Gun prohibitionists are crowing that a federal judge on March 19 blocked a rule change allowing concealed carry in national parks.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that the National Rifle Association says it will quickly appeal.
BULLETIN: The NRA on Friday filed an appeal in this case.
An apparently giddy Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Associated Press noting, “We’re happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed.”
Darned right he’s happy, but this has nothing to do with public safety or even the lengthy process under which the rule was adopted late last year. Contrary to what the Brady camp and its allies who sued to stop this rule are claiming, this change was not “sudden” or a “last minute bone” thrown to the evil “gun lobby.” This process took a couple of years and went through an extended public comment period last year, and the gun ban lobby knows it. Public comments were being taken as far back as last spring, and everyone had a chance to weigh in, and was even extended an additional 30 days at the request of opponents like Kurt Repanshek.
But, as it has now occurred to 65 Democrat members of the House of Representatives, the gun ban lobby is pretty good at stretching a falsehood (truth has nothing to do with it!). Read this letter in pdf form, courtesy the National Rifle Association.
'The gun control community has intentionally misled many Americans...'
The truth that Helmke and other gun prohibitionists masquerading as supporters of “sensible” gun ownership want suppressed is that concealed carry works. It does not result in mythical Wild West gun battles at every fender-bender, and it also has resulted in lower crime rates.
In Illinois, where concealed carry is being debated by state lawmakers – the state is one of two remaining that do not have a concealed carry statute – county sheriffs support the idea. St. Clair County Sheriff Mearl Justus thinks concealed carry will reduce crime, and he noted that such statutes already work in 48 other states.
The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.
The Akron, Ohio Beacon-Journal reported in 2005 that concealed carry in the Buckeye State was working, and that all the blood-and-gore predictions from anti-gunners (the same thing they predicted in every other state) had not materialized.
When concealed carry was adopted in Nebraska, a sheriff there told WOWT News in Omaha that he anticipated no trouble, as had, of course, been predicted by concealed carry opponents.
In 2007, after ten years of concealed carry in Oklahoma – certainly long enough to establish a pattern of violence if there were going to be such a pattern – the Tulsa World reported that “officials say gun-carrying citizens (are) responsible, (and are) deterring crime” in the sub-head of its story.
Capping it off, the Detroit Free Press in January 2008 also noted that six years of experience in Michigan with a reformed concealed carry statute had not produced the “dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed” that were pandered by the Brady Campaign, its allies in the numerically-challenged Million Mom March” and other anti-gun groups.
While reporter Dawson Bell’s story is no longer available on the Free Press website, it was saved in a couple of places, including the Michigan State University Libraries website.
So of course Helmke is happy, but perhaps only temporarily. Anti-gunners want to prevent the public from realizing that concealed carry does not bring out the worst in people, except in the imagination of the Brady Campaign. If concealed carry works in 48 states, and lawmen in Illinois are not opposed, what’s Helmke’s problem?
Read what my colleagues are saying about this case:
Randi Minetor, National Parks Examiner
David Codrea, National Gun Rights Examiner
Daniel White, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner
While you're at it, see what these Gun Rights Examiners are talking about:
And check their links to other Gun Rights Examiners
For more info: National Rifle Association of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Comments
The whole "last minute" thing burns me to no end. Concealed carry in parks has been my pet political project for almost FOUR YEARS! Last minute indeed.
I am not too worried. The NRA has an endless supply of lawyers and will fight the actions of this Unconstitutional activist judge. Concealed carry works and is no threat to law-abiding people.
So, this is an injunction, which means the National Park Service is enjoined from... not banning concealed carry? What?
"I am not too worried. The NRA has an endless supply of lawyers and will fight the actions of this Unconstitutional activist judge."
This attitude is going to get us our next gun ban.
Reagan-Watt saw fit to implement a ban on loaded forarms in the parks-even the 'right' can use common sense at times. As a gun owner of over 50 years, I do not believe a good 30% of our adult population should ever be allowed near a firearm. That they have a right under the 2nd Amendment can't be argued, I just don't want them carrying one in areas visited by the general public. And every reasonable NRA-GOA gun owner who visits their local firing ranges regularly, agrees, though quietly.
The new rule didn't allow anyone to carry in the parks, it allowed individuals who were already allowed to carry in the state in which the park was located to carry in the parks.
There certainly are people who should not be carrying guns. Very few of them seem to be obtaining carry permits.
Well Jeff, that sort of makes you an elitist hypocrite, doesn't it?
with friends like "Jeff" (not Jeff Dege), who needs the brady bunch?
"Jeff" almost certainly is not a "gun owner of 50 years" ... the obamabots are notorious for posing as "long time gun-owning Christian conservatives" to demonstrate their bona fides, then proceed to attack on obama's behalf
case in point: around the election, this jerk i'm acquainted with kept saying how he was pro-life, but just the other day i get confirmation that he's a die-hard pro-abortionist, and that he participated in one of those obama training camps (google obama camps)
these are calculating liars with professional training, and there are more to come (google knock on the door obama -or- obama's blockleiters)
A very controversial subject. I'm not surprised that the real truth is suppressed. This was a long term commentary period, as mentioned. I personally added to the debate, wrote to the NPS myself. USA Today did a piece last year on this, and I added a great deal to the debate at that site.
With Paul Helmke, AHSA's Ray Schoenke, and other like-minded gun banners continually stooping to lie in order to further their misguided agenda, it makes you wonder. Are they willful liars, or do they simply have a skewed view of reality - read that, a mental disorder?
Did anyone notice that on the wikipedia page for this PAY TO PLAY judge the reason stated for the blocking of the rule change was her opinion that congress did not do enough of an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY to implement such a change. This is one of the most blatant displays of misuse of power with no regard for even bothering to make up a good excuse for her lobbyist backed agenda.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!