« A pro-gun US Senator from NY? | Main | Steve Halbrook's video testimony against Holder »
New admin. and guns in Parks rule
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
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.
> 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?
I agree. Once you're paranoid, you're screwed for life.
>> 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.
> 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.
>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.
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