Brady Campaign Sues To Overturn Park Rule

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; Well, we knew this was coming. All they need is one liberal Federal judge to issue a TRO. Group sues to halt new gun rule ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36

Thread: Brady Campaign Sues To Overturn Park Rule

  1. #1
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,371

    Brady Campaign Sues To Overturn Park Rule

    Well, we knew this was coming. All they need is one liberal Federal judge to issue a TRO.

    Group sues to halt new gun rule in parks
    By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian



    KALISPELL - A new and controversial rule allowing loaded guns in national parks has come under increasing fire, with critics filing suit on Tuesday to stop the measure.

    Currently, guns are allowed in parks only if unloaded and properly stowed. In early December, however, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced it would allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks, so long as the carrier was permitted to do so in that state.

    The change was to take effect Jan. 9, 2009, but on Tuesday the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued Interior, saying the measure violates several federal rules.


    “It's clear that the Bush administration rushed this through as a last-minute gift to the gun lobby,” said Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Campaign.

    Current park gun rules date back to 1960, and were most recently updated in the early 1980s by the Reagan administration. At that time, Interior conducted an analysis of the rules, concluding that prohibiting loaded weapons was necessary “to ensure public safety and provide maximum protection of natural resources.”

    The Reagan analysis determined that excluding loaded guns “will help the National Park Service provide improved visitor safety and resource protection,” and that such rules were a “basic mechanism” for park protection.

    Gun rights groups, however, have long chafed under the traditional rules, which they see as an assault on their Second Amendment rights. In 2007, they pushed Congress for action, resulting in a letter from 47 senators - including Montana's delegation - asking Interior to review the old rules.

    “The NRA initiated this letter,” the group told its members, “and worked closely with (Idaho) Sen. (Mike) Crapo to gather signatures from his colleagues. ... We have been working on your behalf for nearly five years to facilitate this policy change, and are committed to ensuring that it finally happens this year.”

    But in the suit filed Tuesday, Vice wonders what has changed since the environmental assessment conducted in 1983. That analysis found the loaded gun restrictions “necessary,” and no subsequent analysis has been conducted to show that conditions have changed.

    In fact, Interior authorized the rule change without conducting any formal environmental analysis - a central complaint in the Brady Campaign suit.

    The complaint alleges Interior violated the establishing acts of both the National Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuge system, by authorizing a rule change that is inconsistent with the purposes of parks and refuges. It also charges Interior erred in not conducting an environmental analysis, which plaintiffs say was required by federal law.

    The rule change, plaintiffs said, came “in response to considerable political pressure and in the absence of any substantive findings whatsoever that the (existing) regulations are no longer necessary.”

    The fact that no formal analysis was conducted points to a “haste to finalize these regulations in the waning days of President George W. Bush's administration,” the suit contends.

    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.

    Tina Kreisher, spokeswoman at Interior, declined to address the lawsuit's particulars, saying “we cannot comment on pending litigation.”

    Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association said his group would be keeping an eye on the court battle, adding that “I think the change made by the Department of Interior is a very good fit for Montana. We certainly oppose what the gun-control crowd is trying to accomplish.”

    Marbut said he'll write to the state Attorney General's Office, asking it to intervene in the suit to protect Montana gun owners' interests.

    Andrew Arulanandam, at NRA, said he had not yet reviewed the specifics of the complaint, but stressed that “we believe that the actions by the Department of Interior are sound, and we believe that we will prevail, or should I say, the Department of Interior will prevail.”

    Proponents of the change have argued loaded guns should be allowed in parks in order that visitors might protect themselves. Critics have said the change is unnecessary, pointing to the relatively low crime rates in national parks.

    Opponents also worry loaded guns will result in more violence between visitors, and increased threats to park wildlife and resources.

    Among those speaking against the rule change were all living former Park Service directors, an association of retired NPS employees, park ranger groups and park law enforcement groups.

    Vice said those critics had not yet signed on to Tuesday's lawsuit, but that many had been discussing litigation of their own to challenge the gun rule change.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    As expected...but the Brady Bunch offered really nothing to support their agrument except some old news which has already been vetted.

