Guns Ntnl Parks Take 2

T

TFinalshot

Guest
Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; A09

A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. 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 Retirees -- argued that the Bush action violated several laws.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had been "astoundingly flawed."

She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," 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.

Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the department could not comment because of "ongoing litigation."

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.

In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places.

Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is "extremely pleased" with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule's environmental impact. "This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors," Faehner said.
 
Those poachers, muggers, thieves, and vandals will now think twice before opening shop in a park. Sheesh.

498a6f395e505405.jpg
 
Talking out both sides of their mouth as usual. It was not that many years ago that park rangers were unarmed. But due to a loud outcry from the park rangers and their association they were able to carry firearms to combat the "INCREASING VIOLENCE" they were incountering in the various National Parks.
Now this same group is fighting law abiding citizens, who have a concealed weapons permit from being able to defend themselfs as they wanted to defend their selfs in the course of their duties.
Of all agencies that I am familiar with and their firearms training programs, the U.S. Park Service is at the bottom of the heap on it's members being able to protect anybody with those firearms they carry.

I look for this judge's decision to be overturned on appeal, and righly so. I would quit visiting our national parks if I had to depend on the average park ranger to protect me and my family.

RELH
 
>HUH?
>
>Now it's the fault of the
>park rangers? Ookayyyyyyyyyy. . .
>.

Actually, it appears to be the retired park rangers that are a part of the problem. I think your article said their official organization is called Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

Scott
Member: RMEF, SCI, and NRA
 
"I think your article said their official organization is called Coalition of National Park Service Retirees."

It's not MY article, I posted it because it's been a topic of interest in the past. While I was apposed to the changes in the first place, they are made. I think the court was right to say a review should have been done before the rule was enacted.

I tend to like better, local rules, but if they make things too costly and too complicated or more dangerous there may be a good reason to level the playing field so to speek; I think there needs to be a balance between total costs, and te equality among the states. . .

I think a review will be done, whether it changes anything or not is questionable. . . I dont see that any of this really has a thing to do with the park service retired law enforcement. . . sure they were cited, but it's not their issue and it's surely not the bases the judge used to render the decision. . .
 
make all the nat parks private and problem solved....just kiddding good grief....

A law abiding citizen has a self evident right to carry, especially in a nat park.
 
Okay, so the US capitol campus otherwise known as the "mall" and how about the whitehouse. . . good grief. . .

In any event. I dont think much will change one way or another with the rule. It's all on the backs of the states now, which means that a violation will be horribly complicated to enforce, the one thing that the rule did do was make thing more complicated, i'm not sure that was wise, but it is what it is. . .
 
"Okay, so the US capitol campus otherwise known as the "mall" and how about the whitehouse. . . good grief. . . "

When you can't win the argument go for the extreme case, good grief T, that hardly compares to the freaking outback for crying out loud.



"Here's something for you doom and gloomer, coolaid drinkers that might help you from offing yourselves; you could have had Hillary."
Tfinalshot March 24, 2009
 
LOL - I just was responding to youre post,

"A law abiding citizen has a self evident right to carry, especially in a nat park."


LOL - love the salutation quote. . . LOL
 
I wouldn't go to the Cabeza Prieta or Organ Pipe Cactus Natl. monument in AZ without being heavily armed. I'd like to go cause it's beautiful at least it WAS before the Illegals trashed it. It's a very unsafe place to be going - and that would be one of many Natl. Parks or Monuments where some kind of exception be made, should they decide to go forward with this absurd law. Pretty sad that American citizens can't venture into public land within these United States without a real threat to their life.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-09 AT 08:02PM (MST)[p]Enough about guns, let's get down to taxing the pants off the granola crunching photographers who think they have a right to nance all around the parks and snap pictures of whatever they like. You gotta pay to play I say. (For those of you who are trained observers, yes this is dripping with sarcasm)

498a6f395e505405.jpg
 
interesting, I do pay, in fact i'm taxed as a "commercial photographer" so I pay extra fees and jump though hoops and fill put paper work all the time my friend.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom