Bo, the first dog, met the press on the South Lawn, part of a grand national park, during his introduction at the White House. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images.)
by Rebecca Cole
Taking your gun camping is one thing -- handy in case you run into the infamously shy Sasquatch in the mountains of eastern Washington state -- but bringing it to the White House is an entirely different matter.
Yet with the White House officially designated a national park, President Obama's signing today of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act in the Rose Garden, which includes an amendment allowing licensed, loaded firearms to be brought into national parks and wildlife refuges, the president has opened up a can of legal worms.
Introduced by Oklanhoma Sen. Tom Coburn, the amendment was slipped into the CARD bill to reinstate a Bush administration policy that a federal judge had blocked in March. And although Obama "never really wanted the provision," Politico reports, "he wanted credit card reform on his desk by Memorial Day" so he let the amendment slide rather than risk having the bill derailed.
Only part of the White House -- the portion built from 1790 to 1800 but not the east or west wings -- is designated a national park. But the National Park Service has jurisdiction over the exterior and the 18 acres surrounding the "people's house."
So could a visitor pack heat, say, during the White House's annual Easter Egg Roll (just in case that bunny gets a little out of hand)?
Since Washington, D.C., does not have a law that specifically bans guns in national parks within the district, legally perhaps yes.
But as the Secret Service is in control of White House security it seems highly unlikely anyone will get in the gate with a loaded gun.
So Bo, the Portuguese water dog, is safe.
But Yogi, Boo Boo and Mr. Ranger aren't quite so lucky.
Comments
Good work, Secret Service!
The last think we need is some right-wing cretin running around the White House grounds pretending that they're Jack Bauer.
Posted by: Hulk SMASH! | May 22, 2009 3:31 PM
Can I walk into Tom Coburn's Senate office while carrying a loaded handgun?
Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2009 3:32 PM
Ms. Cole:
The bearing of protective arms is the right of responsible Americans, and it is a deadly serious endeavor.
That you do not take it seriously ... that you poke at it with snide and nervous jokes about the Easter bunny and Yogi Bear, is pathetically immature behavior for a professional correspondent.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago | May 22, 2009 4:02 PM
Stop with the fear mongering. DC does not allow you to carry guns around, therefore, NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED AT THE WHITEHOUSE OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN DC>
To suggest that there is a "legal can of worms" about this is ridiculous and irresponsible.
Posted by: blogo | May 22, 2009 4:16 PM
Given that the bill applies only to National Parks in States, it doesn't apply in DC. If it were to, it would apply the laws for firearm carry that DC has.
Given that DC carry permits are rare as hen's teeth, even if the change applied to DC it would have no practical effect.
And given how rarely legally carried firearms cause problems, I don't think that "Mr. Ranger" has anything to worry about - nor do fictional bears, since it's still illegal to shoot them in parks.
The idea that someone willing to poach a bear was being held back by it being illegal to have a rifle in a park, despite being willing to illegally shoot the bear is one that requires an ... interesting, shall we say, view of human nature.
(See HR 627, Sec. 512, as here.
I realise research is "hard", what with having to actually find and read laws, but isn't that the job of the Press?)
Posted by: Sigivald | May 22, 2009 4:33 PM
Rebecca, check your facts: the amendment means that national parks follow the same gun laws as the state they are in. Since the White House is in Washington, D.C., there is no way anyone is going to be allowed to carry guns onto the White House grounds. You seem to like sounding cutesy more than reporting accurately, so bravo.
Posted by: Joe | May 22, 2009 4:45 PM
The intellectual level of the Swamp writer is reflected in her repeated references to "Sasquatch", old cartoon characters like Yogi Bear, and Bo the water dog.
The (shrinking) left wing audience for the Swamp deserves better than this piffle.
Posted by: Dissent is no longer Patriotic? | May 22, 2009 4:51 PM
quit being a dumbass. the law says that you have to follow the laws of the state you are in. in DC (while not a state) there is no legal concealed or open carry. That means that it is still illegal on the grounds of the White House.
Posted by: Sean Sorrentino | May 22, 2009 5:14 PM
Why is it that so many people haven't taken the time to read the guns in parks provision before making ludicrous claims about it?
"(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located."
Since DC all but bans ownership of firearms and has no provision for carrying a firearm outside one's home, there is no way this law affects any National Park in DC.
Additionally, the White House (and anywhere Obama goes) is protected under a fedreal law that gives the Secret Service the authority to set up a security perimeter (don't have the cite handy, sorry).
If concealed or open carry is ALREADY legal in the state surrounding the park, then it is legal in that park - jut like it already is in National Forests - I haven't heard of problems in the National forests, why would it be a problem in National Parks?
Posted by: Ray Burton | May 22, 2009 5:30 PM
This gets to the larger issue - let the states take over the national parks.
Posted by: Terry | May 22, 2009 7:05 PM
Typical emotion-based, factually-deficient response to common sense from a freedom-hating statist.
Posted by: Bruce | May 23, 2009 10:06 AM
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided DC vs Heller and ruled that the right to keep a handgun in one's home in DC (subject to registration and licensing by the District) was constitutionally protected under the 2nd Amendment. Heller won against all the forces of anti-gun, anti-civil rights bigotry in the US.
Now, for the first time since 1976, individual citizens may license and register a handgun to keep in their DC homes for self defense. Prior to this, one had to break the law in DC to have a handgun. Of course, criminals saw this law as a great way to make their lives safer while they ran their drug rings, robbed and raped, murdered with impunity, and so on.
Further litigation is ongoing regarding the extremely costly, burdensome, time consuming and illogical method of registration and licensing DC has imposed on its citizens. These rules are in place explicitly in order to keep citizens from exercising their right to self defense through keeping and bearing arms.
So as for individual citizens from DC, there are less than 4 (as of the last report I read) who have gone through the process to get a legal handgun which they might try to bring to the White House, which would be illegal since carrying a handgun outside their homes for self defense is still illegal in DC.
DC exemplifies the old NRA saying, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Your article demonstrates your ignorance regarding DC, its recent well-reported history regarding guns and the law, and bigotry of the vilest sort against the exercise of the human right of self defense.
Posted by: Mikee | May 23, 2009 10:19 AM
Wonder what it cost the tax payers to pick up his POOP.
Posted by: Inky | May 25, 2009 9:55 AM