    Rick

  4. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,451
    I don't think the BradyBunch will win in the courts.

    I do think that the next administration will overturn this ruling.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  5. #4
    Member Array JusticeDun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    I don't think the BradyBunch will win in the courts.

    I do think that the next administration will overturn this ruling.
    The first part maybe not. The second party might be wishful thinking.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    The enemy won't quit, all the more reason to stay in the fight and continue to support the cause.
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeDun View Post
    The first part maybe not. The second party might be wishful thinking.
    I hate to speak for pgrass101, but I'd like to think that nobody on this board would call this:
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101
    I do think that the next administration will overturn this ruling.
    wishful thinking. Perhaps you inadvertently inserted a "not" when you read this?

    Unfortunately, I think pgrass is right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all it would take is an EO, since Interior is an Executive Branch function, no?
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,451
    That's right the BO administration can just rescind this order or issue a new one to replace it.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array Natureboypkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,046
    I really don't hate many people, but The Brady Bunch are an exception.
    Mixed Martial Arts Record= 2-0.......Kyokushin Karate Record=5-0

    USMC.....helping enemies of America die for their countries since 1775

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    That's right the BO administration can just rescind this order or issue a new one to replace it.
    If that were true it wouldn't make sense for the Brady Bunch to sue would it.

    Could it be that there is some merit to their case, and such changes are not to be made purely by directive? Is there supposed to be a determination process as they allege?
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  11. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,451
    ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?

    Good website explaining E.O.'s
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  12. #11
    Member Array Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fairview
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    That's right the BO administration can just rescind this order or issue a new one to replace it.
    If that were true it wouldn't make sense for the Brady Bunch to sue would it.
    Very good point. It would not make sense. My understanding is that if the new provision becomes effective, the Obama administration would have to start a whole new rulemaking proposal to reverse it. Would take a long time.


    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    Could it be that there is some merit to their case... ?
    No. The Brady Campaign has a weak case. It's taking a flyer. It will lose.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?

    Good website explaining E.O.'s
    I'm not saying I'm right, but I didn't find anything on your website that showed me I was wrong.

    National Park Service is under the Department of the Interior, which is part of the Executive Branch. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. What am I missing?
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  14. #13
    Member Array NKMG19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    408
    So if loaded guns in national parks can cause an environmental problem why does it not cause the same problem elsewhere in our society. What environmental problem are they talking about. Florida was supposed to become the wild wild west when our gun laws changed but so far it has not. These idiots know that law breakers will break the law regardless so I don't get their argument.
    NRA Member

  15. #14
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    In early December, however, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced it would allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks, so long as the carrier was permitted to do so in that state.
    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.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but since there's no concealed carry allowed in DC, the rule change makes *no difference* there. Which means that the trip changes had nothing to do with the rule change. Which makes me wonder whether the Philly trip changes are just the same.

    Which reinforces my belief that the Brady Bunch is a deceptive, dishonest, and generally all around distasteful group.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  16. #15
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Herknav View Post
    I'm not saying I'm right, but I didn't find anything on your website that showed me I was wrong.

    National Park Service is under the Department of the Interior, which is part of the Executive Branch. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. What am I missing?
    You are right I just posted so everyone can see that the can be overturned by congress or a new excutive order. Both of which may take a long time. This is why the bradyBunch is sueing
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Brady Campaign
    By Pikachu711 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 1st, 2009, 10:11 PM
  2. News Release from Brady Campaign....National Park Carry
    By concealed in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 14th, 2009, 04:21 PM
  3. The Brady Campaign Needs Your Help Now!!!
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 27th, 2008, 09:47 AM
  4. Brady Campaign
    By Biloxi Bersa in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 21st, 2006, 01:25 AM
  5. Thank You Brady Campaign!!!!
    By MattInFla in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: July 9th, 2006, 12:57 AM

Search tags for this page

overturn brady gun

Click on a term to search for related topics.