Obama Justice Dept. to defend national park carry rule

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

The three groups seeking to overturn the rule -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- have argued that the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule, such as failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. They also argue that the new policy could deter some visitors, such as school groups, from visiting national landmarks.

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule "does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety."

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

Article here. We'll have to see how vigorously the Justice Dept. decides to defend this rule. The Salazar "internal assessment" could very well be setting up the road to repealing the rule, depending on who's doing the "assessing". Donald Sensing over at Sense of Events thinks the excuse for banning firearms on federal lands will be the issue of lead:

That's the tack that the Obama administration will take: it's the lead that's the problem, so guns must be banned from federal lands. This is not a new tactic, of course, since opponents of Second Amendment rights have long tried to shut down firearms use by trying to cripple ammunition makers and users with absolute liability for ammunition use. It won't matter, either, that ammunition without any lead at all is available on the civilian market. A way will be found, a reason will be given. The present "defense" of the Bush rule is just theater.

Actually, lead-free frangible ammunition does exist, but its use is for the most part limited to specialty training uses, such as close range shooting with steel targets. Unfortunately, the lead-free primers used in such ammo tend to be less reliable than traditional leaded primers. Less reliable ignition in training might be acceptable, even perhaps desirable to some extent, allowing the trainee to practice malfunction clearance drills, but for real life encounters the lower ignition reliability of lead-free primers might just get you killed.

While the Obama administration may use the "lead issue" to repeal the recently enacted National Parks carry rule, the reality is that the rule simply allows the lawful concealed carry of firearms for the limited purpose of self-defense, not general shooting. Thus, the only lead that should be going into "the environment" should consist of those bullets going into the bodies of violent criminals. If the National Park Service is to be taken at its word (always an iffy proposition when dealing with bureaucrats pushing an anti-gun agenda), violent crime in the parks is "rare". So the "impact" (pun intended) on the environment of a few bullet-riddled would-be rapists, robbers, or murderers should be similarly minuscule. Right?