Brady Bunch Jerks sue Interior Dept over concealed guns in National Parks

[Redneck with a 40]

Wait untill the 2008 data comes out, since Chicago has seen 500 homicides, with a gun ban, Illinois will probably overtake Florida, in violent crime rate. Lets see what Helmke has to say about that?

Chicago's gun laws are working really well, Jesse Jackson wants more. LMAO!

 

[Art Eatman]

DiveMedic, I recommend "Under The Gun" by Wright/Rossi/Daly. U of Fla Press, 1985. A primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed in Florida had ever affected the rate of violent crimes where firearms were involved. And, remember, this was after the passage of GCA 1968. (The authors were statisticians; neutral to mildly anti-gun when beginning their study.)

 

[evan price]

OK, why not take the fight to them? I'm sure we have some good legal minds and law degrees here on THR and in the firearms community, why not get together a class action lawsuit against the Brady org for their repeated attempts to violate the natural rights of 80 million law-abiding US citizens?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"

Well, to get a carry permit in Tennessee, the process is about like getting a drivers license, and the Brady's are still against the carry permit system.

Look at the way they score state gun laws: shall-issue gun permit administered like a car license is a "D" or "F" grade, discretionary permit ("At Whim" rather than "Shall Issue") is a "B" and "A" grade is reserved for no carry allowed. And the Bradys support outright bans at every opportunity.

Allowing individuals permited to carry in their state to carry in a National Park in their state, given the small number of people with permits, and the very low number of crimes committed by permit holders, is not a big deal. The ban on legal permit holders really does not deter carrying by criminals, and allowing carry by permit holders does not allow carry by anyone else.

Besides, you can drive through National Park land in many states without necessarily realising you are on National Park land; several major highways pass thru National Parks, and this relieves permit holders of the necessity of finding alternate routes to avoid National Parks.

 

[Blarelli]

“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

I do believe labeling us as 'dangerous people' counts as libel, as defined by the supreme court. After all, I think he spoke those words with malice. Who's up for a defamation of character/slander/libel class action lawsuit?

 

[benminer]

You can't sue them for slander because an opinion ("dangerous") cannot be slander. You might have a case if somebody said you had cheated on your wife or lied on your taxes, but certainly not if they said you were a jerk or smelled funny.

Dutch wear ugly shoes. There I said it. Now who thinks I can be sued?

 

[20nickels]

BTW, our local State Patrol office is seeing a huge increase in CCW applicants, including my wife and I. We actually had to wait in line for it Tuesday!

 

[Igloodude]

The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C now that the Bush Administration will be allowing guns in these national park areas.

Wait, one still cannot legally carry (concealed or openly) firearms at Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, or the National Mall, surely the Brady Campaign is aware of this - why are they not correcting the teachers' ignorance, for the good of the children?


This is, sadly, a rhetorical question.

 

[ArmedBear]

I shudder to think of what the schoolteachers of DC and NY tell their kids about US History, anyway.

This is interesting, though: suing because something is legal, but no harm has come of it.

Can I sue the city because people are allowed to walk on the sidewalk? What about if they have ugly hair?

Where would this stop?

 

[justice4all]

We are the ones who should be suing, and we should have done it long ago, when the current-possibly to be lifted-ban went into effect. We're all excited because the DOI is finally willing to partially allow us to exercise our gun rights, when it had no legitimate authority to restrict those rights in the first place. If the 2nd Amendment means one has a right to have a handgun in the home for personal defense in DC, how much of a stretch is it to say one also has a right to have a gun in the middle of vast expanses of essentially unpoliced wilderness, which are often full of dangerous animals, and increasingly, dangerous people?

We're letting the antis dictate the terms of the battle.

 

[ArmedBear]

Want to see where the violent crime is?

Look no further than neighborhoods with a lot of "diversity" and a proliferation of "urban youths."

Perhaps we can sue the Federal Government for ending segregation, banning "redlining", etc., in violation of Federal Law, since violent crime has risen dramatically in diverse neighborhoods in the past 50 years.

