Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

Maybe there is still a chance. If I'm understanding everything correctly, this was an injunction and not a final rule? So if the NRA and the DOI can get their crap together, maybe they can come armed with the information supporting the position that there IS no significant environmental impact. I.E. state parks allowing CCW and other public lands. So the defendants can say, "we felt there was no significant environmental impact and did not require an EIS. By looking at state parks and similar lands; here is additional proof supporting our position." Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe rather than doing the EIS, they can show more evidence supporting the position that it isn't required.

.

---

I believe you are correct that there is still a chance.

Before I go on:
DISCLAIMER: I have studied law a bit, my undergrad degree is in Environmental Studies, with an emphasis on pulic land management, and I have some experience with administrative rule making in the public land context. However, I am not a lawyer or an expert, and my posts are just my opinion based on things I have read and may have misunderstood.

AFAIK, an appeal on the injunction will not allow additional information to be presented. The appeal will be reviewed based on the facts as presented to the judge that granted the injunction. Unless clearly erroneous based on those facts, it will stand. On the upside, we have not read the pleadings, part of which may have been presented for our side and not given proper signifigance by the judge. (ie. Brady may have lacked a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and this judge erroneously found otherwise) Still an uphill battle given the standard of review and the sliding scale of importance, weighing likelihood of sucess against pulic policy, irreparable harm etc.

At a full trial on the merits, all evidence presented to back up claims in the pleadings of both sides will be considered if it is admissable, and there (maybe) the lawyers on our side can get in sufficient evidence to bolster the position that there was no need for an EIS and win. At least I hope so. Otherwise, it's gonna have to be a do over. However, as you and the judge pointed out, Amicus breifs and petitions have thus far worked to go against the argument that no EIS was needed. Our sides arguments have been contradictory and actually bolster Brady's position, which is unfortunate. Obviously the lawyers for out side did not properly communicate with one another or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sgtD

The judge repetedly stated that animal and human environments were to be considere in these impact studies. Without reading Brady's pleadings, I assume that they hit hard on one major factor necessary for injunctive relief, which is pulic policy/welfare. They must have argued suceesfully that allowing guns in the parks could be shown to have a negative impact on animals, potentially from shootings, and on people, becuase of a risk to "public safety" posed by people carrying loaded guns.

---

This is exactly correct. The ruling had nothing to do with lead (Hopyard). She said that the Feds originally instituted the rule to protect people and animals. They did not go back and properly show that there is no longer a need to worry about "environmental impact." I think BlackPR said this already.

Since the impact to the environment was the original reason for the rule, you can't throw the rule out without doing an EIS to prove there is no longer reason to be concerned about the environment.

From page 3 of the judges ruling:

Quote:

---

The lynchpin of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental
impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because
the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in
national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or
otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. In other words, the Final Rule has
no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any
environmental impacts. By relying on this tautology, Defendants (1) abdicated their
Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not, and (2) ignored (without sufficient
explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental
impacts, including (i) Defendants’ own long-standing belief under the previous regulations that
allowing only inoperable and stored firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was necessary
to safeguard against certain risks to the environment and (ii) the almost universal view among
interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national
parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense
against persons and animals (all of which suggests that the Final Rule will have some impact on
the environment).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

This is exactly correct. The ruling had nothing to do with lead (Hopyard). She said that the Feds originally instituted the rule to protect people and animals. They did not go back and properly show that there is no longer a need to worry about "environmental impact." I think BlackPR said this already.

Since the impact to the environment was the original reason for the rule, you can't throw the rule out without doing an EIS to prove there is no longer reason to be concerned about the environment.

From page 3 of the judges ruling:

---

That pretty much sums it up. Both the DOI and the lawyers on our side screwed up big time. I wonder if the new administration didn't put the most inexperienced lawyer that they had on this case so it would lose. Ok, I know, conspiracy theory. Sorry.

Here's a thought - maybe I'm way out in left field here - But was an EIS performed when the original rule restricting firearms was put in place?

Wouldn't that be fun? If the rule change was thrown out, because the original rule cited protecting the environment and public welfare without having done an EIS. It would be HILARIOUS to use Brady's own arguement to challenge THE ORIGINAL rule for not having an EIS?? eh??? :image035: [Insert evil laugh here]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

Since the impact to the environment was the original reason for the rule, you can't throw the rule out without doing an EIS to prove there is no longer reason to be concerned about the environment.

