The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 19, 2009, 08:30 PM   #1
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,527
Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A09

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule.

The three groups that brought the suit -- the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees -- argued the Bush administration violated several laws in issuing the rule.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had been "astoundingly flawed."

She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis of the regulation on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," Kollar-Kotelly wrote that federal officials "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation" to evaluate environmental impacts and "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts" of the rule.


Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said last night the department could not comment on the decision because "this is the subject of ongoing litigation."

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun-rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they now can do so in other public places.

Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is "extremely pleased" with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule's environmental impact.

"This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors," Faehner said.
chris in va is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 09:23 PM   #2
dogzilla
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Posts: 12
And Last Week...in Volation Of Bamas Presidential Order

The Park Service Is Banning All Lead, Fishing Stuff...ammo..anythign Lead Is Now Banned...

And They Never Once Per The Worthless Bama Presidential Order
For Transparent Govt...

Ask Us What We Thought About It..


People You Had Better Get Off Your Asses And Make
Keeping Your Country Your First Order Of Business...

They Are Stealing Out From Under You On A Daily Basis Now!!!
__________________
U.S. Air Force Ret. NightStalkers/ERT
Bowhunter Politically Incorrect SOB
Professional Liberal Basher NRA-Member
Registered Constitutional Party Mbr
dogzilla is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 10:41 PM   #3
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.
Well, for starters it wasn't last minute. It was a year+ long process.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 08:17 AM   #4
USASA
Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 84
I imagine some folks who, when camping, have carried a handgun with them either in their vehicle, in their camper or, on their person for years. Long before the latest presidential order allowing it.

Now that this has been overturned, I expect some folks will continue to do so...regardless.

Last edited by USASA; March 20, 2009 at 09:33 AM.
USASA is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 10:04 AM   #5
levrluvr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: no. IL
Posts: 276
Quote:
I imagine some folks who, when camping, have carried a handgun with them either in their vehicle, in their camper or, on their person for years. Long before the latest presidential order allowing it.
Now that this has been overturned, I expect some folks will continue to do so...regardless.
Ya' think so? Maybe not just handguns..... a shotgun with a box of Brennekes and Dixie tri-ball loads is as good a camping tool in the north woods as a sharp knife and a fly rod.
levrluvr is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 10:14 AM   #6
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,677
The NRA will be part of the appeal as they were party to the original legal actions, according to an NRA buddy.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 10:39 AM   #7
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,146
I stuggle to understand how concealed carry can have an environmental impact. A mental impact perhaps, but what kind of environmental impact? The rule allowed concealled carry, not target practice.
JWT is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 11:29 AM   #8
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,944
As if I am going to use the little self defense ammo I am carrying to shoot a bunny or something. What a crock. At least we still have the all copper slugs in SD calibers.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 12:14 PM   #9
TEDDY
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Location: MANNING SC
Posts: 837
ruling

looks like another multi named hen pecking.where do they find these judges.
TEDDY is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 12:36 PM   #10
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,996
I'm so tired of this nitpicky crap the anti-gun crowd is pulling.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is online now  
Old March 20, 2009, 01:04 PM   #11
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,146
" I'm so tired of this nitpicky crap the anti-gun crowd is pulling. "

Agree 100% with the comment. Unfortunately we'd better get accustomed to it given the anti gun background of the POTUS and most of his advisors and cabinet - especially his chief of staff and attorney general.
JWT is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 01:28 PM   #12
Croz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 307
Quote:
I stuggle to understand how concealed carry can have an environmental impact.
Lead. They're going through the environmental impact route because of all of the lead that will no doubt enter the environment through the crazy gun nuts shooting everything they see and leaving lead all over the place.

They know that environmental suits are the quickest and most reliable way to stop everything dead in its tracks.
Croz is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 01:38 PM   #13
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,146
Lead might be an environmental concern, however a carried gun won't get any lead into the environment so it's a hollow argument at best.

That being said Croz is correct that environmental suits are the easiest way for anyone that's against almost anything to stop it dead in it's tracks. Interesting times we live in, indeed.
JWT is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 02:38 PM   #14
ChuckS
Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 82
Quote:
looks like another multi named hen pecking.where do they find these judges.
Another Clinton appointee.

Would an environmental accessment be faster and cheaper?
ChuckS is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 04:11 PM   #15
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
My response to the Washington Post

I posted this 5 minutes ago at the WP:

"A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons".

