Philosophical Questions for Government Joseph P. Tartaro Executive Editor If someone makes an obscene gesture in a national forest and there is no one there to see it, is anyone offended? That may sound like a variation on the old philosophical conundrum about the tree falling when there's no one to hear if it makes a sound, but it is a viable question given the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service's proposed regulations for conduct in the national forests. Among these new regulations which also touch prohibit possession of firearms there actually are such absurdities as a prohibition against "obscene language and gestures" and making or uttering "loud" sounds. You also would not be permitted to pick up any sample fossil or mineral or engage in a wide variety of human activity while on millions of acres of Forest Service lands. Of particular note to our readers is the prohibition against "discharging or possessing a firearm, air rifle, gas gun or other device capable of causing injury to persons or wildlife or capable of causing property damage." In our Western States where the majority of the lands under the stewardship of the Forest Service are located, these prohibitions would affect inholders and tenants and those people who now engage in marksmanship programs and matches on Forest Service land. Some of these have already experienced problems with Forest Service staffers who have found a variety of reasons to curtail or shutoff shooting activities at ranges in California and elsewhere. But while this may affect only recreational use of firearms, the new regs go much further, limiting self-defense options for people who live on Forest Service land by prohibiting the possession of firearms or "other device capable of causing injury to persons or wildlife." From a quick reading, this suggests that possession of a baseball bat would also be prohibited. In some jurisdictions, and in some military installation guidelines for service personnel, the possession of a baseball bat without a ball and/or baseball mitt, is already considered illegal possession of a weapon. So far, the Treasury Department has not reclassified baseball bats as destructive devices requiring a $200 transfer tax and local and federal police approval for possession. However, given the Clinton Administration's approach to disarmament and rendering defenseless law-abiding citizens wherever possible, like the tenants of federally funded public housing projects, it might be the next step. The new Forest Service regulations are another classic second step in the government's continuing effort to gradually move from stewardship or public property to total control. The first step in this process began with the changes to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations which caused a major stir in the 1980s. The new Forest Service regulations were published in the Federal Register of Feb. 16, 1994 (Vol. 59, No. 32, pages 7880 to 7892) and provided for a 60-day comment period which would have expired Apr.. 16. However, the comment period has been extended to May 16, 1994. To comment, one should really obtain copies of the proposed regulations, frequently available at public and university libraries, and read all of the proposed changes. We have covered only a few here. Comments then can be addressed to Jack Ward Thomas, chief, Forest Service USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090. If you or people you know would be directly affected by these proposals, you may want to duplicate this information and send it to others. Because the original publication of this proposed regulation only recently came to light and because of the long deadlines for most monthly magazines, it is unlikely that there will be wide knowledge of these proposed changes. DCM Program Continuation We are informed that the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) program is included in the proposed Defense Department budget for the Department of the Army. However, it is expected that the anti-gunners like Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) will again make a determined effort to eliminate the funding for this program. Judging from reports and commentaries in the general media which have largely characterized this program as nothing more than a government subsidy of the NRA at a time when Congress should be cutting all the fat it can from the budget, it appears that the public relations skids have already been put in place. Additionally, officials in the Clinton Defense Department have not supported the program and the Army has largely attempted to characterize this as an unproductive recruiting program. Therefore, observers in Washington, expect that there will be a serious fight over the future of DCM in Congress as it gets closer to budget time. There seems little likelihood that the program will survive without a serious fight and the last minute arrival of the cavalry. Certainly, the battle looming over the DCM program is minor compared to the larger fight over the ban on semi-automatic firearms and total registration and licensing of handguns which will probably be in progress as you read this issue. However, it is just one more in a continuing effort to eradicate all vestiges of legitimate firearms use in America. I have always claimed that the real reason the antis want to get rid of DCM is that it would eliminate one of the arguments about the legitimate use of the military-origin semi-automatics that have been their target for some many recent years. Sarah Brady Quote Probably few things we've printed have generated so many letters and phone calls as the quote ascribed to Sarah Brady by Nicholas Panella in a letter regarding the Tallahassee, FL, rally which appeared in Gun Week, Mar. 4, 1994. In response to all of those queries let me say first that the quote in question has appeared elsewhere in print many times before we published Mr. Panella's letter. Because it had already been widely used and because Panella's letter explained the circumstances under which he heard it, we used his letter verbatim. Since then, however, we have sought the original source of the quote, and have talked to Panella, who also tried to track it down. At this point we can only report that it can only be tracked back to hearsay. The best anyone can come up with is that it was overheard in Capitol corridors in the fashion first described by Panella. However, since the people in government who claim to have overheard the comment have not as yet come forward with a notarized affidavit attesting to being a witness to the statement, there is no reasonable provenance as yet for the statement attributed to Mrs. Brady.