What? You can't find the Federal law being violated?

Well, what Federal law was violated by the Park Service by allowing local CCW laws to apply in National Park areas?

And you don't like statistics about violent crime, when they lead to conclusions you don't like?

Then don't misuse them, Brady Bunch. My civil rights matter, too. Let's say it is true that banning concealed carry leads to less violent crime -- which it isn't, but let's just assume it is for a moment.

If a statistical reduction in violent crime were the only thing that mattered in our society, then we could simply sterilize certain minorities, establish martial law, execute anyone caught committing any minor offenses at any age, ban groups of more than two people from meeting in public or private without a permit, establish uniforms for all US residents so that gang clothes would be illegal, castrate any male caught looking at a female, establish separate cities for men and women, keep all US residents on heavy tranquilizers...

What, you don't think that the statistical reduction of violent crime is worth having a fascist society with the utter destruction of individual rights, Brady Bunch?

But clearly, you do think that.

If my right to defend my life is taken away by the government, that's what we have. Government has declared my life to be disposable, and will punish me for violating that principle. My ability to wear non-standard clothing is just window-dressing to hide what's really happening.

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW if this were rushed through while Bush is still in office, and some kind of secret, why was it brought up in 2007 and opened to public comment early in 2008?

Back then, didn't everyone but us poor ignorant rednecks, duped by the evil Rethuglicans, know that the Bus/hitler would declare himself to be the lifetime dictator of the country before the year was out?

 

[conserv1]

Carl N. Brown wrote..
"Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"

Ted Kennedy had a "registered" Jeep. Did it stop him from using it in a murder?
Maybe we should also register golf clubs?

 

[LickitySplit]

This is interesting... In an earlier Brady press release they had petioned Obamas nomination for Secretary of the Interior (Senator Ken Salazar), to rescind the order...

Washington, DC - The Brady Campaign today urged Senator Ken Salazar, if confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Obama Administration’s Secretary of the Interior, to initiate steps to rescind a rule rushed out this month by the Bush Administration that threatens to make America’s national parks less safe for visitors.

In a holiday gift to the gun lobby, the Interior Department finalized approval for a new rule that will allow more people, even potentially dangerous ones, to carry loaded, hidden handguns at all National Park Service Units. The regulations replace a Reagan-era rule that requires Park visitors to keep guns unloaded and stowed away.

President-Elect Obama has spoken out in the past about permissive concealed carry regulations. The National Park Service rule is scheduled to take effect in early January.

“When people go to our national parks, they don’t want to worry about who is packing a picnic and who is packing heat,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This new rule will make our parks less safe, and it should be rescinded.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=...

A little Googling turned up this info on Salazars RKBA position...

Sen. Salazar's Statement on Supreme Court's Decision to Uphold the Second Amendment, Gun Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Salazar issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is unconstitutional and that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun.

“Today’s decision reaffirms what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and what millions of Americans already know: the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding individual to own a gun. The District of Columbia’s ban on all handgun possession went too far and was rightly declared unconstitutional.”

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/080626scdecisio...

SEN. SALAZAR STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF THE GUN LIABILITY BILL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar released the following statement on his support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which passed the Senate today by a vote of 65 to 31:

“This gun liability legislation is commonsense. When guns are used in crimes, we should punish criminals. Responsible manufacturers and dealers should not be punished for the crimes of others. This legislation would not protect gun manufacturers from their own irresponsible or unlawful misconduct. It would allow manufacturers to be held liable when:

* a defect in design or manufacture of the product when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable (traditional product liability actions);
* breach of contract or warranty;
* selling to a person known to be prohibited from possessing a firearm;
* where the seller conspires with a buyer to make false statements;
* where the seller knowingly made false entries in records;
* negligent entrustment or negligence per se; and
* the transferor of a gun is convicted of knowingly committing certain federal or state felonies.

This issue is about personal responsibility. Certainly, manufacturers and dealers who act irresponsibly or in clear violation of the law should be held responsible for their actions. But criminals – not law-abiding manufacturers and dealers – should be held responsible when guns are used to commit crimes.”

