This is a discussion on Brady Campaign Sues To Overturn Park Rule within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Natureboypkr I really don't hate many people, but The Brady Bunch are an exception. +1 on that....
Opponents also worry loaded guns will result in more violence between visitors, and increased threats to park wildlife and resources.
The same, tired, Wild West BS.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
IIRC the new rules are "regulations", which require more effort to change than a mere EO (not trying to start an argument). It's mainly a matter of the bureaucratic effort required to get a change implemented.
Having said that, a lawsuit might move more quickly than other efforts, so time will tell.
The assaults against our rights will continue unabated for sure.
As my other thread shows, we as CCers commit less crime as a percentage than police officers! Guess the Bradyites need to ban LE from the Parks next. Just for the record, my wife is in LE so nothing bad about LE either.
I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen
Of course, as usual, the argument fails to hold up under the lightest of logic. Poachers are universally disliked, and aren't held up by some rule that says they can't carry loaded firearms into a national park. There are also rules about poaching... but it appears they don't follow those, either.
A law-abiding owner is just that - law-abiding! When will the Bradies ever learn?
I belive that EO only pertain to the DOI employees themselves and could only limit the Park Rangers from carrying in a National Park. I could be wrong, but we do have a certain amount of due process to our government.
EO's are designed to address enforcement. If the regulation goes away (as it will) then there won't be anything to enforce. I think this is the real reason for the Brady Bunch to sue. Even an EO won't undo the removal of these regulations. They'll have to issue new regulations. On the other hand, if the Bush admin had used an EO to abandon enforcement, it would be easily undone by the incoming administration.
"Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington
Grasping at straws. I will be looking at how to file a "Friend of the court Brief" (any lawyers on the board?)... As CCW holders, we may qualify to file individual friend of the court briefs.
The facts are indisputable. There is more data supporting the benefits of Conceal Carry than there is supporting global warming. If you choose ignorance, in light of all the evidence, in order to bolster your irrational fear of guns, you are a greater threat to society than any gun owner.
"In addition, the suit claims the new gun rule will diminish visitor enjoyment of parks, and points to school excursions to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., that have been canceled or curtailed in the wake of the rule change."
1) Those folks lack standing to sue.
2) Heller applies in National Parks, since that's territory of the United States, and the Second Amendment applies there.
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.
User, Heller doesn't apply outside of the home. Otherwise we wouldn't have a problem with cc in Post Offices and college campuses... Wish it was so...
"loaded guns will result in more violence between visitors"
Criminals (poachers and dopers) are already carrying loaded guns in these parks.
So here is Brady bunch logic: Violent criminals carry loaded guns. Anyone carrying a loaded gun must be violent. The law must therefore define anyone carrying a gun as a criminal. [Aristotle is rolling in his grave.]
How does one conduct an environmental impact study on the difference between a loaded firearm, and an unloaded firearm which was already allowed?
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep