Oregano, nuthin'...I just sustained a self-inflicted cayenne pepper wound. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A couple of quick thoughts...

Maybe the concealed permit holders are more responsible gun-folk (I'm not totally convinced, but willing to grant the point for the sake of argument). But has anyone really felt the need for guns in national parks? I mean, what problem is this change to the status quo solving?

Whatever your stance on the second amendment, most reasonable people would agree that there are some places where guns shouldn't be allowed. I happen to think national parks are among those places. I don't anticipate armageddon or anything, but I do think this change will make park rangers' jobs more difficult. I also think that one consequence of the change in the law will be an increase in the number of people bringing guns into the parks illegally.

Also, to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: I worry about these lame-duck executive-branch orders, and about the degree to which management of public lands sways in the political winds, depending on who happens to be leaving office. (See also the BLM oil leasing thing in Utah TomD brought up a few weeks ago).

I happen to be opposed to most of the policies pushed by the Bush administration, but I think the principle here is bigger than that. Stewardship requires long-term thinking, and it's difficult to make that happen when you get these kind of end-run rule changes.