Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: Judge Blocks Guns-In-Parks Rule

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 23, 2009

Discussion Topic: Judge Blocks Guns-In-Parks Rule

By Dave Hurteau

From the Washington Post:

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons. . . .

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, [U.S. District Judge Colleen] Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had been "astoundingly flawed."

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.

Your reaction?

Comments (28)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MLH wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Environmental impact? Astoundingly flawed? Looks like they found the right judge .. apparently, any excuse is good enough for her.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I must have missed something in the news. Apparently the judge ruled on a decision to allow unregulated firing of small arms in national parks which would probably have had some impact. I must have mistakenly thought that the rule change was to allow concealed carry in the parks. That would probably have had no impact assuming that you weren't required to through your firearm and unspent ammunition into a pristine spring at the end of your hike. I personally would prefer to take mine back home with me unfired.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I hate when I catch my typos after I submit my comment. That should read "throw your" not "through your".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from teufelhunden wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have to give credit to the Bush Administration for trying.I bet the set of clowns that we have in office now, does not give us the same respect.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

What envoiormental impact? Lead? that's a BS scare tactic used by the liberals as an excuse to outlaw bullets as we know them. I can think of one enviormental impact...Safety. It will be a safer enviorment, both in regards to crime and human/wildlife conflict. Gee, i wonder where this Judges political afilliations lie?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

It seems like a fair ruling. I support carry in NPS parks. But it sounds like the Bush "admin" simply declared the rule change to be exempt from the NEPA process. Just another instance of an admin acting in accordance with its own claims to be exempt from the law.

All the ruling does is require an evaluation of potential impacts of the rule change. If there IS a compelling environmental impact, someone will have to demonstrate it. If not, the rule change will eventually go through.

The only regrettable thing about the ruling is that those uppity Brady Campaign creeps may start to think they have some sort of contribution to make to existence in the US. They don't, but it's better to keep them demoralized.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

A smarter conservative pres would have instituted the review process, quietly, prior to the rule change. That way the rule change would not have been so trivially challengable in court.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

wow, I really hope there is more to the judge's decision than what was explained in that article. Otherwise our court system is even more useless than I thought.

What is this environmental impact that they "ignored substantial information of" in an "astonishingly flawed" way?

because that Washington post article didn't describe any impacts at all.

This appears to be another case of the media and the public just swallowing a statement being spoon-fed to them without any critical thinking at all.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

You're wrong Mike, with all due respect. It would've been so trivially challenged in court because that's what these(leftist) people do. Like MLH said above, this time they found the right(or left?) judge. That is typical leftist crap, 'let's have a study..., then a study to examine the study,'... they file a million lawsuits, tie up the courts. By the way, they're all lawyers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Actually, I suspect that I am correct. More's the point, paranoid conspiracy theory about how "liberals" or "neocons" or anyone else abuse the courts and judiciary isn't worth four bucks to me... which is apparently the inflated price of latte if you get it from starbucks.... which is why I mostly drink straight black ordinary coffee these days.

Anyhow. What's the alternative? That there be no independent oversight of abuse of the rulemaking process? Just let the Exec Branch do whatever it will without any sort of checks or balances? Bad idea IMO.

In the long run I expect we will register a "win" on carry in NPs. But it's going to require a rational argument, rather than a paranoid one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

She must have talked to NPS officials about the lead ban planned for 2010.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

As a employee on a Federal Wildlife Refuge I've followed this issue closely. Here's what I think happened. While all actions that occur on Federal property are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, not all require indepth environmental analysis like an Environmental Impact Statement. Certain "routine actions" like hiring/firing, reoccuring maintenance and some rule changes, if deemed to not have significant environmental effecta, are included in a well defined group of actions as being "categorically excluded". I'm reasonable sure the Bush administration felt that this rule change fell under the rules of categorical exclusions and processed it as such. When the Obama administration came in, DOI Secretary Salazar revisited this rule change and upheld it, probably for the same reason, categorically excluded from more indepth environmental analysis. What these plaintiffs did was find a sympathetic judge to say it doesn't meet the categorical exclusion definition and requires more analysis. Personally, I think it does meet the categorical exclusion definition, but what counts is the judge's opinion.