From page 3 of the judges ruling:

---

From the ruling, " Defendants (1) abdicated their
Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts,"

The word "reasonably " has meaning and doesn't mean absolutely all possibilities under even the most bizarre of possible events.

I have not read the whole ruling or followed the arguments carefully, so perhaps should not say anything at all. With that point out of the way, it is beyond my comprehension how there are any reasonably foreseeable environmental impact associated with cc for SD.

Am I ruining my back yard if I carry back there? Will lead get into the rivulet nearby simply because I carry in my back yard? My big feet have more environmental impact.

Maybe I'm missing something, or there is some other interpretation of the phrase "environmental impact," but it seems as if the judge is asking for proof of a negative--proof that there will be no impact whatsoever under any circumstance without looking at the word "reasonable" she used in her ruling; even though the most trivial understanding of cc for SD would show that there is no environmental issue.

Now, if they have turned public safety issues into environmental ones through some misapplication of logic, than we are in Alice in Wonderland reasoning. Doesn't make the injunction the right call. Just means we are in bizzarro land.

what needs to happen now is anyone attacked by a wild animal in a national park needs to sue the pants off of the gun control groups and the environmentalists for denying citizens a fundamental right - to self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edr9x23super

what needs to happen now is anyone attacked by a wild animal in a national park needs to sue the pants off of the gun control groups and the environmentalists for denying citizens a fundamental right - to self defense.

---

You would more than likely get nowhere as that was a risk you took when you entered on your own free will.

All I can say is.....I TOLD YOU SO!.....

I managed to carry legally in the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge March 13 & 14 (seeing 19,000 migrating Sandhill Cranes) and in Great Sand Dunes National Park March 15. Did anyone else "score"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Maybe I'm missing something, or there is some other interpretation of the phrase "environmental impact," but it seems as if the judge is asking for proof of a negative--proof that there will be no impact whatsoever under any circumstance without looking at the word "reasonable" she used in her ruling; even though the most trivial understanding of cc for SD would show that there is no environmental issue.

Now, if they have turned public safety issues into environmental ones through some misapplication of logic, than we are in Alice in Wonderland reasoning. Doesn't make the injunction the right call. Just means we are in bizzarro land.

---

Yes, I think you are missing something. I agree with your point and I would bet the judge probably does too (as far as how much of an impact there would be). Again, here is the problem - The government had a major flipflop. For years, the goverment used public and environmental concerns as their reason for issuing a rule that said, "no operable firearms in national parks." Now the government up and changed it's mind. Like any government official, when they tell you one thing and then suddenly change their mind, the public is left going, "hey wait a minute, didn't you used to say {blah blah blah}."

So the judge says you can't change your mind without addressing your previous position as having been incorrect. I.E. The DOI should have said, "we used to believe that we were protecting the environment by forbidding guns in parks. We did an EIS by looking at similar lands and proved that there is no measurable environmental impact by allowing licensed guns. The governements original position was incorrect and along with all these other points about state's rights, consistancy in laws, blah blah blah, we ammend the rule to allow licensed concealed firearms." And then there would be no issue.

To create an exagerated analagy; you can't hang a guy one day for doing something illegal, and then change the law the next day making something legal without addressing how your previous position was flawed.

"why aren't you hanging that guy for stealing horses, you hung my husband last week"
"because it's no longer illegal ma'am."
"why not?"
"none of your business"

Tinkerinwstuff wrote: "For years, the goverment used public and environmental concerns"

Again, I have not read the ruling. Did the judge concern herself with the development of argument solely or also with evidence on the changed nature of "public" concerns, as well?

I can certainly see where some in the past thought it was good public policy to not allow arms in NPs. So, if Uncle changed his mind and decided that now the previous public policy concerns don't apply I can understand questioning the reason why although it should be a legislative (rule making authority) thing to sort out, not judicial.

I don't understand--not that it matters what I understand--the emphasis on environmental concerns unless Uncle previously had provided evidence that there were real environmental concerns with cc. Did that ever happen? What evidence was used? Does anyone know?

