Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks

This is a discussion on Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense Exactly correct. I am still amazed that so many think the Judicial branch of government trumps the other two. Amazed? What ...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 115

Thread: Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657

    Reality intrudes into fantasy land

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Exactly correct. I am still amazed that so many think the Judicial branch of government trumps the other two.
    Amazed? What do you think has been going on for a couple of hundred years.

    It doesn't square with your incorrect view of the world, but so what? It is the way things actually work, and it is (contrary to your position) fully constitutional and fully legal. And it was completely contemplated by the founders. For what other reason would they have created a Federal court system? For the judges to sit there and issue opinions that affect and effect nothing? Duh!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    darnit - now I have to go and agree with Hopy. That doesn't happen often. But that's why I posted info on the judge so people would hopefully make informed comments rather than jumping to conclusions.

    BlackPR - I agree, it will likely be a procedural rulling and we won't be able to use the 2A here at all. But hey, we can both go meet up at RMNP and get busted for carrying, then challenge the old rules constitutionality? You got my back right??
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array BlackPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lakewood Colorado
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    BlackPR - I agree, it will likely be a procedural rulling and we won't be able to use the 2A here at all. But hey, we can both go meet up at RMNP and get busted for carrying, then challenge the old rules constitutionality? You got my back right??

    While I don't advocate breaking the law in general. Calling the media (and a few pro-gun groups in the area for publicity) posting the date, time and location you're going to break the law and then doing so as an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge an unjust law is definitely American, Patriotic and certainly even required in some cases.
    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.

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Anyone have a link to when an Environmental Impact Assessment is required?

    I have a hard time believing that the previous administration wouldn't have crossed the 't's and dotted the i's when it comes to something they knew would have been contested like this.

    [edit]
    Never mind, think I found it:

    http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resour...epa/index.html
    Last edited by tinkerinWstuff; March 19th, 2009 at 11:06 PM. Reason: added link
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Amazed? What do you think has been going on for a couple of hundred years.

    It doesn't square with your incorrect view of the world, but so what?
    You mean the view of the Founders? I understand that some lawyers are ignorant of our history, but I expected that you would be familiar with Federalist 78:

    Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments
    It is the way things actually work, and it is (contrary to your position) fully constitutional and fully legal. And it was completely contemplated by the founders.
    Have you read the Federalist Papers? I know you are able to understand the intent, no?

    For what other reason would they have created a Federal court system? For the judges to sit there and issue opinions that affect and effect nothing?
    Their role is specifically outlined in the Constitution. I'm certain you know that role and its limitations. Or do you still think that the Judiciary rules the United Staes lke a third world oligarchy?

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array BlackPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lakewood Colorado
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Anyone have a link to when an Environmental Impact Assessment is required?

    I have a hard time believing that the previous administration wouldn't have crossed the 't's and dotted the i's when it comes to something they knew would have been contested like this.

    [edit]
    Never mind, think I found it:

    Frequently Asked Questions-NEPA | Compliance and Enforcement | US EPA
    This is key... if you look at #4, summarizing the process. What the DOI did was what they describe as "First level" or "categorically excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant environmental impact. "

    This was actually the nearly verbatim statement made by government attorneys in defense of the rule -- which you can see if you look at old articles about this lawsuit.

    I promise you, this whole stupid thing is going to come down to "lead"... It will probably have the end result of reversing the law requiring the DOI to "start over" which they will not do.

    It's time for some public pressure.
    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.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array AllAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Kakalaki del Sur
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    You mean the view of the Founders? I understand that some lawyers are ignorant of our history, but I expected that you would be familiar with Federalist 78:





    Have you read the Federalist Papers? I know you are able to understand the intent, no?



    Their role is specifically outlined in the Constitution. I'm certain you know that role and its limitations. Or do you still think that the Judiciary rules the United Staes lke a third world oligarchy?
    Great Post!!!
    My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
    New tunes added.
    "The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPR View Post
    This is key... if you look at #4, summarizing the process. What the DOI did was what they describe as "First level" or "categorically excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant environmental impact. "

    This was actually the nearly verbatim statement made by government attorneys in defense of the rule -- which you can see if you look at old articles about this lawsuit.
    I saw that too.

    I promise you, this whole stupid thing is going to come down to "lead"... It will probably have the end result of reversing the law requiring the DOI to "start over" which they will not do.

    It's time for some public pressure.
    Public pressure on who? If it's in the hands of the court now, I'm not sure where to turn. I agree on how it was catagorized originally and exempted from an EIA but now it's in the hands of a judge on the bench and how they feel like reading it.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array BlackPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lakewood Colorado
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    I saw that too.



    Public pressure on who? If it's in the hands of the court now, I'm not sure where to turn. I agree on how it was catagorized originally and exempted from an EIA but now it's in the hands of a judge on the bench and how they feel like reading it.
    Friend of the court brief. But we have to find the ruling itself. This is not a final ruling, it's important to note. The judge could back off, but really it's probably not likely. We have to know what the arguments are before we could write any friend of the court briefs. This is because if we just write in and say, "I have a gun, therefore I'm an interested party." It may not be relevant at all if the issue is Environmental impact.

    You can protest, too... faxing protests to courts is not unheard of, but really just tends to irritate judges -- who don't care one whit about public outrage (and probably rightly so).

    The other thing to do is to express your outrage to the DOI... Remember, they are defending this. We want them to CARE about defending it and not do a half-assed job at it... You also want them to care enough to fix their process should the rule get completely knocked down.
    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.

  11. #40
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Wow, the change to allow ccw in Nat. Parks actually lasted longer than I expected. Although short lived that it was, I do hope it will be taken care of in appeals court. But I'm not holding my breath.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,118
    That stinks. But, it was not entirely unexpected considering the communist we currently have living in the White House.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  14. #43
    Member Array NativH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by f8lranger4x4 View Post
    So if I read this right we can no longer carry in National parks. What happened to the NRA
    As a NRA Patron and a regular contributor to the NRA-ILA and NRA-PDF my money will be fighting this in short order. How about yours?

    https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
    SE Texas Patriot Guard Rider, NRA Patron, TSRA Life Member

  15. #44
    Member Array Dadoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mesquite, Tx
    Posts
    253

    What to do, what to do!

    In this era of creeping socialism, confiscatory taxes and an eroding of liberties, we are faced with the same choices that our founding fathers had. OK, I'm not talking about revolution or armed conflict, but do we obey unjust laws, or do we know what the definition of "concealed" is?

  16. #45
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    I think this one might be over turned on appeal, but it could stay tied up in the courts until the current POTUS issue a countermanding order
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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. CCW in National Parks
    By johnsonabq in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 1st, 2009, 07:01 PM
  2. National Parks and such
    By Agave in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 07:02 AM
  3. What to do with Gun in car at National Parks???
    By shawn45 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 26th, 2008, 12:54 PM
  4. Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 09:19 PM
  5. CCW In National Parks
    By Captain Crunch in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 29th, 2006, 12:29 PM

Search tags for this page

ccw in great sand dunes national refuge

,

law allowing ccw in national parks

,

sand dunes national parks and concealed carry

Click on a term to search for related topics.