I understand that decision is being appealed. If it's overturned, good. Otherwise the Dept. of Interior would need to do more indepth environmental analysis; can we say costly and time consuming. Personally, with the current administration's position on guns, I doubt the DOI will be directed to do the analysis and the rule change will die. I hope I'm wrong.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Mike-

Your version of the story makes a lot more sense to me, did you get it from reading between the lines or do you have a more reliable source?

could you provide a link?, I would very much appreciate a rational explanation from a journalist who has done their job.

on another note-
Did anyone read the last paragraph of that article? apparently the national parks conservation association is against concealed carry because it will "increase opportunistic poaching" ?!?!?

Last time I checked you combat poaching by enforcing anti-poaching laws, not by restricting the second amendment. People could just as easily poach with bows!

This would be like saying that people can't drive cars in residential neighborhoods because it might "increase opportunistic speeding".

Man, I wish the reporter had the balls to ask him to site a single case, anywhere in the world, where allowing concealed carry led to increased poaching! I'm pretty sure our esteemed colleague from the NPCA would have been instantly transformed into a mumbling idiot.

This man just completely fabricated a connection between gun-rights and negative environmental effects to support his political agenda. Then, perhaps even more despicably the reporter let the statement slide even though it wouldn't have stood up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I REALLY hope we don't have federal judges being swayed by such flawed arguments.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tap Duncan wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I love reading the paranoid rantings of people, but this takes the cake. Let's look at history. Wyatt Earp knew enough to outlaw the carrying of guns in town, so he put a stop to it. He wasn't alone, it was the sign of the times. Bill Tilghman felt the same, and he was killed by a Revenue Agent, a fellow law officer. Why is it that people are so easily brainwashed by the RW when the RW would use your river or creek or forrest to get richer and you have to travel further to hunt or fish? I guess ignorance is bliss, but I'm glad I have a HS and College diploma, and the ability to see through the BS. Sadly not all of us do, BUT Obama is trying to make that a reality for everyone. Who doesn't want that? Oh yeah, see above, the blissfully ignorant!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Why we have to give up our constitutional right to self defense in National parks is beyond me. I know some think we would be taking pot shots at yellowstone grizzlies with our CCW's, but the reality is that this will have little to no effect on Poached animals in National Parks, and if anything it make them less safe for visitors who will be known to be unarmed targets for criminals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Tap,
Conjgrats on your diplomas. Careful you don't hurt yourself patting your own back. If you think the "RW" is more easily brainwashed than your "LW", ignorance truly is bliss.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I wish I was a lawyer and find all the people and next of kens of people, robbed, beaten up and murdered; I’d do it for free and file the largest class action lawsuit against them. First of all, what Government entity is responsible for your personal protection!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Mike is correct. There are federal statutory requirements that must be followed and adhered to when changing significant rules in the federal park system. From the judge's ruling it appears the Bush Administration simply decided to ignore the statutory requirements and impose the new rule. The Court had no choice but to strike down the new law because the process by which that law was created and imposed itself was in violation of other federal laws.

Mind you, I'm in favor of concealed carry in the federal park system as long as those who do the carrying are sane, reasonable, non-felonious people. But in this case, the Bush Administration failed to achieve a worthwhile objective it could have achieved had someone in the Administration simply adhered to the statutes in question. Our loss.

TWD

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

This had nothing to do with the "arrogance" of the Bush administration. The individuals within the Department of Interior (DOI) made a judgement call on whether this change in policy required NEPA analysis. Frankly, it doesn't. But this judge used NEPA as a hammer to strike down something they did not agree with by making what is probably a flawed interpretation of what actions require NEPA compliance. That DOI made a reasonable decision is illustrated by Sec. Salazar's after-the-fact revue and concurrence with the original decision. By the logic that the Bush administration steam rolled this through by ignoring the law, then the Obama administration is guilty of the same.

It was a valid decision that a judge disagreed with for waht ever reason. Nothing more.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

"By the logic that the Bush administration steam rolled this through by ignoring the law, then the Obama administration is guilty of the same."