Thirty-three states including Colorado already have similar laws on the books.

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/050729gunliab.h...

So... either Salazar told them to go pound sand, or it's a stall tactic by the Bradys to seek an injunction before the policy goes into effect.


I really can't see the sense in taking the lengthy and unpredictable legal route unless Salazar had shut them down on their request.

Also, filing a lawsuit against those in high places is not a good way to start off a working relationship and curry any sort of favoritism in the future.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Banning legal permit holders does not prevent dangerous people from being dangerous or armed in national parks. The real dangerous people don't need no stinkin' permits to be dangerous or to go armed.

To get my carry permit I took a four hour class on the laws on self defense, a four hour class on gun safety, passed written exams, fired qualification at the firing range, submitted fingerprints to TBI and FBI, passed federal and state background checks, and paid about $180.00 in fees.

So Paul Helmke wants dangerous people like me barred from carrying concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks. (My preferred carry piece is a revolver but I suspect he would object to that too.)

Two friends of my brother were members of a band. I played volleyball with them at a July 4th picnic. Then one day my brother told me they had been killed by a carjacker. On way to band practice, they had stopped at a mountain overlook to admire the fall foliage (spectacular that fall). A carjacker took their lives, their car and eleven dollars. I cannot help but feel that if they had been legally armed, the carjacker might have been deterred.

The Brady Bunch advises people not to resist but to give criminals what they want: what if what the criminal wants is to see you die as slowly and painfully as possible?

Brady Bunch is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) rebranded. Remember the laws they tried to pass in California and Massachusetts in the 1970s: a ban on all sales and a ban on all possession of handguns. "Sensible gun control" to them is whatever leads to prohibition, one step at a time.

 

[natecade1]

Treo for pres.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

So for the time being, guns are allowed, right? And also, will the new administration have the power to stop this?

 

[C. Rabbit]

The suit charges that the Interior Department violated several federal laws in its rush to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office, including failing to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

I did not know carring a firearm has a environmental impact.

It does not. The report issued by the Interior Department in regards to this rule change noted just that when explaining why they did not do an environmental review, which is only required when something will actually affect the environment. So more Brady lies.

CR

 

[subknave]

I haven't checked on its status but I would think that it would be thrown out for a number of reasons. What is their standing for one. How does this rule effect them? It isn't like it is prohibiting them from doing something or really causing them any inconvenience. I would think it is only a ploy to get some headlines.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I guess us CCW folks are "dangerous people".

Does that surprise anyone? Really?

We know what they think of us... even though they have no grounds for it. D-bags of galactic proportions... but thats not new either.

Wait untill the 2008 data comes out, since Chicago has seen 500 homicides, with a gun ban, Illinois will probably overtake Florida, in violent crime rate.

Thats funny... here in Utah, despite all of us "crazy gun nuts" the murder rate dropped dramatically from 79 murders down to 51 statewide.

Brady Bunch preachs "We license cars, why not license guns?"

Because driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right DUH!!! I don't need anyones permission to exercise my rights. Maybe they need to get a license to spout their mouths against the constitution.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Hey, if the Brady campaign is for sensible gun laws, who qualifies to carry concealed?

Only dangerous people.

 

[razorback2003]

Large Inner City Areas

Are where most of the violent crimes are, as if no one else knew. It is funny that the Brady Campaign and those like them do not campaign for strong sentences for violent criminals. I'm tired of seeing many states trying to rehabilitate criminals and giving them a second chance when their victims were not given a second chance. It is sad how many murderers and rapists already have a rap sheet a mile long. Criminals are done like fish....catch and release. That is the 'nice' way of trying to 'help' those unfortunate youth (anyone under 30) who is forced into the gang lifestyle. If the stupid Brady Bunch would put their efforts into swift punishment for criminals, I'd have a little more respect for them. Instead they want to hassle people, like us, who are just trying to protect ourselves from the thugs.