Parting shot from president Stupid

[link]

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — People will now be able to carry concealed firearms in some national parks and wildlife refuges.

An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

The rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a common-sense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

[Botnst]

Federalism. It's a beautiful thing.

B

[catmandoo62]

Originally Posted by link

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk.

.

now just how is that???if the people already have a concealed permit i see no problems whatsoever.and how is it gonna affect the precious resources???

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

now just how is that???if the people already have a concealed permit i see no problems whatsoever.and how is it gonna affect the precious resources???

Bush did it, therefore it must be wrong. That's all that counts.

[mgburg]

Originally Posted by link

... A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees...

The ONLY confusion will be with the idiot rangers that can't understand ENGLISH...

You have some hack-kneed organization making fun-of and light-of a ruling that only RESPONSIBLE PERSONS would care about...His motto is, "We continue to punish the innocent and coddle the guilty."

Since when did Bill Wade conduct, collate and publish this so-called "preference of the American public" garbage...I don't remember filling out any surveys or being asked MY oppinion about what I thought concerning CC in public/national parks. Who died and made him king of the outdoors?

Bill Wade needs a swift kick in the 'nads and decent tour of an NRA-Responsible gun-club or range. Then, he needs to issue an apology for his one-sided diatribe...obviously, he speaks without being spoken to.

[raslaje]

Originally Posted by link

By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press]

An Interior Department rule issued Friday allows an individual to carry a loaded weapon in a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows loaded firearms in parks.

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

Good. The citizens of the state where the park is located can decide. This is the United States of America.

A group representing park rangers etc …..eh does this group have a name? Do park rangers, retirees, and conservation organizations (whatever conservation organizations they might be) even know someone is representing them? Why doesn't he name this group? Maybe one of his readers would like to make a donation or join. Or maybe it only exists in his imagination.

[Skippy]

I am in favor of allowing carry, open or concealed in all wilderness areas. My reasons for this are pretty simple: bears, wolves, and mountain lions. I actually think open carry is better, because anything big enough to stop a charging bear is also too big to conceal easily.

[Kuan]

Originally Posted by raslaje

Good. The citizens of the state where the park is located can decide. This is the United States of America.

No they can't. It's federal land. That's why you can't smoke dope in a national park even if you have a medical exemption.

[POS]

What's the reasoning for wanting to carry a concealed handgun in a national park? I'm okay with it, it's just a tad strange. More importantly, I strongly support the Fed's ability to stay out of it and let the state decide - we need more of that.

The good news is that when El Presidente decides to send the military after its citizens, we'll now be able to fight them in the national and state parks without fear of being charged with carrying a concealed weapon! Yahoo!

[Botnst]

^^^ I spend a lot of time on national parks and refuges. The only time I needed a gun was when I was hunting (legally, on refuges).

Having said that, more urban parks and refuges and national forests have seen a significant number of assaults and even murder. If I enjoyed the out of doors and lived in the vicinity of those kinds of parks, forests,a nd refuges, I'd appreciate the option.

Then there's the cougars in California.......

[catmandoo62]

[QUOTE=Botnst;2041617
Then there's the cougars in California.......[/QUOTE]here in iowa we are seeing a big influx of mountain lions.

[Carleton Hughes]

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ I spend a lot of time on national parks and refuges. The only time I needed a gun was when I was hunting (legally, on refuges).

Having said that, more urban parks and refuges and national forests have seen a significant number of assaults and even murder. If I enjoyed the out of doors and lived in the vicinity of those kinds of parks, forests,a nd refuges, I'd appreciate the option.

Then there's the cougars in California.......

Cougars? nahhh.
Refugees are more challenging,particularly political ones from central america.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Then there's the cougars in California.......

the big, hairy, deadly mountain cat or the charming, attractive woman over 40?

[link]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Bush did it, therefore it must be wrong. That's all that counts.

Nope. The reason is that it’s wrong. It puts millions of visitors to national parks and those who live in and near national parks and those who work at national parks at increased risk of being shot.

Why didn’t the Bush administration permit firearms in all public places? The NRA would have fallen all over themselves for that, after all! They didn’t do it because it puts people at risk. The only difference is that the 1 thing the Bush administration GAS about where their partners in crime live and work.

There is little reason for having firearms in national parks. Target shooting is illegal, hunting is illegal except in rare cases. If people are scared of wildlife they shouldn’t leave home.

This amounts to a “victory” for those for whom firearms are a fashion statement. The law change serves no other purpose.

Another “proud” moment of pandering to the gun industry by president Stupid.

I predict that within a year the law will be overturned.

[The Swede]

Originally Posted by TheDon

the big, hairy, deadly mountain cat or the charming, attractive woman over 40?

Hehe... TheDon might get snatched off the streets of swanky LA.