How so?

I don't know anything about the judge. But I can see how a person who knew little about firearms might make a ruling against the rule change, given that the rule change was made without NEPA review. There are several good reasons for that. First, the Bush admin did a piss poor job complying with NEPA (and most other laws) and had a well-established record of failure to comply with due diligence. Second, the last minute nature of the rule change seemed shady. Finally, as everyone knows, lead is a toxin. If all that this judge had to draw upon was "we banned lead in gasoline and paint" then the idea of more lead bullets in NPS might seem like a subject worthy of more than casual inspection. IMO if Bush had been somewhat less of a jackass, from the environmental enforcement/ compliance side, he might have had sufficient credibility to assert that the rule change needed no review. But he had such a poor track record that there was no way ANY potentially environmental-impact related rule change would be allowed to stand.

I suggest we all not hold our breaths or work ourselves into a hysteria about it. In time, after review, I think it is unlikely that environmental hazards or poaching will stand as sufficient concerns to block the rule change.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

"Your version of the story makes a lot more sense to me, did you get it from reading between the lines or do you have a more reliable source?"

It's conjecture on my part.

I'm familiar with NEPA review in other contexts. And I figure that with the previous Admin's track record, any declaration that a rule change would have no impact would be treated with skepticism.

Notwithstanding the negative feedback I'm sure to get from reactionary neanderthals, I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that this rule will be implemented unless Congress decides to block it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Maybe a little history is in order. While the final rule came down at the end of the Bush administration, the wheels that were turning for this policy change to happen were in motion more thatn a year ago. I believe it was Sen. Crapo from Idaho that first championed this change in policy (instituted interestingly enough during the Reagan administration) at urging of his constituents. So there really was no "last minute" change being conducted, timing was just what it was.

Agreed, the Bush administration did have a well deserved reputation for ignoring NEPA, I personnally was involved with issues that the infamous Undersecretary Julie MacDonald was messing around in. And maybe that did taint the judge's opinion, but it remains that the Sec. of Interior, selected by Pres. Obama, still reviewed the policy and passed it on. That tells me that the NEPA compliance met the standard for actions like this, but the judge used NEPA as a tool to curb a policy change the was opposed for ideoligal reason by the plantiffs, not scientific ones. What possible enironmental effect could be documented for an action that allowed citizens to do what they were already allowed to do on other federal lands such as Forest Service and BLM property, while in compliance with the applicable state laws. I am a strong supporter of NEPA and ESA as mechanisms to require review of actions that could be detrimental to the environment and wildlife. But it angers me when I think those laws are used as tools to promote not a scientific arguement but an ideological agenda.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I really do not understand what environmental problems a firearms could cause. If there are bears around me, I want a gun that is going to be able to kill one. They are starting to put a price on a human life... although it might not be worth the liability to have a gun in National Parks, that rule is going to be the death of someone.
And I know they have sprays to get rid of bears but, I rather trust my life in a firearm that I know will work and can kill the animal rather than a spray that will either work and do its' job or really piss the animal off. I don't want to take any chances when it comes to my life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

The rule change was actually less about protection from wild animals and more about making the laws dictating carrying concealed firearms consistent across land management agency boundaries. It makses no sense to allow legal, permitted, concealed handgun owners to carry concealed on Forest Service and BLM land but not on adjacent NPS or National Wildlife Refuge lands. As far as self defense goes, the danger in most national parks and too a lesser extent on National Wildlife Refuges is much greater from human predators than wild animals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tim duffy wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

What about open carry ??? This sounds like concealed carry is the issue. If I open carry my 44 and I am charged by a bear, or a thug, their toast.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JAR23 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Open carry is not currently allowed in NP's.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tim duffy wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

what means of defense is allowed?? Do I have to have A valid hunting license to carry my long gun or shotgun along on my family hike or camping/fishing trip .

