ELB,
I know this response is long but I wanted to clarify some of my earlier comments.
ELB wrote:bpet wrote:I've read a few federal firearms regulations and wouldn't get too excited just yet. Biggest wad of mumbo-jumbo that man has ever had the opportunity to turn into law. While it would appear that there is an opportunity for progress to be made, I'm not holding my breath until I see what actually gets proposed.
Bill
Well, yes, the proof is in the pudding, but the NPS has gone farther than I thought they would. I've worked in a large bureaucracy -- to me this signals they know they are going to have to do something, so they'd rather have some control than have congress just hand it to them. Certainly they have an opportunity to try to drag it out or clutter it up to the point of impracticality, but we'll just have to keep the pressure on.
bpet wrote:
What I read in your post is a very politically worded response ...
Bill
Um, so? Not sure what to make of this.
bpet wrote:
... politically motivated directive.
Bill
You can look a lonnnnnng, lonnnnnng time before you find a governmental directive or law, that is not "politically motivated".
I look forward to the day when all of the government agencies that have a role in, or an opportunity to control/adjust/deny/etc. my second amendment right, agree on simplifying their approach to protecting their own interest. With a little luck and a continued application of pressure from the President and 50 or so members of congress, even the Department of the Interior can be motivated to change something that they would obviously just as soon leave un-changed.
I fully understand that very few politicians or their appointees make original decisions and instead, depend on "experts", advisers, polls, and staff to ensure that their response to "needs for change" are in keeping with the best interest of the majority of the people's wishes while at the same time protecting the interest/objective of the agency. It is unfortunate that many times, the resultant action/policy is less than clear.
The point I was trying to make was that Mr. Kemptorne has responded to pressure from the President and members of congress to do something that he obviously felt no need to act on previously. While his response is promising, he has covered all the bases in his response letter to ensure political correctness without making any
real commitment other than incorporating new (more restrictive) federal requirements.
First, Secretary Thorne acknowledges that he has decided to take action. Not because it's in the best interest of the people or the correct thing to do, but because 50 congressional representatives have applied enough political pressure to make him do something.
Second, Secretary Thorne dutifully summarizes the complexity of trying to keep up with changing federal regulation. In effect acknowledging that his current policy may not reflect current regulations or policy. There is a hint of hope when he mentions the current NPS policy of requiring firearms to be inoperative. At this point, I could see something significant getting ready to happen but other than say state and federal laws have changes, he leaves any decision to take action to later analysis.
Third. Secretary Thorne re-assures that "This Administration" supports "the long-standing tradition" of states rights while preserving "...the Federal government authority to manage its lands, buildings, and facilities." Not sure if "This Administration" is referring to the Dept. of Interior or the Bush administration, but it is clear that Secretary Thorne is preserving his authority to take some liberty with a strict interpretation of the second amendment to make any changes appropriate for those Government resources within his control.
Fourth, Secretary Thorne does what any good political appointee would do, he passes the task off to an assistant with assurances that the assistant will do whats necessary to see that newer (in Sec. Thornes example, more restrictive) federal regulations are incorporated and then, incorporate wording that reflects the "law by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms...". Although Sec. Thorne gives assurances that any changes will be appropriately vetted, I find it hard to imagine that this can be a simple process and will be heavily dependent on Asst. Sec. Laverty's experts, advisers and staffers. The results should be interesting.
Finally, Secretary Thorne closes by saying in effect, see Assistant Secretary Laverty if you have any issues but be assured that he will do everything I've asked him to do. That is, he will take action based on your political pressure. He will ensure that updated federal regulations are incorporated, while preserving the value of public lands, including
the safety and enjoyment of all visitors, while
enhancing local control and respecting the individuals 2nd amendment rights.
The final paragraph of Secretary Thorne's letter pretty much sums things up. The bolded text in the above paragraph is for emphasis of his main points. NPS has used the concern for "safety and enjoyment of all visitors" as their primary reason for their restrictive gun policy for years. This makes me wonder if there is a change in the works or if it will be business as usual. With the added inclusion in this letter of "enhanced local control", I see an opportunity for some improvement but Secretary Thorne has been very clear that any update will reflect additional federal restrictions as well as recognition for enhanced local control.
My original response to the post said that I thought this was a political response and I stand by that. Secretary Thorne has left enough wiggle room in his letter that he can dodge left or right depending on the political winds and never have to recant anything in this letter. But as you pointed out, "the proof is in the pudding". I will wait and see whether this is a net sum gain or loss. I would love to believe that we have a gain on the way.
