Emphasis is mine.Fox News wrote: Obama Defends Bush Rule on Permitting Guns in National Parks
The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Obama administration is going to bat for former President Bush by defending his last-minute rule allowing loaded guns in national parks.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that while the Interior Department is internally reviewing whether the measure passes environmental muster, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule in response to a lawsuit filed Friday by gun-control and environmental groups.
The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. For more than 20 years, they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.
The three groups fighting to overturn the rule are the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. They contend that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct a sufficient environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also claim that the new policy could discourage some visitors from visiting national landmarks.
But the Justice Department said in its reply that the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has requested an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, an Interior spokesman told the newspaper Monday.
Of course the only flimsy environmental angle will likely be the idea that somehow ammunition is going to be disposed of in such a way as to contribute to heavy metal contamination of the soil or water table. This will have zero traction considering the fact that the primary cause of such contamination would not be a result of carrying guns, but rather firing them. Even if you consider the accidental or intentional disposal of live ammunition or you lose/drop your gun off of a cliff or something, the impact to the environment will be immeasurably small. The environmental hoop is one that any Democrat administration would have to jump through regardless of what they really think.
