Judge blocks National Park Carry with Injunction?

[esquare]

I fully believe that every person should have to perform some type of "service" before they are a full citizen.

That may be what you think, but the founding fathers certainly didn't believe that, and this is what separates us from many other countries. Volunteer service here in the US is volunteer - not mandated by the government. Where did this idea come from that the government exists to do anything other than serve we, the people? Anyway, that's a pet peeve of mine, primarily because I used to believe the same thing before I really started to understand what the constitution and the founding fathers were all about.

As for this issue, what can we do to change this?

 

[mgregg85]

Can I sue the brady bunch for my physical suffering? My eyes are rolling so far back in my head that it hurts.

 

[Gamera]

Well, time to start writing letters again...

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
What's the chance of this being over-turned people ever being able to carry guns in parks?

.

 

[damien]

The real question is who has standing to appeal. This simply should be appealed and quickly. I fear the only entity with standing to appeal it will be the Department of Interior, though, and they will be inclined not to.

OK, now I see this from above:

The court did grant NRA's motion to intervene in the cases. Under federal law, NRA is entitled to an immediate appeal, and NRA will exercise that right.

That gives me some hope. The appealate courts and the SCOTUS are more reasonable than this one particular judge.

The fact is that if the DOI can ban guns (they did under Reagan) then can unban guns. Any argument that they did not follow all the requirements of rule-making under the Administrative Procedure Act most of the time goes in favor of the government, for better or worse. We can expect a different decision from the higher courts.

I am glad to hear that the NRA can quarterback this instead of the DOI, although I am a little surprised.

 

[armedandsafe]

Quote:
I fully believe that every person should have to perform some type of "service" before they are a full citizen.

That may be what you think, but the founding fathers certainly didn't believe that, and this is what separates us from many other countries.

Actually, the Founders were very aware of and in favor of mandatory service. Do some research on the meaning of Militia in those days and you will see that it was just as it is today: all able-bodied males.

Subtle? perhaps. True? Yes.

Pops

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree. I think it will be quickly appealed and overturned. The process was not only proper, it was extended to make sure. Assclowns.

 

[The_Shootist]

Thats a good SIG - I'm tempted to steal it..grin.

 

[rl2669]

Out of control judiciary, its an appointed-for-life legislature.

 

[alsaqr]

Call your congressman/woman now on this one.

Too bad that gunowners did not fight this silly rule when it was first dreamed up by the Reagan Sec'y of The Interior, James Watt. Gunowners were so enamored of Reagan that they overlooked the prohibition on carry in parks put in place by his administration.

http://www.businessnorth.com/kuws.asp?RID=2741

"The old rule was 25 years old and it was promulgated under President Reagan and Secretary of the Interior James Watt. So it was not a left-wing conspiracy to keep guns out of national parks, it was very well thought out. Crime rates are very low in national parks. It's one of the safest places you can be in the country. So in my view there was no problem that needed to be solved.”

 

[Prion]

right to bare arms

Don't you guys see that this is the real issue here? No one wants to see your naked guns no matter how sexy you think they are. Probably makes that judge feel inadequate about herself so she bans them!

 

[G.E. Lee]

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Don't ever let anyone convince you that a presidential election is unimportant...

 

[BBQLS1]

Let me get this straight.

She is denying CC in parks because the government did not do an extensive environmental impact study on allowing CC?

There is no difference on the environmental impact if all someone is doing is CCing their weapon? Sounds like we need an environmental impact study on people who wear sunglasses in national parks!




Am I misunderstanding it.

 

[esquare]

Quote:
Quote:
I fully believe that every person should have to perform some type of "service" before they are a full citizen.

That may be what you think, but the founding fathers certainly didn't believe that, and this is what separates us from many other countries.

Actually, the Founders were very aware of and in favor of mandatory service. Do some research on the meaning of Militia in those days and you will see that it was just as it is today: all able-bodied males.

Subtle? perhaps. True? Yes.

I believe they were in favor of mandatory service in the militia (unorganized) and not the professional army. Also, there's a difference between militia service and the volunteer service that was referred to in the original post. It was my impression that he was condoning the government forcing volunteer community service, not service in the militia as a measure to protect the republic.

I may be wrong, but if you can find substantial evidence that the found fathers favored the government mandating service outside of the militia, I'd be pretty interested in seeing it. (I'm not being a snotty - I really would).

Anyway, this should probably go into another thread....

 

[rl2669]

So convenient for the new administration ... to be able to feign support for this change ... knowing all along that it would go to "the right judge" to hear the case...

 

[mljdeckard]

I'll look into that action.

 

[The_Shootist]

Hasn't the NRA already launched an appeal, as of yesterday?

 

[Deltaboy1984]

It is real simple where Judges are elected most of the time this crap doesn't happen. We need all judges from the USSC on down elected by state and by National elections.

 

[divemedic]

We need all judges from the USSC on down elected by state and by National elections.

Really? So in this last election we would have gotten us an all Democrat USSC? That protects your rights how?

The problem is too much direct democracy is in the system. That leaves the door open for populist garbage like "spreading the wealth around." What hurt this country the most was the passage of constitutional amendments, moving us away from a republic and towards a democracy. The worst of these is the 17th amendment, which took power away form the states and eliminated one of this Nation's checks and balances.


No way.

 

[mljdeckard]

I always vote against every sitting judge on the local ballot. I don't want any of them taking their jobs for granted.

 

[user3214]

Here is a quote from Brady, it provides some reasoning as to why they push for such bans

Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1120
Numerous studies have confirmed that concealed carrying of firearms does not reduce crime and, if anything, leads to increased violent crime. Experience in states that have allowed concealed carrying of firearms has shown that thousands of dangerous people are able to get licenses. In Florida, for example, more than 4,200 licenses were revoked because many of these licensees committed a crime. Since becoming the first state to allow the concealed carrying of firearms in 1987, Florida consistently has had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. Florida has been ranked as the state with the highest annual violent crime rate more often than any other state in the last two decades.

 

[cbrgator]

Hey Johnny,

Not to mention that FLorida has issued 1.4 MILLION permits. And that of those 4200... only 140 or so were firearm related. But they like to leave out the convenient facts. You can get this info right off of Florida's CCW website.

 

[Hani Pasha]

I don't understand what environmental impact concealed carry of weapons in National Parks could have. The only conceivable way this policy will impact anything at all is if weapons need to be used--and that only happens if park rangers aren't doing a good enough job in teaching dangerous animals to stay away from people, right? Even then, any impact concealed carry will have on national parks would be insignificant, I believe.

Is there sense in writing to this judge?

 

[meef]

And, don't forget about the airline pilots right to bare arms.

What? They're allowing those guys to wear short sleeves now?

Sheesh. What's next?

 

[gc70]

She is denying CC in parks because the government did not do an extensive environmental impact study on allowing CC?

There is no difference on the environmental impact if all someone is doing is CCing their weapon? Sounds like we need an environmental impact study on people who wear sunglasses in national parks!

Am I misunderstanding it.

Yes, you are misunderstanding something. The injunction was not about poisoning the air, water, or soil. 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.

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”).

DOI said the regulation was exempt from an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The judge ruled against the DOI for not supporting the decision about the exemption (falls under the SCOTUS definition of 'arbitrary and capricious' regulatory action).

In simpler terms, "because we said so" is not enough of a reason for the DOI action.