The White House may have bungled the health care reform debate, as many pundits are saying. But it's done a much better job of dealing with a sidecar controversy, of firearms carried openly at political rallies, by keeping its cool and not engaging in hair-trigger responses.
The same can't be said for knee-jerk anti-gun groups, who are now in the position of arguing that the Second Amendment and state gun laws don't apply when the president comes to town.
The gun-toting is obviously intended as a test and a provocation -- as an in-your-face challenge to a president whose positions on the gun issue have spurred suspicion among Americans who jealously guard their Second Amendment rights. An overreaction by the White House -- even if it came in the form of Secret Service mandate that protesters come unarmed -- would only refuel fears that Obama is a gun-grabber. But so far, at least, the president's PR people have played it perfectly by playing it cool.
Here's today's Washington Post:
White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events
But Some Fear Health Talks Will Spark Violence
Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."
Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.
"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."
The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.
Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.
Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."
Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized. "We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.
The only potentially troubling part of the story surfaces in the final paragraph I excerpted, which seems to indicate that the Secret Service is involved in active surveillance (that it is "well aware") of individuals who choose to come armed to rallies -- which raises the possibility that these people might be placed on Secret Service "watch lists" simply because they're exercising their state and federal gun rights at a political rally.
The Secret Service is expected to keep track of individuals who pose credible threats to the president, but does someone who shows up at an Obama event openly armed, as a way of making a statement about gun rights, end up on, or belong on, such a list? That's a question that bears more scrutiny and debate as the situation evolves.
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Getting Serious about States Rights
You hear more about "states rights" these days than you have in recent years, as some governors react to events in Washington (especially the stimulus package) that seem designed to obliterate what remnants of the federalist system remain. But it’s hard to get a handle on how seriously people take this.
Texas recently caused a stir, for instance, when leaders there suggested that they might secede from the union in response to what’s taking place in Washington. Resolutions passed in other, mostly Republican-controlled states (like secession-happy South Carolina) have vaguely asserting state sovereignty, hinting at nascent rebellion. And I have written in recent years about the rise of what I call "neo-federalism" -- an emerging assertiveness on the part of states, stemming not from the hyperactivity of the Obama administration but from the paralysis that is much more the rule in Washington.
As someone who believes in the federalist system established by the founders, and who cheers almost any sign of its resurgence, I've watched these developments with hope and interest. But I've reluctantly come to believe that much of the most recent states rights talk is mere posturing and saber-rattling, done for rhetorical effect only, to advance narrowly partisan ends -- which threatens to trivialize the serious constitutional issue of how power is apportioned in the country.
Both major parties cynically evoke it when it gives them tactical advantage in the skirmish at hand, but neither takes it seriously enough to apply in a consistent or coherent way.
Yesterday's fight in the U.S. Senate over an amendment designed to expand gun rights offered a good example of what I'm talking about. So blatant was the flip-flopping and position-switching on the issue that even the New York Times picked up on it:
"The debate forced senators to wrestle with issues of states rights, sometimes in ways that seemed to clash with the general philosophies of their parties. Many Republicans, who typically favor limiting the ability of the federal government to dictate to states on social issues, voted in this case to limit the ability of states to insist on their own rules for concealed weapons carried by people from other states . . ."
. . .Critics of the amendment argued that it would undermine state and local gun-control laws, and accused Republican supporters, typically staunch defenders of states’ rights, of hypocrisy.
In their floor speeches and in the lead-up to the vote, Republicans repeatedly sought to rebut that accusation by saying that gun carriers would still have to obey state and local laws."
Typically, the Times focused on Republican hypocrisy, but Democrats are guilty of it, too, since they normally are enthusiastic supporters of expanding Washington's power and control, over virtually every corner of the country, but in this case -- in a laughably cynical fashion -- took the position that the amendment in question would trample states' rights.
The arguments for moving the nation back in the direction of its federalist origins are compelling, in my view, even if the political obstacles to doing so are daunting. And I won't abandon my hopes for a neo-federalist revival, spurred by the desire of states to chart their own destinies and escape Washington's long shadow.
But that effort won't gain real traction as long as Republicans and Democrats continue to trivialize and play games with the issue, batting states rights around like a political beach ball.
