Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on March 19, 2009, 08:44:59 PM
-
Well, that's just peachy. :mad:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29781541/
WASHINGTON - A judge on Thursday blocked a federal rule allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in U.S. national parks and wildlife refuges.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturns a rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration.
The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, and allowed visitors to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge was located allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns in parks had been severely restricted.
The Obama administration had said it was reviewing the Bush rule but had defended it in court.
A spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to comment Thursday, citing the ongoing court case.
Restrictions adopted during Reagan years
The Bush administration issued the gun rule in December in response to letters from half the Senate asking officials to lift the restrictions on guns in parks, which were adopted by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s.
The rule went further than a draft proposal issued a year ago and would have allowed concealed weapons even in parks located in states that prohibit the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of two groups that sued to block the rule, called the judge's ruling a victory for the people.
"We're happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed," he said.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which also brought suit, said he was extremely pleased.
"We're especially glad to hear that the court is agreeing with the park rangers and the public who are concerned that there will be negative impacts from the (now-overturned) regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public."
NRA backed the Bush rule change
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the Bush rule change, saying law-abiding citizens had the right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulations were inconsistent and unclear, the NRA said.
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations protested the Bush rule change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
-
What was the judge's reasoning? Guns are icky? :mad:
-
You have to admire the Brady pukes' ability to find a sympathetic audience.
-
What was the judge's reasoning? Guns are icky? :mad:
That's what I want to know - not only on what grounds, but on what authority?
-
You have to admire the Brady pukes' ability to find a sympathetic audience.
It's not really that difficult: the judiciary is packed to the rafters with leftist extremist "judges" appointed by leftist extremist presidents and approved by more leftist extremists in legislatures.
-
That's what I want to know - not only on what grounds, but on what authority?
Good queston - exactly what existing law was the judge applying?
-
She ruled against it based on a lack of a environmental impact study :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
She ruled against it based on a lack of a environmental impact study :mad: :mad: :mad:
Hey Rocky !! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my butt !!!
-
The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturns a rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration.
Hmmmm... hyphenated last name.
I wonder what political leanings she adheres to?
I also am certain that the plaintiffs cherry-picked their judge. This will hit a higher Circuit court and get promptly smacked back on track.
-
NRA statement
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12252 (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12252)
link to opinion
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nationalparks_MemoOpiniononintervention.PDF (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nationalparks_MemoOpiniononintervention.PDF)
Common sense is dead in DC
-
Apparently there was not enough blood running in the streams once folks started packing.
Somehow I don't think we can lay all the blame on Fistful for that.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
As I understand it, this is a temporary injunction, not a full toss.
-
Somehow I don't think we can lay all the blame on Fistful for that.
Nah. Bush's fault.
-
It is actually Regan's fault, he started it. As good a president as he was, he was from KA........chris3
-
She ruled against it based on a lack of a environmental impact study :mad: :mad: :mad:
So . . . does one need to file an environmental impact study for wearing shoes or pants in a national park?
If this idiot judge really did use environment impact to issue her ruling - she's the kind of lunatic moonbat that not only ought to be removed from the bench, she ought to be fined (for abusing her authority) and disbarred.
-
Nah. Bush's fault.
But I think he voted for Bush so it is back to Fistfull again
-
Technically, it's Reagan's fault, but since Reagan is faultless and can do no wrong we blame Obama.
-
Technically, it's Reagan's fault, but since Reagan is faultless and can do no wrong we blame Obama.
He was governor of CA. We're lucky he only did national park ccw and the bad parts of FOPA. And God yes, yes I know the machine gun was snuck in at the last second etc. Geez....
-
What, you doubt Reagan's godhood?
INFIDEL!
-
But...but....but....Reagan was the awesomest bestest defeeter or ebil everrrrr.
Seriously, he was great, but like any he had his draw backs.
I'd still love to know under what authority a Judge imposes such a rule on national parks. The rule was removed, there is nothing to sue for and no ruling to be made reinstating it. Judges can uphold such rules, not create them.
-
I'd still love to know under what authority a Judge imposes such a rule on national parks. The rule was removed, there is nothing to sue for and no ruling to be made reinstating it. Judges can uphold such rules, not create them.
Judges can get involved in rules situations, and we had best hope they continue to be able to do so. It's the only way to get rid of firmly entrenched yet reckless rules. Keep the ATF in mind when thinking about rules and regulations rather than laws, and the power of the judiciary to attack them.
-
Who knew that the Second Amendment was trumped by environmental concerns?
In New America it appears to be. Now what could those "environmental" issues be, I'm wondering?
I think a lot of us already suspect that environmentalism has become the calling card for socialism. Or let's just call it Communism Nice and leave it at that.
Anyway...
Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks
By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; A09
A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. 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 that the Bush action violated several laws.
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 on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," she wrote that 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 the department could not comment because of "ongoing litigation."
The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.
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 could 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.
-
I think a lot of us already suspect that environmentalism has become the calling card for socialism. Or let's just call it Communism Nice and leave it at that.
So-called "environmentalism" is one of many masks leftist extremist statism hides behind. The fake class hatred being stirred up over the AIG bonuses is another, and so is most of what passes for so-called "civil rights" agitation these days, and so is so-called "anti-war" activity, and so is the so-called "stimulus" enlargement of the federal government.
I've been referring to all that as "socialism" quite some while. I'm not sure it's really the right term. "Leftist extremist statism" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and in any event, I doubt "statism" is readily intelligible to very many people.
Ideas, anyone?
-
Ideas, anyone?
New Democracy? =D
-
New Democracy? =D
environanarchy?
-
Revolution?
Now can we have a Civil War?
Duplicate thread, so I've merged it with the original.
-
"Leftist extremist statism" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and in any event, I doubt "statism" is readily intelligible to very many people.
Ideas, anyone?
I like leftist extremist statism. It is more descriptive and more accurate than socialism.
Skimming through the decision, I agreed with the defendants in that there was no enivironmental impact that needed to be considered. The judge disagreed, though. It would seem that the only thing that needs to happen is some kind of "study" into the impact on the environment.
As I understand it, this is a temporary injunction, not a full toss.
Correct, this was just a motion for a temporary injunction.
-
I like leftist extremist statism. It is more descriptive and more accurate than socialism.
Skimming through the decision, I agreed with the defendants in that there was no enivironmental impact that needed to be considered. The judge disagreed, though. It would seem that the only thing that needs to happen is some kind of "study" into the impact on the environment.
Correct, this was just a motion for a temporary injunction.
Some study.. small amounts of lead that enter and leave the park in a closed container leaving no traces behind.
-
But how hard do you think the NPS will work to do a complete, accurate and timely EIS? Don't hold your breath. The best hope is for overturning when the NRA appeals.
TC