Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

chris in va

New member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=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.
 

dogzilla

New member
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!!!
 

stevelyn

New member
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. :mad::rolleyes:
 

USASA

New member
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:

levrluvr

New member
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?:D 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.;)
 

JWT

New member
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.
 

armsmaster270

New member
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.
 

JWT

New member
" 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.
 

Croz

New member
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.
 

JWT

New member
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.
 
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.
 

alloy

New member
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.
 

bclark1

New member
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.
 

mnhntr

New member
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.
 

KChen986

New member
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?
 
Top