Judge blocks CC in National Parks

[XDJoe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I kind of figured this wasn't over just yet.

[Glen3107]

Here's another article on the same subject from the Minneapolis StarTribune (I check from time to time to see what's up with the senate race in MN):
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdo ... :_Yyc:aUUX

Please read the comments to the article at the end......

Court blocks Bush administration rule that allowed concealed, loaded guns in national parks

By MATTHEW DALY , Associated Press
Last update: March 19, 2009 - 8:07 PM
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Thursday blocked a federal rule allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly halts a change in regulations issued in the waning days of the Bush administration and orders further review. She set an April 20 deadline for the Interior Department to review the rule and indicate its course of action in response to the injunction.
The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, 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.
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 that 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 regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public," Faehner said.
The National Rifle Association had pushed for the 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 change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.


Comments:
Court blocks Bush administration rule that allowed concealed, loaded guns in national parks

1 - 9 of 9 comments Sort: Earliest Latest Votes

Page 1 of 1

These socialist hypocrits are just beginning the attack on the second ammendment.Just wait till they have all our money-then it's on to the guns.No way then to fight absolute power!

posted by akmscott on Mar. 19, 09 at 5:10 PM |
11 of 18 people liked this comment.


"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 that were adopted by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s." Hmmmm. Was Reagan a socialist too?

posted by jeautey on Mar. 19, 09 at 7:59 PM |
6 of 9 people liked this comment.


Good grief, I can think of dozens of safety reasons for wanting to carry concealed in a national park or particularly, in a rural back-country national wildlife area. This is a public control issue, not a public safety issue as the ban advocates would seek to frame it.

posted by futurics on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:00 PM |
11 of 16 people liked this comment.

What a Disgrace
These idiots don't have a clue when it comes to Guns. They blame the Gun for the crime committed not the idiot using it. If anybody out there really wants to know the TRUTH about the results of Gun Restrictions there is a book called "More Guns, Less Crime". You can buy it online but not in book stores. It's absolutely amazing the crime rates before and after Gun Restrictions are imposed. I strongly encourage all law biding Citizens that believe in the 2nd Amendment to read this book. The Anti-Gun activists fear this book due to the truth and the fact they can't handle the truth.

posted by valkyrie11 on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:03 PM |
13 of 20 people liked this comment.

Say what?
Where is ANY info on the judges reasoning? We gets lots of bull from all sides, but not 1 word on what grounds the judge made up to block the rule change. Did he say the rule-making process was wrong? There is no way he should have the power to arbitrarily change it unless he makes that ruling or declares it un constitutional NO MATTER WHAT the groups "feel". The legal process to negate the rule comes thru hearings and that same rule-making process that created the rule. This is completely bogus- why don't we skip all the process and just automatically take every rule to a judge and let them dictate how we live? And why can any group sue for this? They're unreasonable fears are not a reason- the rule should have had to stand until there was some proof of this imagined danger. Bill G.

posted by ruphina on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:03 PM |
8 of 14 people liked this comment.

Stop the NRA Madness!
It's time to stop the insanity of yet another ludicrous position of the NRA. "The National Rifle Association had pushed for the change, saying law-abiding citizens had the right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges." Good lord.

posted by w1n5t0n on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:04 PM |
5 of 22 people liked this comment.

An Amendment is an Amendment
w1n5t0n, Will you be so happy when your Right to spout off in public (the First Amendment) is taken away? The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Constitutionally guarenteed Right. If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers you will see a couple reasons for this Right: Just a couple include the protection of all other Rights, and another is to assure the ability to over throw the Government if it becomes tyranical. There are many other reasons in their writings, but keep in mind that if they can take away this one they can take away anything. As a wise man once said - "An armed person is a citizen and an unarmed person is a subject." All hail king BHO!

posted by mankato58 on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:26 PM |
6 of 10 people liked this comment.

Ludicrous?
w1n5t0n, what, exactly, is ludicrous about saying that "law-abiding citizens had the right to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges"? Be specific. Seems like basic common sense to me.

posted by jmaynard on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:31 PM |
5 of 10 people liked this comment.

At least the criminals will be able to carry in our parks ... close enough.

posted by worldcitizen on Mar. 19, 09 at 8:51 PM |
1 of 1 people liked this comment.
Page 1 of 1

[frazzled]

Unless I am incorrect one article noted the judge blocked it because THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY.

No judges never legislate from the bench.

[Keith B]

Larger thread going here http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =4&t=23421" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HankB]

Unless I am incorrect one article noted the judge blocked it because THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY.

By that logic, environmental impact statements ought to be required if visitors wear shoes or pants in the park.

A judge who rules on that basis ought to be removed from the bench and disbarred.

[KD5NRH]

Interesting viewpoint found on THR: they're enjoined from implementing and enforcing the change, but it's already implemented, and how do you enforce a rule that only allows, rather than prohibits something?

[stevie_d_64]

Interesting viewpoint found on THR: they're enjoined from implementing and enforcing the change, but it's already implemented, and how do you enforce a rule that only allows, rather than prohibits something?

Logic and Common Sense seem to be bleeding out faster than they can spend our tax dollars on bailing out failures...

I win win situation for our liberal/socialist politicians...All the more reason to pull the plug...

[wheelgun1958]

Using the same logic as the anti-2nd Amendment groups, wouldn't her decision only apply within her district (i.e. DC)?