« Defense of others in Dallas | Main | "We're all gun nuts now" »
Where to comment on allowing CCW holders to carry in national parks
Here's the comment website. I'd cut and paste the Docket ID, FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062, into the message just to make sure it gets to the right place. You can read the proposed rule as a pdf off the comment page, too.
The admin rules are essentially: if the agency wants to change a rule, they must publish a proposed rule with explanation. The public must be given a reasonable time (30-60 days is customary) to comment on it. Then the agency publishes the final rule, together with a response to significant comments. So it's not just a letter to the editor: although numbers don't hurt, logical reasons affect the process better than simple statements of support. I'd suggest emphasizing how law-abiding CCW licenesees are (preferrably with links to sites with hard numbers), and responding to claims it'd lead to risk of poaching.
UPDATE: reader Carl in Chicago provides his comment, pasted into extended remarks, below.
Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203
30 April 2008
I support proposed rule (RIN 1024-AD70) on the grounds of both law and policy.
Regarding the law, states have long reserved the power to regulate their affairs, so long as they do not infringe basic constitutional rights of the people. State-issued concealed weapon laws are prevalent (48 states with some form of this law) and successful (no state has repealed such law). The Second Amendment to the US constitution guarantees that the right to keep, and to bear, arms shall not be infringed. Yet because the amendment has not yet been incorporated against state or local governments, it has generally been the prerogative of the states to regulate firearms and their use. The proposed rule is consistent with this history, and frees states to govern firearm use on federal land within the borders of that state. In other words, good law is consistent law, and the proposed rule, if adopted, would increase intra-state consistency regarding carry regulations.
Regarding policy, state concealed carry laws have been heavily scrutinized. In the majority of states for which data is available, concealed carry has been credited with reducing crime, particularly violent crime rates. In the remaining states, it has been found to have had no statistically significant effect. Within no state have these laws been shown to increase crime. Thus, and generally, concealed carry is good policy that promotes the public safety and well-being.
Perhaps the most vocal opponents of this proposed rule express concern that the crime of wildlife poaching might be increased, should it become lawful for licensed, trained, and permitted adults to carry concealed firearms. I feel this argument has little merit (if any). Nationwide, approximately 3% of the adult population undergoes the criminal background checks, the training, the licensing, and the fee payment, etc., just to exercise their right to bear arms and to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm. The citizens receiving these licenses are the most law-abiding among us the rate of license revocation among these people is measured in the hundredths of a single percentage point. Moreover, poachers dont kill wildlife with short-barreled concealed handguns, and its exactly concealable handguns that are targeted by the proposed rule. The very people that are the most law-abiding in our society the concealed carry license holders have demonstrated that they abide the law. They certainly wont be violating wildlife laws.
On the basis of law and sound public policy, I support the adoption of rule RIN 1024-AD70.
Sincerely,
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Dave Hardy,
I have to disagree on the proposed regulation. It is typically narrow and does not put us back to to pre-regulation basis. Her is the letter that I sent to the DOI.
I have read the proposed changes in regulation of firearms in National Parks and would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. Considering that the Second Amendment states that the rights of the people to bear and carry arms shall not be infringed by the Federal Government, the current regulations directly violate that amendment. Also the Department of the Interior does not have the Constitutional authority to make and firearm regulation or law. The Congress never made any law that regulated the rights of the American people in National Parks to carry or bear firearms. Prior to this restriction, visitors to National Parks had the freedom to carry a firearm or have one loaded in their possession while on land of the National Parks.
I appreciate that Secretary Kempthorne is now rewriting this onerous restriction. However the proposed change to only allow citizens with CCW permits to carry is insufficient. This essentially sets up a two-tier system of firearm rights in National Parks. Those citizens who do not choose to get a CCW or their state does not allow that ability, would be a second class visitor and their firearms rights restricted, while those citizens whose states allow CCW and have permits would be allowed to carry concealed in National Parks.
This violates the principle of equity among our citizens and should be rectified. I would request that the proposed regulation to be changed to allow citizens without CCW to carry openly or on their person in a purse or backpack or fanny pack. That the carry a firearm loaded or unloaded, in this manner would not violate a law on conceal carry or open carry. The very purpose to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves would necessitate the ability to quickly gain access to the defensive weapon. That would be compromised when those citizens without CCW permits cannot carry on their person either openly or concealed.
The proposed changed that would allow State law regulate the firearm is cumbersome and unwieldy. It would be simpler if the National Parks just state that firearms can be carried either concealed or openly by visitors and that the firearm can loaded or not. If a visitor fired his firearm without just cause, then that person can be charged with improper discharge of the firearm or if the firearm is used in a criminal offense, then that person can be charged with the criminal offense.
There are states that have extremely restrictive laws on firearms and since this is on Federal land, there is no reason to have the federal regulation mirror the nearest state regulations.
Back in the 1970’s I would backpack in National Parks and some members of our group would openly carry a firearm. Considering that over the last 30-40 years, that crimes have increased and criminals have attacked rangers and visitors in National Parks, the need to change regulation is imperative. Please do not make this right contingent on CCW permits since that deprives other law-abiding citizens of our right to bear and carry firearms within National Parks.
Here are the comments I submitted:
I won't repeat statements made by others, but would like to express my concern over something that is rarely mentioned: Most firearms accidents occur during administrative handling. This refers to the holstering, unholstering, loading, unloading, cleaning, etc. sort of functions which are secondary to the main purpose of firearms. In other words, everything but the actual shooting of them. Every time we are forced by restrictive law or regulation to handle our firearms -- if we have to unholster when entering a federal park, and then re-holster upon leaving -- that provides two unnecessary opportunities for accidental discharge. While most of us practice a scrupulous safety regimen, accidents do happen. The probability of such accidents can by significantly lowered by common-sense measures such as FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062.
For those willing to send letters, but slow to write them...COPY AND PASTE IF YOU WISH...