Typical of Washington Post anti-second amendment bent, there was absolutely nothing last minute about this rule change, as there was public input solicited for more than a year. And then after the deadline, the forum for public input was re-opened , with the overwhelming consensus (85 %, if I recall correctly) being in support of the rule change.

It's hard to imagine, how there could be any environmental impact from a CONCEALED weapon, for which a license is held. The footprints of the concealee will have more of an impact, than whatever he or she may be wearing underneath their clothing.

The argument and the injunction are disingenuous attempts the circumvent what has been a public debate rare for it's transparency and for it's common sense result.

This new rule does nothing to ease restrictions on hunting or target shooting which remains a federal offense in a national park.

I suspect the light of day will be shined on this nonsense in due time, and we will have learned yet more about the extent to which ideologues in the form of the judiciary will usurp power to further a narrow, misguided cause.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 06:11 PM   #16
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
In the current climate...if lead is so bad here...it will likely be bad there. I guess that's one way to end run RKBA.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 09:58 PM   #17
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
It's not even like most of these whiny yuppies will visit national parks. At the risk of sounding cavalier and boorish: I hope this doesn't influence anyone's behavior.
bclark1 is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 11:10 PM   #18
mnhntr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Posts: 972
We were asked to leave a national park campground that we were going to stay at because we had our bows and arrows that we were going to use to hunt on a nearby management area. Just an example of stupid people making stupid laws for other stupid peoples piece of mind.
mnhntr is offline  
Old March 21, 2009, 07:49 AM   #19
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,973
I've heard that an appeal has been filed, but so far I've not been able to find out anything about it.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old March 21, 2009, 11:20 AM   #20
KChen986
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Location: Ninja Mall
Posts: 818
Query--if the ruling is on appeal and not final, does that mean the status quo ante is preserved--such that people are still allowed to CCW in nat'l parks?
KChen986 is offline  
Old March 21, 2009, 01:05 PM   #21
Race Bannon
Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 17
Not according to the NRA website. They say concealed carry in the parks is
prohibited until further notice.
Race Bannon is offline  
Old March 21, 2009, 01:17 PM   #22
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,669
Well, the problem here is that the law does appear to call for an environmental analysis of the impact of the rule change. While I think a great argument can be made that there is no impact, the previous administration did not do that analysis (and if they had, the rule change would not have happened before the change of administration).

As a result, you can make the argument that the environmental analysis needs to be made - and now it will be made by this administration if the appeal is unsuccessful. While that doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling the ridiculousness of asserting that concealed carry has an environmental impact should give a very clear indication of what type of firearms policies the administration will pursue when they have carte blanche.

For what it is worth, this judge has popped up before on firearms-related issues such as McCain-Feingold regulation of the Internet.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old March 22, 2009, 09:06 AM   #23
MeekAndMild
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
Folks, did you expect anything different? A lot of you weren't around in the 50s and 60s so you don't really know what struggle it has been to give the citizens other basic rights like voting and the right to peaceably assemble. Back in the 50s and the 60s there were a whole lot of judges who dissented.

For those who are interested here is a link to info about the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: http://www.nradefensefund.org/
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.
MeekAndMild is offline  
Old March 22, 2009, 11:24 AM   #24
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
the ridiculousness of asserting that concealed carry has an environmental impact
The injunction was not issued on the basis on poisoning the air, water, or soil.

Quote:
Public safety and protection of natural resources are indisputably encompassed within the definition of “environmental impacts” that must be considered pursuant to NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 (defining environmental impacts to include “ecological, . . . aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health,” effects, “whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”).
The Bradys claimed safety ('I don't feel safe in parks when other people have guns') and aesthetic ('I can't sleep for thinking about "seeing or contemplating the bison being killed" by people with guns') impacts.

The judge said that the claims raised by the anti-gun folks (as part of the 125,000 public comments on the proposed regulation) could not just be ignored, but had to be considered and a rational decision had to be reached, with the basis for the decision recorded. The DOI did not document the decision on why the regulation should be exempt from an environmental assessment or impact statement.

The Brady claim of fear that guns would be used in the parks was actually confirmed by the DOI and NRA position that the regulation was intended to allow concealed carry so that people would have guns to use (albeit in self-defense) in the parks. The flaw appears to be that DOI did not explain why the Brady fear was ill-founded.

Last edited by gc70; March 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 23, 2009, 07:30 PM   #25
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,932
Quote:
Judge blocks rule permitting guns in State parks.
And in the meantime this same judge should be personally held accountable for every assault to LAC by two or four legged animals.
shortwave is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13099 seconds with 9 queries