|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 19, 2009, 08:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 13,806
|
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. |
March 19, 2009, 09:23 PM | #2 |
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 |
March 19, 2009, 10:41 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,655
|
Quote:
__________________
Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf. |
|
March 20, 2009, 08:17 AM | #4 |
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. |
March 20, 2009, 10:04 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: no. IL
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
|
|
March 20, 2009, 10:14 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 20, 2009, 10:39 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
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.
|
March 20, 2009, 11:29 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,951
|
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. |
March 20, 2009, 12:14 PM | #9 |
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.
|
March 20, 2009, 12:36 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
I'm so tired of this nitpicky crap the anti-gun crowd is pulling.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
March 20, 2009, 01:04 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
" 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. |
March 20, 2009, 01:28 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
They know that environmental suits are the quickest and most reliable way to stop everything dead in its tracks. |
|
March 20, 2009, 01:38 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
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. |
March 20, 2009, 02:38 PM | #14 | |
Member
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 93
|
Quote:
Would an environmental accessment be faster and cheaper? |
|
March 20, 2009, 04:11 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
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. |
March 20, 2009, 06:11 PM | #16 | |
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:
|
|
March 20, 2009, 09:58 PM | #17 |
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.
|
March 20, 2009, 11:10 PM | #18 |
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.
|
March 21, 2009, 07:49 AM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,381
|
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. |
March 21, 2009, 11:20 AM | #20 |
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?
|
March 21, 2009, 01:05 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: February 26, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 21
|
Not according to the NRA website. They say concealed carry in the parks is
prohibited until further notice. |
March 21, 2009, 01:17 PM | #22 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
March 22, 2009, 09:06 AM | #23 |
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. |
March 22, 2009, 11:24 AM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
March 23, 2009, 07:30 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|