Texas recently caused a stir, for instance, when leaders there suggested that they might secede from the union in response to what’s taking place in Washington. Resolutions passed in other, mostly Republican-controlled states (like secession-happy South Carolina) have vaguely asserting state sovereignty, hinting at nascent rebellion. And I have written in recent years about the rise of what I call "neo-federalism" -- an emerging assertiveness on the part of states, stemming not from the hyperactivity of the Obama administration but from the paralysis that is much more the rule in Washington.
As someone who believes in the federalist system established by the founders, and who cheers almost any sign of its resurgence, I've watched these developments with hope and interest. But I've reluctantly come to believe that much of the most recent states rights talk is mere posturing and saber-rattling, done for rhetorical effect only, to advance narrowly partisan ends -- which threatens to trivialize the serious constitutional issue of how power is apportioned in the country.
Both major parties cynically evoke it when it gives them tactical advantage in the skirmish at hand, but neither takes it seriously enough to apply in a consistent or coherent way.
Yesterday's fight in the U.S. Senate over an amendment designed to expand gun rights offered a good example of what I'm talking about. So blatant was the flip-flopping and position-switching on the issue that even the New York Times picked up on it:
"The debate forced senators to wrestle with issues of states rights, sometimes in ways that seemed to clash with the general philosophies of their parties. Many Republicans, who typically favor limiting the ability of the federal government to dictate to states on social issues, voted in this case to limit the ability of states to insist on their own rules for concealed weapons carried by people from other states . . ."
. . .Critics of the amendment argued that it would undermine state and local gun-control laws, and accused Republican supporters, typically staunch defenders of states’ rights, of hypocrisy.
In their floor speeches and in the lead-up to the vote, Republicans repeatedly sought to rebut that accusation by saying that gun carriers would still have to obey state and local laws."
Typically, the Times focused on Republican hypocrisy, but Democrats are guilty of it, too, since they normally are enthusiastic supporters of expanding Washington's power and control, over virtually every corner of the country, but in this case -- in a laughably cynical fashion -- took the position that the amendment in question would trample states' rights.
The arguments for moving the nation back in the direction of its federalist origins are compelling, in my view, even if the political obstacles to doing so are daunting. And I won't abandon my hopes for a neo-federalist revival, spurred by the desire of states to chart their own destinies and escape Washington's long shadow.
But that effort won't gain real traction as long as Republicans and Democrats continue to trivialize and play games with the issue, batting states rights around like a political beach ball.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
A Shot in the Arm for the Second Amendment
Americans no longer will be asked to surrender their Second Amendment rights -- or their most potent means of self defense -- when they enter a national park, now that the Bush administration has lifted a gun ban that made no constitutional or public safety sense. The anti-gun crowd will of course claim that this will lead to a bloodbath in the parks; that it will be a scene right out of the O.K. Corral at the visitor center gift shop, when some hair-trigger touristas use guns to settle a dispute over the last rubber tomahawk in stock. But such predictions routinely are made when gun rights are restored or expanded, and they routinely prove unfounded.
National parks are not crime free zones, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out. And in fact, their remoteness can even be an invitation to lawlessness and criminal activity, as we've seen with recent efforts by Mexican drug cartels to turn federal parks and forests into pot plantations. Wild animal encounters, though rare, can occur. And if you've ever seen some of the spooky characters who haunt these places -- and I don't just mean the rangers (just kidding, rangers!) -- you can see why one might sleep sounder with a .38 tucked under the pillow.
There's absolutely no rational reason, in short, to disarm Americans simply because they cross a park boundary, unless one wants to argue, rather absurdly, that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights apply in some parts of America, but not others.
The fact that Reagan signed-off on the ban proves nothing, except, perhaps, that he was showing early signs of Alzheimer's.
This is one Bush executive action that Barack Obama may have a tough time reversing, politically speaking, since there is already a lot of fear out in fly-over country about the next president's position on gun rights, and he and his surrogates spent a lot of time and effort during the campaign reassuring folks that he isn’t a gun-grabber. They're still at it, in fact. The surge in gun sales since election day suggests that a lot of Americans aren't convinced. Reinstating the national park gun ban would confirm those fears, and be an early demonstration that Obama isn't the moderate he claims to be.
