Federal Judge Suspends Carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges

[Michael Thomson]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12252

Thursday, March 19, 2009


Today, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against implementation of the new rule allowing concealed carry in national parks and national wildlife refuges.
Until further notice, individuals cannot legally carry loaded, concealed firearms for personal protection in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The court did grant NRA's motion to intervene in the cases. Under federal law, NRA is entitled to an immediate appeal, and NRA will exercise that right.

"Just as we did not give up the fight to change the old, outdated rule, we will not give up our fight in the courts to defend the rule change," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "We will pursue every legal avenue to defend the American people's right to self-defense."

Read the opinion Here

Washinton Post story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=moreheadlines

 

[Ditto_95]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
This seems like a load of bull to me.

 

[6_gunner]

I thought that National Park carry was a done deal.

I sure hope this is BS.

 

[Rio Laxas]

It looks like it is for real. Get the word out.

 

[Fetus]

it's real .

 

[RP88]

got my VCDL alert. Apparently the Brady Bunch and a couple tree-huggers contest that the Bush administration broke the law (or process of law) when issuing the change.

 

[Lou McGopher]

C'mon now. It's not like anything bad ever happened to people visiting a national park.

 

[Dodahdude]

Parks

It's starting all over again. It's true. O'mana is trying to lift the Bush bill in national parks. It needs to go through the federal court system first. And, pilots can not carry anymore as well.

 

[dobrzemetal]

I'm pretty sure they will reinstate it, that reminds me I have to renew my NRA membership today.

 

[kd7nqb]

THIS SUCKS MAJOR.

Also I am almost positive that the pilot thing fell through so they can still carry.

We have to fix this, and make it better NOW.

Reading the first few pages of the opinion it seems like the Brady argument was that they didn't pursue the correct environmental process. Actually I hope this one gets taken to the SCOTUS so we can get the right ruling.

 

[searcher451]

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise, given the extreme position of the anti-gun plaintiffs involved and the simple fact that they are at polor opposites of common sense. What else could we expect them to do?

I just hope that they get it resolved quickly. I've got a trip pending to Yellowstone and hope to see (at a minimum) lions and bears.

 

[bdg146]

The courts need to be reminded that they are NOT the legislative branch of our government.

 

[TAB]

does anyone know the grounds that were used to issue the TRO?

 

[kd7nqb]

TAB does anyone know the grounds that were used to issue the TRO?

Here is one quote that sums up at least some of it without too much legaleese

In this case, both NPCA and Brady have easily met their burden to show organizational
standing. Members of NPCA visit and enjoy national parks and wildlife refuges on a frequent
basis. Pls.’ Mot., Ex. A ¶ 3 (Decl. of T. Kiernan). As a direct result of the Final Rule, NPCA’s
members assert that they fear both for their personal safety as well as for the environment they
enjoy in national parks and wildlife refuges. Id. ¶ 7. Brady’s members visit and enjoy national
parks and wildlife refuges on a frequent basis. See, e.g., Brady Reply, Ex. G ¶ 3 (Decl. of S.
Verge). As a direct result of the Final Rule, Brady’s members assert that they feel less safe and that the Final Rule has reduced their “opportunities to pursue recreational, aesthetic, and leisure
activities in national park areas.” Id. ¶ 2. These injuries are traceable to the Final Rule, which
lifted restrictions on the possession of concealed, loaded, and operable firearms, and are
redressable if the restrictions are restored.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

does anyone know the grounds that were used to issue the TRO?

Yes.

On another line of thought, I'm thinking this was brought to the court system so the Obama Administration and Democrat controlled Congress wouldn't have to take the blame for reversing a pro-gun move.

Woody

 

[TAB]

I highly doubt that. If Obama wanted he could remove the policy anytime he wanted. Both partys know all to well that you don't want to play that game... you want things done to stay, not changed every time some one new is in office.

 

[Okee]

What a bummer, this makes me so mad!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I highly doubt that. If Obama wanted he could remove the policy anytime he wanted. Both partys know all to well that you don't want to play that game... you want things done to stay, not changed every time some one new is in office.

Thing is, though, the anti-gun-rights crowd - which includes Obama - wants to keep all the ground they've gained over the last 75 years. Any loss they suffer is naturally a little piece of our rights unfettered. Bottom line is that they have seen what happens when they go too far(the AWB, the frivolous lawsuits, etc.). They loose seats in Congress. So, what ever they think they can do that won't be seen as an anti-gun-rights move on their part won't cause them to loose seats.

Obama and company would certainly like to reverse carry in the parks, but don't want to be seen as the cause of it. I see it as being no different than the recent surplus brass debacle. What ever happened there didn't appear to be an act of the Obama administration on the surface. But, I'd bet dollars to dough-nuts that there was a connection and that it was ordered under the radar.

The only sure way things won't change every time someone new takes office is if the Constitution is adhered to. These rules and regulations prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms in national parks are unconstitutional.

Woody

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
So, what's the chance of this getting over-turned and people ever being able to carry guns in parks?

.

 

[rbernie]

Being discussed in Legal:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5441706