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kolbster wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

you cannot open carry in the parks.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tap Duncan wrote 3 years 3 weeks ago

Steve182, awww, someone sounds jealous because he couldn't graduate HS, but he can have a gun. Congrats. I graduated HS and college, served in the USMC and own many guns. I'd rather have people like me owning guns than people like you, personally , people like you with guns, frightens me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from teufelhunden wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I have to give credit to the Bush Administration for trying.I bet the set of clowns that we have in office now, does not give us the same respect.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

A smarter conservative pres would have instituted the review process, quietly, prior to the rule change. That way the rule change would not have been so trivially challengable in court.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

wow, I really hope there is more to the judge's decision than what was explained in that article. Otherwise our court system is even more useless than I thought.

What is this environmental impact that they "ignored substantial information of" in an "astonishingly flawed" way?

because that Washington post article didn't describe any impacts at all.

This appears to be another case of the media and the public just swallowing a statement being spoon-fed to them without any critical thinking at all.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

As a employee on a Federal Wildlife Refuge I've followed this issue closely. Here's what I think happened. While all actions that occur on Federal property are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, not all require indepth environmental analysis like an Environmental Impact Statement. Certain "routine actions" like hiring/firing, reoccuring maintenance and some rule changes, if deemed to not have significant environmental effecta, are included in a well defined group of actions as being "categorically excluded". I'm reasonable sure the Bush administration felt that this rule change fell under the rules of categorical exclusions and processed it as such. When the Obama administration came in, DOI Secretary Salazar revisited this rule change and upheld it, probably for the same reason, categorically excluded from more indepth environmental analysis. What these plaintiffs did was find a sympathetic judge to say it doesn't meet the categorical exclusion definition and requires more analysis. Personally, I think it does meet the categorical exclusion definition, but what counts is the judge's opinion.

I understand that decision is being appealed. If it's overturned, good. Otherwise the Dept. of Interior would need to do more indepth environmental analysis; can we say costly and time consuming. Personally, with the current administration's position on guns, I doubt the DOI will be directed to do the analysis and the rule change will die. I hope I'm wrong.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Mike-

Your version of the story makes a lot more sense to me, did you get it from reading between the lines or do you have a more reliable source?

could you provide a link?, I would very much appreciate a rational explanation from a journalist who has done their job.

on another note-
Did anyone read the last paragraph of that article? apparently the national parks conservation association is against concealed carry because it will "increase opportunistic poaching" ?!?!?

Last time I checked you combat poaching by enforcing anti-poaching laws, not by restricting the second amendment. People could just as easily poach with bows!

This would be like saying that people can't drive cars in residential neighborhoods because it might "increase opportunistic speeding".

Man, I wish the reporter had the balls to ask him to site a single case, anywhere in the world, where allowing concealed carry led to increased poaching! I'm pretty sure our esteemed colleague from the NPCA would have been instantly transformed into a mumbling idiot.

This man just completely fabricated a connection between gun-rights and negative environmental effects to support his political agenda. Then, perhaps even more despicably the reporter let the statement slide even though it wouldn't have stood up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I REALLY hope we don't have federal judges being swayed by such flawed arguments.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Why we have to give up our constitutional right to self defense in National parks is beyond me. I know some think we would be taking pot shots at yellowstone grizzlies with our CCW's, but the reality is that this will have little to no effect on Poached animals in National Parks, and if anything it make them less safe for visitors who will be known to be unarmed targets for criminals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Mike is correct. There are federal statutory requirements that must be followed and adhered to when changing significant rules in the federal park system. From the judge's ruling it appears the Bush Administration simply decided to ignore the statutory requirements and impose the new rule. The Court had no choice but to strike down the new law because the process by which that law was created and imposed itself was in violation of other federal laws.

Mind you, I'm in favor of concealed carry in the federal park system as long as those who do the carrying are sane, reasonable, non-felonious people. But in this case, the Bush Administration failed to achieve a worthwhile objective it could have achieved had someone in the Administration simply adhered to the statutes in question. Our loss.