The write-up below portrays this as a “parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association” (and shot at whom the reporter doesn’t explain), but most Americans, and not just NRA members, would agree that there should be no double standard in the application and protection of our constitutional rights. This was the correct -- and the constitutional -- thing to do. It's just a shame the administration waited until the last minute to do it.
But better late than never.
Here's the write-up by The San Francisco Chronicle:
Guns will be allowed in national parks
Campers may now pack heat along with their sleeping bags when they travel to national parks.
The Bush administration on Friday struck down federal regulations banning loaded guns in most national forests, a move that was widely seen as a parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
The ruling overturned a 25-year-old federal regulation severely restricting concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The new rule, which would take effect in January, would apparently allow anyone who already has a concealed weapons permit in his or her state to also tote a gun in federal parks within state boundaries.
Conservation groups, park officials and many politicians blasted the decision as a politically motivated slap against public opinion in favor of the gun lobby.
"This is something the park service does not want that is being driven by the political appointees in the Department of the Interior," said Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses for the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit group established in 1919 to look out for the interests of the national parks. "This is pretty outrageous. We're concerned that there is going to be an increase in gun-related accidents in parks and opportunistic poaching."
The decision shoots down a 1981 wildlife refuge and a 1983 national park regulation signed by President Ronald Reagan requiring firearms to be unloaded and placed somewhere not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk, when visiting federal parks. Faehner said folks will now be able to lock and load in 388 of 391 parks, refuges and sites in 48 states, including California.
Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded.
The idea behind the ruling, according to Lyle Laverty, the assistant interior secretary, was to foster the long-held tradition of having states and the federal government work together on natural resource issues. He said similar rules were recently adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist.
The NRA lobbied hard for the change to the gun regulations, which Cox said were inconsistent and unclear. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had also supported the change, organizing a letter-writing campaign to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate - 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.
As of 2007, there were 40,296 people with concealed weapons permits in California, according to Scott Gerber, spokesman for the state attorney general. Such permits are issued by police and sheriff's departments, usually to people in high-profile positions or to those who show a legitimate need for their protection.
The attorney general's office checks the fingerprints of all applicants and excludes people with felonies and violent misdemeanors on their records or who have been committed to mental hospitals.
Faehner said the new regulations go even further to loosen gun regulations than what was proposed earlier this year by the Bush administration. The earlier proposal, he said, would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons in federal parks only if the state parks allowed it.
California state parks do not allow loaded concealed weapons, but the newest ruling ignores the state parks and says that if state law permits concealed weapons, it is OK in a national park within that state's boundary.
"It appears that people who have been issued concealed carry permits will be able to travel into Yosemite with their guns, but they would be prohibited from entering the state parks in California," Faehner said. "So the bar has been lowered."
The change came despite more than 140,000 comments that were sent to the Department of the Interior after the earlier proposal was made. The overwhelming majority of those who commented opposed changing the regulations to allow concealed firearms in national parks, according to representatives of park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., joined numerous organizations, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in denouncing the move.
"This unprecedented rule change wipes out common-sense regulations originally enacted by the Reagan administration," Feinstein said in a statement. "There is simply no good reason why this administration would change a rule that has helped make our national parks among the most popular and safest places in the country."
The regulation, which will be published in the Federal Register Wednesday and go into effect 30 days later, was timed so it would be in the books by the time President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Changing it would require a long bureaucratic rule-changing process possibly lasting years. Several groups, including the conservation association, are considering a lawsuit.
National parks are not crime free zones, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out. And in fact, their remoteness can even be an invitation to lawlessness and criminal activity, as we've seen with recent efforts by Mexican drug cartels to turn federal parks and forests into pot plantations. Wild animal encounters, though rare, can occur. And if you've ever seen some of the spooky characters who haunt these places -- and I don't just mean the rangers (just kidding, rangers!) -- you can see why one might sleep sounder with a .38 tucked under the pillow.
