In this Alert:
1. Court Shoots Down Bloomberg!
2. National Parks Ending Gun Ban?
3. The National Anthem
A 3 judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed a lawsuit by the city of New York attempting to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the costs of “gun crime” in the city. The court ruled that the suit should have been dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed by the congress in 2005. The 2-1 decision affirmed the constitutionality of that law and criticized Federal Judge Jack Weinstein for failing to abide by the Lawful Commerce Act when it first passed.
We can doubtless expect Mayor Bloomberg to try to find some other way to blame gunowners, dealers, and manufacturers for New York's crime problems.
The Department of the Interior has released its long awaited regulatory reform proposals for National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The proposed regulations will be open for public comment for the next 60 days. It is critical that gunowners let their voices be heard on this regulation change.
As I had expected, the proposed regulations are worded to be as restrictive as possible while still trying to answer the primary complaint. Specifically, the proposed change limits firearms that “may” be carried, to those lawfully carried concealed under state law. Lawful open carry is denied. The proposal also specifically exempts buildings and facilities from lawful carry and it predicates its rules upon those of similar state lands rather than general state law. So in states like Virginia, where gunowners are fighting to regain their rights in state parks, the fight would automatically extend into National Parks. If a state wants to prohibit guns in a National Park, they should have to pass a law to do it.
Here is the actual text of the proposal for National Parks:
§ 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.
* * * * * (Added to the end of a complex litany of restrictions and exceptions)
(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.
The proposed reg change for National Wildlife Refuges is virtually identical except for the types of state lands that it cites as comparable.
It is obvious that the bureaucrats who wrote these proposed regulations simply don’t understand the fundamental principles involved. It is ridiculous that the Department of the Interior would promulgate these convoluted half-measures when a simple statement adopting the laws of the host state regarding the possession and carry of firearms would solve the problem. I think the DOI is concerned about not being able to prosecute someone they catch sneaking through the woods with a scoped 30-06 as a poacher. By limiting the exemption to “concealed” weapons, they think they are bypassing that problem and they are ignoring the other problems such a limitation creates.
We have not yet formulated our official response as there are many factors to be considered and we would like to coordinate our efforts with other rights organizations. We will post our response as soon as we can get it put together.
In the mean time, here is the official information about posting comments:
You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD70 by any of the
Electronically via the Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: 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
Hand-deliver: 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Lawyer, (202) 208-3181,
I'm not big on those so-called "viral videos" that race around the world in unwanted e-mails, but you might enjoy this beautiful rendition of the Star Spangled Banner sung by a group of young ladies in Texas. The group is called The Cactus Cuties and includes:
Madeline Powell – Age 8
Blaire Elbert – Age 10
Tatum Lowe – Age 11
Andi Kitten — Age 11
Baylee Barrett – Age 13
They are directed by a woman named Cami Caldwell