Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, January 26, 2009

National park carry? Maybe not for long

Anyone pleased about the change in rules, made late in the Bush administration, allowing the carrying of a defensive firearm in national parks, might want to hurry up and enjoy it while they can, because the rule change might be short-lived.

Democrats are hoping to roll back a series of regulations issued late in the Bush administration that weaken environmental protections and other restrictions.

Potential targets include regulations allowing concealed weapons in some national parks . . .
At the time the change was made, I had trouble getting very excited about it, for this very reason--the rule change was of an administrative nature, rather than legislative, and this is a new administration. In fact, the more cynical part of my nature wondered if this was any more than a bit of political theatre--a bone tossed to gun rights advocates to show us that "See? The GOP does look out for you guys--we can't help it if those bad old Democrats change the rules back again when they take over."

The NY Times article discusses several methods the new administration and Congress could use to undo the Bush administration changes (including the national parks carry rule). My "favorite" is Representative Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) H.R. 34, the Midnight Rule Act.
To avoid such problems, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill, the Midnight Rule Act, that would give incoming cabinet secretaries — starting with the Obama administration — greater power to rewrite regulations issued during the final three months of the previous presidency.

“Congress needs to pass the Midnight Rule Act,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement, “to give President-elect Barack Obama the ability to quickly reverse these policies and undo these last, right-wing gasps of the Bush administration.”
Let me make sure I have this right: the Bush administration made a rule, which undoes a rule change made by the Reagan administration, but the current administration doesn't like the new change, so they want to pass a federal law in order to make it easier to undo the Bush administration change, thus restoring the rule put in place by the Reagan administration.

Yep--sounds like "the land of the free" to me.


Mike W. said...

Boy, that Midnight Rule sure sounds like something cooked up by folks who want unity, compromise, and reaching across the aisle....

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Yeah--especially the part about wanting to " . . . undo these last, right-wing gasps of the Bush administration."

me said...

OK, go ahead and get rid of the concealed carry in parks.

Fed laws apply to them, and that includes keeping AND bearing as guaranteed by that pesky old constitution, the highest law in the land.

Anonymous said...

Setting aside for a moment that this is a ban--and if DC's ban is illegal, then so is this one--let's examine the other insidious aspect.

There is a special kind of greed at work here; to take tax money from everyone, and then permit only a certain type of agreeable person (based on behavior) within the bounds of an allegedly public property.

It isn't just the right of self-defense, there are also privileges of ownership. If someone may go spelunking, take photographs, or camp out, then other folks should be able to ride dirt bikes, herd goats, or eat the wildlife--all while carrying a weapon for protection.

Public property is now little more than huge chunks of expensive real estate (whether a park or a building) that is reserved, where the most benefits are available to those who are favored, (or do favors.) This situation needs to be challenged, especially when the elites hypothesize that the right of self-defense or the right of free exercise of religion disappear within the borders of public property.

Either every yahoo gets to treat parks and forests like he owns them--which he does--or the United States government divests itself of ownership. No more of this rubbish where a group of activists get to draw from the treasury for their little social engineering project; to use public ownership as a way to mandate their existence, but also avoid property taxes.