brady Campaign’s purposes do not include getting people into parks. But there was, during my time at Interior, a ruling by the DC Circuit that held that HSUS had standing to sue over hunting in wildlife refuges (which allegedly left their members disgusted at gut piles, etc.) even tho it, too, was not a travel agency. The DC Circuit held that “germane” was a very broad term.

Oh….I think I get it, Richard.

What you’re saying is that no legal guns = no gun crimes?

Is this correct?

Richard,

If there was logic, I would be able to follow it.

So, since people outside national parks shot up signs we can’t allow guns to be carried in national parks?

Isn’t that like saying because people abuse prescription drugs outside the hospitals we can’t send prescription drugs home with people ?

Are there people who break the law with firearms, yes. Just like there are people who break the law with matches —- it’s called arson.

Does that mean we should ban matches, lighters and other spark producing items from national parks?

Richard,

The phrase is physician heal thyself.

Are there people breaking the law with matches? Is that a reason to ban matches?

Yes or No.

No discussion of national forests, no posting signs that are burnt up.

Richard,

Okay, then because people misuse matches in national forests…is it acceptable to require matches to be locked in cars, inaccessible?

Richard,

So you duck away from the debate because the logic goes against you.

Also…just because the majority likes or dislikes something that isn’t an excuse to trample the rights of others.

The law, the Constitution is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It is working.

My rights do not interfere with your rights. My carrying or not, does not interfere with your enjoyment of nature in the national parks. It really is that simple.

If I get 125,000 comments against you or Cliff being allowed to speak in public, does that mean I can trump your rights?

Whoever shot up the sign, whether in a Park, or anywhere else, is not a law abiding gun owner. The picture explains itself in the crime.

It is illegal to destroy public signs, and legitimate private signs for that matter.

The matter is one of catching the perps. Then they lose their right to firearms if the destruction is a felony. Simple enough in a society that invests in equality before the Rule of Law.

Richard,

The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with my interpretation.

Have any evidence to show otherwise that I am wrong?

How about the Miller Decision…please, pretty please bring up the Miller Decision?

The fact is that if I have the right to walk in a state park with a concealed firearm, then I should and do have the right to carry in a national park. That is the fact, that is the law.

Show where I went wrong Richard. You can’t. You argue about national parks but bring in crime in national forests. You argue that firearms are dangerous, but firearms are allowed in the parks now. You argue that concealed carry license holders may suddenly turn violent, but the statistics do not show that happening.

Ever argument you’ve made I (and JD & Moribund & others) have factual destroyed.

All that is left is pant soiling hysteria from you and Cliff. Whining about his stress levels going up if he believes firearms are around.

Richard – NPCA is a lobbying group. I don’t buy their numbers. Please provide figures that aren’t quite as impeachable.

And Rednecks….Cliffy is afraid of rednecks.

Richard – rights are rights.

I (and probably Bob and MR) are sorry that they make you uncomfortable- but you are just going to have to suck it up.

Don’t worry, you can continue to embrace your nightmares of drunken mulletted yokels ripped on Early Times blasting away at your beloved park signs while rockin’ to Molly Hatchet. We won’t take that away from you. That fantasy clearly makes you more comfortable.

In the meantime, CCW holders are going to quietly pack their “hidden loaded semi-automatic handguns” with naught a whisper…

And you’ll harken back to the day when the ‘annointed’ were allowed to carry their testosterone on a Sam Browne belt, and you’ll sigh – I guess, and pine for the days when you were in charge and not some insignificant blogger who has to make up facts to participate in arguments.

JD,

Don’t forget those other safe spots, like Chicago.

It’s tempting to move to Utah and take advantage of the Open Carry laws there but I think I’ll just work to add Texas as another state that allows open carry.

so long as george bush is alive, TX will never pass an open carry law … it’d be just too damn tempting!

Oh please JD, The average gun freak is too pussy to mess with Clinton. After all, they never had it better.

Bush on the other hand is singularly responsible for more pain & suffering than any single man in history with Hitler running a close second.

I invoke Godwin’s Law, Cliff. You lose.

Godwin’s Law refers to Nazi comparisons. I am comparing pain and suffering, physical and economic.

But since you mentioned it, let us review the definition of fascism.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I want the editing feature back!

I’ve been sitting on that quip for two days, so the retraction of Godwins Law ought to mean something. And yes, while I did notice a typo, the pun escaped me til you pointed it out. Good eye.

But since, I really do resonate with both you and BobS around the gun issue, I was interested in your take on the Indiana case. I think it’s gonna be a tough sell for reasons suggested by my following questions.

Now try to contain your mirth,.. just a little.

By the way…..to answer this:

How safe are your second amendment rights?

Consider this:

Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April

The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.

The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

Wonder if trouble starts in America just exactly who will be considered a “weapons dealer”, don’t you?

The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.

“Once credible intelligence has been gathered,” said Kots, “portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents’ wishes.

“One of the techniques we use in today’s political environment is cordon and knock,” Kots explained. “We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner’s body language and position to protect him.“

Today, during the exercise they ask permission….in the future, during riots or another Katrina….will they be so polite, will they follow the law? The cops in New Orleans during Katrina didn’t follow the law.

During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.

The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.

The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.

Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.

A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.

Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company’s weekend drill for April.

“We have a lot of extended drills this coming year,” he added.

In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.

“This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit,” said Kots. “And it will hopefully improve the public’s understanding of military operations.”

The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.

“It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia,” said Kots. “We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.”

“We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia.”

The suit in Gary is moot. Thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Ask Jack Weinstein.

Opinion by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Have not had time to digest or even read yet, but the court has enjoined the Bush Administration’s final rule allowing concealed weapons in National Parks. The stay is based upon a probable violation of NEPA. Here is the opinion.

A couple of interesting statements by Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

“Because the Court finds that the Final Rule is the product of Defendants’ astoundingly flawed process, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are highly
likely to prevail on the merits of their NEPA claims.”

“In reaching this decision, the Court emphasizes that, despite many of the arguments raised by the parties, intervenor-movants, and amici curiae, this case is not a platform for resolving disputes concerning the merits of concealed weapons or laws related to concealed weapons that are appropriately directed to the other branches of government. The Court is bound to consider only whether Defendants have complied with Congress’ statutes and regulations, and not whether Defendants have made wise judgments in any normative sense. Accordingly, the Court expresses no view as to the merits of any laws or regulations related to concealed weapons or firearms generally.”

-Rico

Ah…the standing argument is covered at the end. Whoops.