TWD

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

This had nothing to do with the "arrogance" of the Bush administration. The individuals within the Department of Interior (DOI) made a judgement call on whether this change in policy required NEPA analysis. Frankly, it doesn't. But this judge used NEPA as a hammer to strike down something they did not agree with by making what is probably a flawed interpretation of what actions require NEPA compliance. That DOI made a reasonable decision is illustrated by Sec. Salazar's after-the-fact revue and concurrence with the original decision. By the logic that the Bush administration steam rolled this through by ignoring the law, then the Obama administration is guilty of the same.

It was a valid decision that a judge disagreed with for waht ever reason. Nothing more.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

"By the logic that the Bush administration steam rolled this through by ignoring the law, then the Obama administration is guilty of the same."

How so?

I don't know anything about the judge. But I can see how a person who knew little about firearms might make a ruling against the rule change, given that the rule change was made without NEPA review. There are several good reasons for that. First, the Bush admin did a piss poor job complying with NEPA (and most other laws) and had a well-established record of failure to comply with due diligence. Second, the last minute nature of the rule change seemed shady. Finally, as everyone knows, lead is a toxin. If all that this judge had to draw upon was "we banned lead in gasoline and paint" then the idea of more lead bullets in NPS might seem like a subject worthy of more than casual inspection. IMO if Bush had been somewhat less of a jackass, from the environmental enforcement/ compliance side, he might have had sufficient credibility to assert that the rule change needed no review. But he had such a poor track record that there was no way ANY potentially environmental-impact related rule change would be allowed to stand.

I suggest we all not hold our breaths or work ourselves into a hysteria about it. In time, after review, I think it is unlikely that environmental hazards or poaching will stand as sufficient concerns to block the rule change.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

"Your version of the story makes a lot more sense to me, did you get it from reading between the lines or do you have a more reliable source?"

It's conjecture on my part.

I'm familiar with NEPA review in other contexts. And I figure that with the previous Admin's track record, any declaration that a rule change would have no impact would be treated with skepticism.

Notwithstanding the negative feedback I'm sure to get from reactionary neanderthals, I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that this rule will be implemented unless Congress decides to block it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Maybe a little history is in order. While the final rule came down at the end of the Bush administration, the wheels that were turning for this policy change to happen were in motion more thatn a year ago. I believe it was Sen. Crapo from Idaho that first championed this change in policy (instituted interestingly enough during the Reagan administration) at urging of his constituents. So there really was no "last minute" change being conducted, timing was just what it was.

Agreed, the Bush administration did have a well deserved reputation for ignoring NEPA, I personnally was involved with issues that the infamous Undersecretary Julie MacDonald was messing around in. And maybe that did taint the judge's opinion, but it remains that the Sec. of Interior, selected by Pres. Obama, still reviewed the policy and passed it on. That tells me that the NEPA compliance met the standard for actions like this, but the judge used NEPA as a tool to curb a policy change the was opposed for ideoligal reason by the plantiffs, not scientific ones. What possible enironmental effect could be documented for an action that allowed citizens to do what they were already allowed to do on other federal lands such as Forest Service and BLM property, while in compliance with the applicable state laws. I am a strong supporter of NEPA and ESA as mechanisms to require review of actions that could be detrimental to the environment and wildlife. But it angers me when I think those laws are used as tools to promote not a scientific arguement but an ideological agenda.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Snood Dewlap wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

The rule change was actually less about protection from wild animals and more about making the laws dictating carrying concealed firearms consistent across land management agency boundaries. It makses no sense to allow legal, permitted, concealed handgun owners to carry concealed on Forest Service and BLM land but not on adjacent NPS or National Wildlife Refuge lands. As far as self defense goes, the danger in most national parks and too a lesser extent on National Wildlife Refuges is much greater from human predators than wild animals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Environmental impact? Astoundingly flawed? Looks like they found the right judge .. apparently, any excuse is good enough for her.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I must have missed something in the news. Apparently the judge ruled on a decision to allow unregulated firing of small arms in national parks which would probably have had some impact. I must have mistakenly thought that the rule change was to allow concealed carry in the parks. That would probably have had no impact assuming that you weren't required to through your firearm and unspent ammunition into a pristine spring at the end of your hike. I personally would prefer to take mine back home with me unfired.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I hate when I catch my typos after I submit my comment. That should read "throw your" not "through your".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

What envoiormental impact? Lead? that's a BS scare tactic used by the liberals as an excuse to outlaw bullets as we know them. I can think of one enviormental impact...Safety. It will be a safer enviorment, both in regards to crime and human/wildlife conflict. Gee, i wonder where this Judges political afilliations lie?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

It seems like a fair ruling. I support carry in NPS parks. But it sounds like the Bush "admin" simply declared the rule change to be exempt from the NEPA process. Just another instance of an admin acting in accordance with its own claims to be exempt from the law.