It just seems to me that there is some illogical stuff going on and an excuse was found to reach a particular conclusion--though I would really like to think better of the judge.

What's the old saying? If that's the law then the law is an a...

Why didn't the DOI just answer the question? The lead came from the ground and now it's being put back:rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Again, I have not read the ruling. Did the judge concern herself with the development of argument solely or also with evidence on the changed nature of "public" concerns, as well?

---

Maybe this is what you are asking about??? :

Quote:

---

A. Factual Background
As explained above, previous regulations pertaining to national parks and wildlife refuges generally prohibited possession of firearms unless they were unloaded and packed, cased, or
stored in a manner that prevented their ready use. 48 Fed. Reg. 30,252 (June 30, 1983); 49 Fed.
Reg. 18,444 (April 30, 1984). These regulations were “designed to ensure public safety and
provide maximum protection of natural resources by limiting the opportunity for unauthorized
use of weapons . . . while providing reasonable regulatory relief for persons living within or
traveling through park areas.” 48 Fed. Reg. at 30,265.5 As reflected in the Administrative
Record, this view persisted among Defendants until recently. See, e.g., A.R. 339 (11/29/06
National Park Service Briefing Statement) (repeating the justification for firearm restrictions in
national parks and adding that “[m]ost weapons carried for the protection from wildlife are not
adequate for that purpose. Untrained individuals attempting to protect themselves from
dangerous animals often exacerbate the situation”).

---

And then:

Quote:

---

Defendants’ views changed. On December 14, 2007, forty-seven United States Senators
wrote to the Secretary of the Interior asking to have these restrictions lifted. 73 Fed. Reg. 74,966,
74,967 (Dec. 10, 2008). Four additional United States Senators made a similar request on
February 11, 2008. Id.6 The DOI “chose to address this issue” on April 30, 2008, by proposing a
new rule to allow persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks
and wildlife refuges to the extent permitted in any state park or wildlife refuge in the state in which the federal park or wildlife refuge was located:
an individual will be able to possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and
operable firearms within a [national park or wildlife refuge] in the same manner,
and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport
concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any [state park or state wildlife refuge]
in the state in which the [national park or wildlife refuge], or that portion thereof,
is located.
73 Fed. Reg. 23,388 (Apr. 30, 2008). The DOI explained that the purpose of this proposed rule
was to better respect the rights of states, forty-eight of which “provide for the possession of
concealed firearms by their citizens,” a larger number than when the previous regulations were
promulgated. Id. Accordingly, the DOI explained that the regulations “should be amended to
defer to this development in State law.” Id. at 23,389.
Conspicuous by its absence, however, was any indication that the previously-recognized
“public safety” and “protection of natural resources” concerns had been alleviated over time. Id.
Instead, the DOI simply acknowledged “its obligations under NEPA to assess the impact of any
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety,”
and noted that it was “currently working to determine the appropriate level of NEPA assessment
and documentation that will be required for promulgation of this regulation.” Id. at 23,390.
The proposed rule requested public comments until June 30, 2008, a date that was later
extended by an additional thirty days. 73 Fed. Reg. at 74,967. In total, the DOI received
approximately 125,000 public comments on the proposed rule. Id. Significantly–and as
described in greater detail below–many of the comments suggested that allowing persons to
possess concealed, loaded, and operative firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges would
result in the use of those firearms, particularly for self-defense. See, e.g., A.R. 1927 (“I [] go back packing and would like to be able to carr[ry] my fire arm [sic] with me for possible wild
animal attack”); A.R. 5609 (“for those of us who have conceal[ed] carry permits, we carry
[firearms] for the protection of our families and self from those who would do us harm. We are
not looking to shoot anyone unless we are forced to in order to protect our family”). The DOI
formed a working group to analyze these comments and to provide responses in the Final Rule.
73 Fed. Reg. at 74,968-74,970.

---

And there are pages more to emerse yourself in.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff

Maybe this is what you are asking about??? :
..

---

Tinkerin--Thanks for trying.

What a pity it went that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Tinkerin--Thanks for trying.

What a pity it went that way.

---

I'll learn some day. I am clearly no scholar of law.