Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« A pro-gun US Senator from NY? | Main | Steve Halbrook's video testimony against Holder »

New admin. and guns in Parks rule

Posted by David Hardy · 23 January 2009 08:14 AM

I'd agree with this assessment that the new Administration, even if it wanted to mess with the issue, will have to undertake a new rulemaking to overturn the rule allowing firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. It's already past its effective date, and thus is binding. The ESA rulemaking I'm not sure about. Understand that a final rule has certain stages:

1) A signed version is delivered to the Federal Register.
2) The Register prints it, usually 1-3 days later.
3) It has an "effective date," usually 30 days later (at least when I was at Interior).

If I recall from my days as a GS-14, the rule becomes a binding agency decision at (1), delivery to the Register, not at (2), its printing. (3) just governs when it goes into effect, and represents a delay so that the public can learn of it and be expected to comply.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Reporty Reporterson | January 23, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply

Listen to Secretary Salazar's remarks to the Interior employees - at the end he takes questions, including a question about the subject rule.

http://www.doi.gov/news/audio/podcasts/index.html

Steve W. | January 23, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply

Right now I'm more concerned about the Brady lawsuit getting an injunction. I haven't seen any indicators on whether that will happen or not.

The fact that Brady's filed the lawsuit may be a sign they know Salazar and the new admin will stay silent on this rule. And if they let the new rule stand and there are no issues from it (as it is difficult to believe there will be) their paranoid and fearful arguments lose strength when confronted with actual facts and history.

Andy Freeman | January 23, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply

> their paranoid and fearful arguments lose strength when confronted with actual facts and history.

They haven't before so why will this time be different?

Jim D. | January 23, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply

I agree. Once you're paranoid, you're screwed for life.

Steve W. | January 23, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply

>> their paranoid and fearful arguments lose strength when confronted with actual facts and history.

>They haven't before so why will this time be different?

In terms of the Brady Faithful and most of the main stream media ... of course you're absolutely right. But while the non-politically involved can become swayed by wild shrieks of "BLOOD IN TEH STREETS!! GUNFIGHTS OVER PARKING SPACES" in advance of a law, once it's become status quo it's hard to get them stirred up.

Like the laws of physics in terms of motion ... it's harder to change the direction of a culture than to keep it going the same way.

Andy Freeman | January 24, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply

> But while the non-politically involved can become swayed by wild shrieks of "BLOOD IN TEH STREETS!! GUNFIGHTS OVER PARKING SPACES" in advance of a law, once it's become status quo it's hard to get them stirred up.

The problem with that argument is that the perceived status quo often has nothing to do with reality.

Most folks think that anyone who has "legit need" for a CCW permit can get one. (Yes, even in CA.) Thus, it's easy to portray any attempt to move to "shall issue" as "cowboy town". The public doesn't know what's happened with shall issue in other places.

Steve W. | January 25, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply

>The problem with that argument is that the perceived status quo often has nothing to do with reality.

>Most folks think that anyone who has "legit need" for a CCW permit can get one. (Yes, even in CA.) Thus, it's easy to portray any attempt to move to "shall issue" as "cowboy town". The public doesn't know what's happened with shall issue in other places.

Again, you are talking in a major change to the status quo. The move from CCW "only when big brother thinks you need it" to "anyone who wants it" is HUGE (because everyone knows that discretionary CCW means pretty much NO CCW). When you try and move in that direction you are changing the known status quo and it is an opening for outrageous arguments.

Changing the 1980's NP rules to CCW allowed is a cahnge in status quo, and we've managed it, though the outrageous arguments are flying (more poaching, gunfights over great views, more crime, etc.). If we can keep the new rules in place, in a few years we'll have a NEW status quo as anyone paying even half attention will note that the anti-gun groups have continually cried wolf for years and their dire predictions haven't happened.

AGain, like the laws of physics, an object in motion tends to stay in motion on its current trajectory. We have managed to alter a trajectory -- now if we can hold that course without the anti-gun groups changing history, we can gain momentum.

It's not so much a debate as an observation. I know a number of texans who thought "shall issue" CCW was a disaster. Years later they haven't become pro-gun but they all know a person or two with a permit and have come to understand the wild claims did not come true and will not come true.

As of yet, every "shall issue" CCW law has been fought tooth and nail, often with years of failures before success, but to date none have been overturned once in place.

Leave a comment