Skip to content

No Effing Way

May 25, 2009
by

Here I am back again, thanks to the generosity of two sets of proud grandparents and the wonder of the human infant’s full-tummy induced coma.

While I haven’t been birding as often as I had in the past, my eye has been tuned to the media for news that would affect birds and birders in time to find a bit of unsettling news that I thought we had put to bed.

In the days leading up to Obama’s inauguration I wrote about a particularly egregious effort by the Bush Administration to overturn a long-standing ban on concealed and loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. It was, at the time, a non-issue, a blatant handout to the National Rifle Association, an organization that cares less about the rights of gun-owners than it does about the rights of gun manufacturers to avoid sensible regulation of their industry.

Thankfully, that provision was struck in the opening days of the new administration, but not for long it seems. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma attached as a rider in a crucial piece of financial legislation, a line overturning that ban. So it’s back on, and unless Obama is willing to veto a bill that represents a central tenant of his economic recovery plan, looks to stay that way. Though thankfully, it doesn’t go into effect until next February.

That won’t stop Coburn, however, who intends to offer the gun amendment to other bills in order to implement the decision as quickly as possible. It remains to be seen how it plays out.

But let’s, for now, put aside the fact that National Parks are among the safest places in the United States. Put aside the fact that those who opposed Obama in the election last year were defined by their near constant whining about riders in legislation and special interests. Put aside the hypocrasy inplicit in the whiplash inducing about-face, the sheer chutzpah needed to scream about clean bills until their throats are sore a few months ago and then turn around to add a special interest rider to a completely unrelated piece of legislation, and think about the park rangers. From the post a few months ago…

“While national parks are amongst the safest areas to be in, the toll on the U.S. Park Ranger is high,” said [John] Waterman [president of the Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police]. “U.S. Park Rangers are the most assaulted federal officers in the country. This vague, wide-open regulation will only increase the danger U.S. Park Rangers face.”

I wrote in December about how I had talked to a shorebird monitor on the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, site of the biggest environmental battleground in North Carolina on the matter of beach access. It’s hard to convey in writing how angry people get about it, and on Memorial Day, the traditional beginning of beach season, things tend to reach a peak. Park rangers there work hard to accomodate fishermen and other beach users, but they can’t please everyone and tempers often flare.

Add alcohol and easily accessible loaded guns to the mix and you have a potentially deadly situation.

The bottom line is that reasonable restrictions on firearms in places where all evidence suggests that people feel safe are an acceptable and pragmatic solution. Which, sadly, is the complete opposite of what’s going on here.

My only hope is that the Interior Department finds a way around it, for the good of us who enjoy public lands, but especially those who work there.

Advertisement
4 Comments
  1. forestal permalink
    May 25, 2009 9:50 am

    wow, never realized what a mess there is. Hope you are enjoying the baby life. Never forget to let the grandparents to give you and mom a chance to go on a date too.
    cheers

    dan

  2. Jochen permalink
    May 27, 2009 3:26 am

    Geez, to anyone from outside the US your legislation’s extremely liberal approach to the carrying/ownership of guns are mad and dangerous anyway, but why would anyone want to or feel they have to carry a gun to a frickin’ forkin’ BEACH?

    The only “reasonable restriction” is a complete BAN, not only for beaches and parks.

    But maybe that’s what you really meant?

  3. Nate permalink
    May 27, 2009 10:29 am

    A blanket ban on firearms would be political suicide, and I don’t think I would go that far even if I tend to lean that way. It is in the Constitution, after all.

    My ire is mostly aimed at the seemingly unnecessary adjustment of a perfectly acceptable policy for nothing but political reasons.

  4. Jochen permalink
    May 28, 2009 5:34 am

    “It is in the Constitution, after all.”
    You see, Nate, this is EXACTLY what I am talking about …

    ;-) )

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.