The Timeline
Even though the real essence behind the recent spirited posts was not really as much who did what when, as opposed to a larger point on when things like criticism is even allowed – if ever by some – and what role that might help in focusing activism.
However, I know some explicitly called me a liar for talking about NRA’s involvement at all, so I thought I would share a timeline on their actions.
Starting in 2003, NRA staff began meeting with officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior to change this regulation and allow state law to govern the carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges — as it does in national forests and on BLM lands. There was little resistance to such a policy change but also little action to make this change. Bureaucrats involved in this issue would move on and others would replace them, needing to be educated from scratch about the need and importance for this change.
As the second term of the Bush administration began in 2005, there was more of a sense of urgency to get this regulation changed given the uncertainty of the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. NRA asked several key Members of Congress, by virtue of their leadership roles as committee or subcommittee chairmen, to write letters to then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in support of this policy change. All of those letters went unanswered.
After the 2006 elections, NRA asked House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Ranking Member Don Young (R-AK) to write another letter in March of 2007 requesting revision to the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) to apply state law regarding concealed weapons statutes in National Park Service (NPS) areas and National Wildlife Refuges. Eight months later, they finally received a “thanks but no thanks” response from National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall.
In January of 2007, NPS Visitor and Resource Protection Associate Director Karen Taylor-Goodrich wrote in a letter that “(1) Parks are safe places,” “(2) ‘Right to carry’ laws do not reduce crime,” and “(3) ‘Right to carry’ laws do not protect visitors from wildlife.”
On December 14, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) and 46 of his Senate colleagues (including eight Democrats) sent a letter to former Idaho Governor and now Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne asking for the restoration of the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. (NRA-ILA initiated and worked closely with Senator Crapo on this letter.)
Two months later, there had been no response from Kempthorne. So on February 11, four more Senators sent another letter to Kempthorne requesting this same policy change. Now 51 Senators — a majority of the upper chamber of the United States Congress — have publicly sought this regulatory change.
Finally, Kempthorne appeared on February 13 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and on February 14 before the House Natural Resources Committee, for the annual department oversight hearings. Members of both committees asked Kempthorne about the delay in responding to the letters from 51 Senators, and the Department’s position on allowing those with valid state licenses or permits, to carry firearms in national parks. Following his admission that some parks are unsafe due to drug trafficking, Kempthorne was pressed on the need to allow law-abiding citizens the opportunity to legally carry firearms in national parks for personal protection and whether he believed that Right-to-Carry doesn’t reduce crime.
Congress has rightly become frustrated over the years of inaction at Interior. Members of both houses have introduced legislation — H.R. 5434 by Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and S. 2619 by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) — within the past week to change the policy relating to carrying and transportation of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. (Bolding of years and dates added.)
I’m sure some will go ahead and say I spent a lot of time making up names and numbers, but I can assure you I didn’t. This is legit.
No obviously related posts.
For the record, Bitter, VCDL has been on this since 2003, as well.
So at this point, with everyone having their say (and more), maybe we should all be happy that Interior is finally moving on this, and be thankful that we have so many different organizations who represent us and work to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
Fantastic, Boyd! I was at all times open to this information, but Curt chose to not provide it, even after he was invited to. Hell, you didn’t even provide it until now.
So, you going to stop calling me a liar now?
I didn’t resort to calling you one when I was aware there may be more to the story. Instead, I made clear that I realized there may be more out there and asked for more information multiple times.
Quotes:
I do snark, but I don’t call people liars when I know it’s likely that there’s more. Please do tell us how you will proceed in the future.
Thanks for the info. I though I had seen something from VCDL on the issue years ago. But could not remember.
Let’s not claim victory too quickly, bureaucracies are notoriously reluctant to change rules.
Okay, Bitter, I’ll grovel. Since you didn’t substantiate your claim, and I hadn’t seen any evidence to support it (although I should have, because I’d skimmed over the NRA page earlier), I thought you had no basis for your claim. Sorry for that.
Now, it’s your turn. Or do you still believe that VCDL had insufficient impact on this issue to claim credit?
Well, Boyd, I hope you’ll learn that personal attacks are not the way to go. Regardless of how you feel about whether or not criticism should be levied or is appropriate against organizations, I certainly hope that you realized from this that communication is a challenge for all groups to do effectively, and personal attacks are not justified even as others are in the process of seeking out information.
As for VCDL’s work, I never said they didn’t do anything on it, but we will likely disagree on the effectiveness of their work on this particular matter. I’m not at all saying it served no value – something I’ve never claimed at any point – but I don’t think it got the Secretary to agree to a rule change. That’s based of my knowledge working with action groups in DC, working with Congress, working with agencies, and working with lobbyists.
They can claim credit for doing something, but as I’ve stated, I’m not a believer in rewarding any and all action simply because it’s action if there’s evidence that other actions were more effective and measurable. (That’s actually going to be part of a series I’m currently outlining on bringing market principles to non-profits, specifically grassroots action non-profits. I hope you’ll return for that conversation to get a more complete background on my studies and thoughts on that matter and include your own responses that don’t include such personal attacks.)
I think the VCDL does provide very unique and valuable opportunities for activism around the state, and I do think those are effective for opening up a wide number of conversations in political circles and the local media. In fact, many of us went out of our way to applaud those, but some didn’t want to hear it. I think there are successes they aren’t doing enough to promote (that means they should take more credit on some things!) and issues that they should take a more informational approach on because they don’t really have that expertise yet, and likely won’t develop as sharply as an all volunteer organization. That doesn’t mean the have no value, it just means that I fundamentally believe that they (and all other organizations) need to take a step back, look at the measurables, and figure out where to best devote their limited resources.
I’m just glad I was hear to have you teach me such a valuable lesson, O Great Teacher.
Sheesh, get over yourself, girl. You couldn’t clean up that arrogance with a shovel.
So that means you still endorse personal attacks? I just want to know what to expect.
What he’s saying is that you’re not allowed to state an opinion on grass roots activity, because no one gets to determine what’s important and not important to grass roots. No one gets to dictate to grass roots what is and isn’t effective. That’s for members to determine for themselves. Having a conversation on the matter is wholly illegitimate.
As part of your timeline, can you provide indication of when the NRA might have notified its membership at all that it was working the issue?
I don’t recall ever seeing it in one of the magazines or in an e-mail until very very recently.
Just curious.
Tess:
They probably didn’t, until it looked like it was getting closer to fruition. This wasn’t really an issue where NRA had to get its membership involved. Most advocacy groups aren’t going to spill the beans on something like that until they a) need their membership to provoke action from the politicians or b) are pretty sure they are close to having the deal wrapped up. If you spill the beans too early, you risk jeopardizing any deal you might be negotiating. Grass roots, in some way, is kind of like a big stick. You don’t want to bring it out unless you really need to beat someone over the head.