All the ruling does is require an evaluation of potential impacts of the rule change. If there IS a compelling environmental impact, someone will have to demonstrate it. If not, the rule change will eventually go through.

The only regrettable thing about the ruling is that those uppity Brady Campaign creeps may start to think they have some sort of contribution to make to existence in the US. They don't, but it's better to keep them demoralized.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

You're wrong Mike, with all due respect. It would've been so trivially challenged in court because that's what these(leftist) people do. Like MLH said above, this time they found the right(or left?) judge. That is typical leftist crap, 'let's have a study..., then a study to examine the study,'... they file a million lawsuits, tie up the courts. By the way, they're all lawyers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Actually, I suspect that I am correct. More's the point, paranoid conspiracy theory about how "liberals" or "neocons" or anyone else abuse the courts and judiciary isn't worth four bucks to me... which is apparently the inflated price of latte if you get it from starbucks.... which is why I mostly drink straight black ordinary coffee these days.

Anyhow. What's the alternative? That there be no independent oversight of abuse of the rulemaking process? Just let the Exec Branch do whatever it will without any sort of checks or balances? Bad idea IMO.

In the long run I expect we will register a "win" on carry in NPs. But it's going to require a rational argument, rather than a paranoid one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

She must have talked to NPS officials about the lead ban planned for 2010.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Tap,
Conjgrats on your diplomas. Careful you don't hurt yourself patting your own back. If you think the "RW" is more easily brainwashed than your "LW", ignorance truly is bliss.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I wish I was a lawyer and find all the people and next of kens of people, robbed, beaten up and murdered; I’d do it for free and file the largest class action lawsuit against them. First of all, what Government entity is responsible for your personal protection!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I really do not understand what environmental problems a firearms could cause. If there are bears around me, I want a gun that is going to be able to kill one. They are starting to put a price on a human life... although it might not be worth the liability to have a gun in National Parks, that rule is going to be the death of someone.
And I know they have sprays to get rid of bears but, I rather trust my life in a firearm that I know will work and can kill the animal rather than a spray that will either work and do its' job or really piss the animal off. I don't want to take any chances when it comes to my life.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tim duffy wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

What about open carry ??? This sounds like concealed carry is the issue. If I open carry my 44 and I am charged by a bear, or a thug, their toast.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JAR23 wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

Open carry is not currently allowed in NP's.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tim duffy wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

what means of defense is allowed?? Do I have to have A valid hunting license to carry my long gun or shotgun along on my family hike or camping/fishing trip .

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kolbster wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

you cannot open carry in the parks.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tap Duncan wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

I love reading the paranoid rantings of people, but this takes the cake. Let's look at history. Wyatt Earp knew enough to outlaw the carrying of guns in town, so he put a stop to it. He wasn't alone, it was the sign of the times. Bill Tilghman felt the same, and he was killed by a Revenue Agent, a fellow law officer. Why is it that people are so easily brainwashed by the RW when the RW would use your river or creek or forrest to get richer and you have to travel further to hunt or fish? I guess ignorance is bliss, but I'm glad I have a HS and College diploma, and the ability to see through the BS. Sadly not all of us do, BUT Obama is trying to make that a reality for everyone. Who doesn't want that? Oh yeah, see above, the blissfully ignorant!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tap Duncan wrote 3 years 3 weeks ago

Steve182, awww, someone sounds jealous because he couldn't graduate HS, but he can have a gun. Congrats. I graduated HS and college, served in the USMC and own many guns. I'd rather have people like me owning guns than people like you, personally , people like you with guns, frightens me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment