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.