There's absolutely no rational reason, in short, to disarm Americans simply because they cross a park boundary, unless one wants to argue, rather absurdly, that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights apply in some parts of America, but not others.
The fact that Reagan signed-off on the ban proves nothing, except, perhaps, that he was showing early signs of Alzheimer's.
This is one Bush executive action that Barack Obama may have a tough time reversing, politically speaking, since there is already a lot of fear out in fly-over country about the next president's position on gun rights, and he and his surrogates spent a lot of time and effort during the campaign reassuring folks that he isn’t a gun-grabber. They're still at it, in fact. The surge in gun sales since election day suggests that a lot of Americans aren't convinced. Reinstating the national park gun ban would confirm those fears, and be an early demonstration that Obama isn't the moderate he claims to be.
The write-up below portrays this as a “parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association” (and shot at whom the reporter doesn’t explain), but most Americans, and not just NRA members, would agree that there should be no double standard in the application and protection of our constitutional rights. This was the correct -- and the constitutional -- thing to do. It's just a shame the administration waited until the last minute to do it.
But better late than never.
Here's the write-up by The San Francisco Chronicle:
Guns will be allowed in national parks
Campers may now pack heat along with their sleeping bags when they travel to national parks.
The Bush administration on Friday struck down federal regulations banning loaded guns in most national forests, a move that was widely seen as a parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
The ruling overturned a 25-year-old federal regulation severely restricting concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The new rule, which would take effect in January, would apparently allow anyone who already has a concealed weapons permit in his or her state to also tote a gun in federal parks within state boundaries.
Conservation groups, park officials and many politicians blasted the decision as a politically motivated slap against public opinion in favor of the gun lobby.
"This is something the park service does not want that is being driven by the political appointees in the Department of the Interior," said Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses for the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit group established in 1919 to look out for the interests of the national parks. "This is pretty outrageous. We're concerned that there is going to be an increase in gun-related accidents in parks and opportunistic poaching."
The decision shoots down a 1981 wildlife refuge and a 1983 national park regulation signed by President Ronald Reagan requiring firearms to be unloaded and placed somewhere not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk, when visiting federal parks. Faehner said folks will now be able to lock and load in 388 of 391 parks, refuges and sites in 48 states, including California.
Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded.
The idea behind the ruling, according to Lyle Laverty, the assistant interior secretary, was to foster the long-held tradition of having states and the federal government work together on natural resource issues. He said similar rules were recently adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist.
The NRA lobbied hard for the change to the gun regulations, which Cox said were inconsistent and unclear. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had also supported the change, organizing a letter-writing campaign to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate - 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.
As of 2007, there were 40,296 people with concealed weapons permits in California, according to Scott Gerber, spokesman for the state attorney general. Such permits are issued by police and sheriff's departments, usually to people in high-profile positions or to those who show a legitimate need for their protection.
The attorney general's office checks the fingerprints of all applicants and excludes people with felonies and violent misdemeanors on their records or who have been committed to mental hospitals.
Faehner said the new regulations go even further to loosen gun regulations than what was proposed earlier this year by the Bush administration. The earlier proposal, he said, would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons in federal parks only if the state parks allowed it.
California state parks do not allow loaded concealed weapons, but the newest ruling ignores the state parks and says that if state law permits concealed weapons, it is OK in a national park within that state's boundary.
"It appears that people who have been issued concealed carry permits will be able to travel into Yosemite with their guns, but they would be prohibited from entering the state parks in California," Faehner said. "So the bar has been lowered."
The change came despite more than 140,000 comments that were sent to the Department of the Interior after the earlier proposal was made. The overwhelming majority of those who commented opposed changing the regulations to allow concealed firearms in national parks, according to representatives of park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., joined numerous organizations, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in denouncing the move.
"This unprecedented rule change wipes out common-sense regulations originally enacted by the Reagan administration," Feinstein said in a statement. "There is simply no good reason why this administration would change a rule that has helped make our national parks among the most popular and safest places in the country."
The regulation, which will be published in the Federal Register Wednesday and go into effect 30 days later, was timed so it would be in the books by the time President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Changing it would require a long bureaucratic rule-changing process possibly lasting years. Several groups, including the conservation association, are considering a lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)