Redstate

By kowalski Posted in Law — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

When the Supreme Court rendered its decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller overturning the Washington D.C. gun ban and protecting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, opponents of the ruling were were quick to buoy themselves upon the closely divided 5-4 aspect of the decision. Many of them opined that even though the ruling seemed like a temporary setback for the gun grabbers, it could have "legislative benefits" down the road and serve to rally anti-gun forces throughout the country.

It didn't take long: we're seeing the first attempt at pushback on D.C. vs. Heller this morning:

Like a quarterback taking a knee in the fourth quarter, two of Congress's most ardent opponents of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms are trying to run out the clock on efforts to enhance your right to self-defense in our national parks and wildlife refuges.
...
Rather than closing the proscribed comments period as scheduled and moving toward finalizing this federal regulation, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), succeeded in delaying the implementation of the final rule by bullying the Department of the Interior (their respective congressional subcommittees have oversight of national parks) to extend the deadline for comments an additional 30 days!

You can read the rest of the press release at the NRA-ILA.

At issue is the right to carry one's privately owned firearms while visiting national parks, which is currently prohibited. In addition, firearms regulations in national parks are goverened by a patchwork of conflicting legislation that is both anti-federalist in practice and confusing and onerous to citizens.

Links:

Here is the original NRA-ILA press release.
Here is the proposed legislation in PDF.
Here is the 30 day extension Akaka and Grijalva were successful in pushing through.

It's time for 2nd Amendment supporters to make their voices heard on this subject. Akaka and Grijalva have extended the comment period so that groups opposed to the rule change will have more time to organize against it. This is only the first of the many coming battles on 2nd Amendment rights that are going to occur as the result of DC vs. Heller, and many of them are going to be exactly like this one: efforts by anti-gun legislators to nullify the effect of the ruling in practice.

And let's be clear, that's what Akaka and Grijalva intend to attempt.

From the text of the proposed rule change:

A core tenet of our system of
government is that States have the
prerogative to develop their own
policies and standards in many areas,
and this principle has long been
honored with respect to policies
governing the possession of firearms.
Recognizing the importance of this longstanding
tradition, we believe that
federal agencies have a responsibility to
recognize the competence of the States
in this area, and that federal regulations
should be developed and implemented
in a manner that respects ‘‘state
prerogatives and authority.’’ Cf.
Executive Order 13132 of August 10,
1999 (‘‘Federalism’’).

This proposed regulation is intended
to give greater effect to these principles.
As discussed below, forty-eight States
authorize citizens to carry concealed
weapons for the purpose of self-defense.
Existing federal regulations governing
firearms in national parks and national
wildlife refuges, promulgated before
many of these State laws were in effect,
properly limit poaching and target
practice, but unnecessarily disable or
limit the ability of law-abiding citizens
to possess, carry, and transport a
concealed firearm. The Department
believes that Federal regulations should
be amended to defer to this
development in State law, particularly
where, as in this case, the deference can
be achieved without harm to the visitors
or resources the regulations are
designed to protect.

I'm urging everyone to please investigate the above links and to immediately register their support for the rule change. A crucial test of D.C. vs. Heller is whether the anti-gun lobby will be successful in nullifying the most important principle of the ruling through legislative manueverings such as this one. We shouldn't let them do it.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL