Judge blocks National Park Carry with Injunction?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Court Suspends Carry in National Parks
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"Just as we did not give up the fight to change the old, outdated rule, we will not give up our fight in the courts to defend the rule change," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox.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: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nationalparks_MemoOpiniononintervention.PDF
 
Federal Judge grants Brady's motion to invalidate National Park Carry



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Van Cleave
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Subject: VA-ALERT: Judge temporarily blocks National Park carry



----------------------------------------------------------------------

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a breaking story on the Washington Post, a judge has

placed a temporary block on carry in National Parks because the DOI's

process in doing the new rule was "outstandingly flawed."



Oh, baloney.



Anyway, we have not seen the actual ruling.



I expect this to be appealed and hopefully to get overturned. This

might also provide the impetus to pass a bill to allow carry and

bypass the DOI completely.



However, this just goes to show you that if you get the right judge

you can get a ruling that says the moon is made of green cheese.



In the meantime you might want to stop carrying in National Parks

until we get more information on this issue.



We'll keep you updated.



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



http://tinyurl.com/decxmt



Judge Blocks Bush Rule Allowing Concealed Weapons in National Parks



By Del Quentin Wilber

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 19, 2009; 5:35 PM



A federal judge today 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 Retires -- 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."



The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allowed visitors to carry loaded

concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. In the past,

they had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored

or dismantled.







-------------------------------------------

***************************************************************************

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization

dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to

Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.



VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org

***************************************************************************
 
Are you kidding me? How the hell can they do that? Can we write the senators who stood against the AWB and sent that petition to Holder and ask them for their support on this issue?
 
This is getting reported as though the rule was "overturned" and not the "subject of a temporary injunction." Which is it?

Court blocks Bush administration rule that allowed concealed, loaded guns in national parks
By MATTHEW DALY | Associated Press Writer
4:38 PM CDT, March 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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 overturns a rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration.

The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, and 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, which 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 (now-overturned) regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public."

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the Bush rule 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 Bush rule change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-guns-national-parks,0,3577389.story
 
Last edited:
you can be convicted of a felony for it (again). Have fun playing the double agent game with that one.

No surprise where this happened. I'm really surprised that one federal judge can simply block a law, even if only temporarily, without anything other than that individual's own whim. The more I learn...
 
A person does not have standing to see Obama's birth certificate, but has standing to deny people the right to carry?
 
ban

Its just the beginning, we will slowly loose every foothold in any freedom of choice. anyone seen the bill that was passed about required community service to graduate high school.
Since when did we have to provide service to our government, wasnt it formed to provide service to us. IMO

HR1388 check it out.
 
Since when did we have to provide service to our government, wasnt it formed to provide service to us. IMO
Click to expand...

I fully believe that every person should have to perform some type of "service" before they are a full citizen. Could be military service. Could be some other lengthy and difficult service. People shouldn't get to be full citizens without ever doing a damn thing. I would be fine with requiring two years of military service but I realize that is a non-starter for a lot of reasons. I'm willing to accept 1000 hours of community service if that service is REAL service. I can think of dozens of things the typical community has trouble finding volunteers to do.

I grew up with a photo of JFK on my wall with his famous quote at the bottom. I think he was right. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

And yes, I have eight years of US Army service. I hope to God my children get to do the same thing.

Gregg
 
I don't understand a lot of these anti-carry laws. I think that the logic behind it is that if more people are carrying guns, then crime will go up. However, we're talking law abiding citizens. I mean, if someone is going to go into a national park and go on some rampage, do you think he/she gives a damn whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not?
 
And, don't forget about the airline pilots right to bare arms.
Click to expand...

I was doing the bare arms thing today. Now I'm all red from the strong San Antonio sun. Would an airline pilot stick their elbow out the window as they fly? That seems like it might be a problem.

Gregg
 
This case was not decided on if it was legal/lawful to carry in the park/nwr, but on the merits of whether the government/NPS followed the rules promulgated by Congress. What I can't understand is why the DOJ did not argue from the onset about if the plaintiffs have standing to sue, or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

And one would think that the government lawyers know how to argue right?

It worked for Hussein. He said the plaintiffs didn't have standing as American citizens to see his birth certficate. By virtue of the Constitution ? This is beyond absurd.

Must be some kinda funny business with Holder? Nahhhh it couldn't be, right? :evil:

Sabotage anybody?

Skykomish
 
I don't understand a lot of these anti-carry laws. I think that the logic behind it is that if more people are carrying guns, then crime will go up. However, we're talking law abiding citizens. I mean, if someone is going to go into a national park and go on some rampage, do you think he/she gives a damn whether or not carrying a gun is legal or not?
Click to expand...

The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly.

The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

Their "solution" implies that we can trust the government with a monopoly on guns even though we cannot trust ourselves with them.
 
I don't understand how someone who does not carry or want to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park has any sort of case. How have their rights been violated and what harm has come to them through the allowed carry of concealed weapons? How does someone else carrying a concealed weapon affect them? NOT AT ALL! So *** can their court case possibly say?
I enjoy guns. I also know how to read things such as the Constitution of the USA as well as the Bill of Rights. That is why I am so interested in gross violations of our government specifically with Second Amendment rights. I have never figured out why Anti-gun people are so driven to oppress other citizens. If I did not like guns I would simply not have one and opt out of the debate. Debate over.
 
Quiet earp, it does affect them, if they can prove that the people are CCW might be a danager to either other people or the park itself then they can get the policy tossed out.

now proving it would be a danager to other people is hard to do, but the wild life and the envroment there is a chance.
 
Yeah, I know how people feel is very important. If you get all butt hurt by all means let's sue or maybe take the government to court. I would think that the laws of the State that the Park is in would also have some jurisdiction. It is also a slippery slope. National Parks are Dept. of Interior, so is the BLM. Most of the State I live in is BLM land, are we to imply that the Federal Government can make such arbitrary laws regarding every piece of land that is "theirs"? And as a US citizen I feel that these lands are not "theirs" but OURS. And what about the National Forest Service as part of the Dept. of Agriculture? Those lands are ours as well.
 
The way I see it, who ever has control of it, gets to make the rules... that means if its run by the fed, thier rules... if its run by the state, state rules.
 
They are pushing me closer and closer to not giving a good damn what the "rules" are, and just carry wherever I damn well please.
 
Ever get the feeling that the liberals have nothing better to do than waste time, moneyand resources rather than read and understand the US Constitution.
Million here million there, oh well it's the tax payers money so what.
Billion for this billion for me nothing for the tax payers.
Trillion given away, trillion wasted but my friends and me got ours.

Same with constitution

I'll take the oath then pee all over it, chit on it, ignore it, jail anyone that dares invoke a constitutional right: Don't matter none just a piece of paper.

Friend of mine asked a question last night. "When will enough be enough that the people will stand up and say enough." All I could answer was you'll know, you'll know.
End rant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Vermont secession?
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
buzz_knox
B
D
  • Locked
Parks carry maybe upheld
Replies
0
Views
361
Doug b
D
S
  • Locked
DC amends legal handgun list
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quiet
Q
M
  • Locked
Federal Judge Suspends Carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges
Replies
19
Views
803
rbernie
rbernie
L
  • Locked
Ron Paul Article.
Replies
16
Views
657
Tim James
T
Back
Top