Man, it's getting HARDER to sleep comfortably these days :aargh4:
On our first trip to Yellowstone, we came upon a car stopped in the middle of the road with the driver's door standing open. I stopped and approached thinking someone may be having a problem to find the car running but unoccupied. Looking around, I saw a women about 25 yds. into the woods walking about 10 feet behind a huge cow Moose, whistling and yelling at it trying to get it to turn around so that she could get a picture of it.
On our last trip to Yellowstone two years ago, we came upon more than a hundred cars pulled off the sides of the road. People were standing on top of their cars with cameras and as we wound our way through the parked vehicles, we saw a clearing with a small cluster of trees in the middle. Dozens of people were around the cluster of trees with cameras. We stopped a women who was walking back up onto the roadway and asked what all the excitement was about. She said that there was a sow Grizzly with at least one cub in the stand of trees and they were taking pictures of it. Quite frankly, idiots like this deserve to get eaten.
As far as this environmental impact assessment, don't underestimate the power of the EPA or the absolutely asinine arguments they can come up with. A few years ago, we almost lost the construction of a water supply lake here in SE Kansas because the environmental impact study revealed the presence of the Broadhead Skink. This thing is no where close to being threatened or endangered, but it halted the construction of a vital water supply system while they tried to determine if they could be relocated. The fact that these things existed from Kansas to the east coast didn't seem to matter.
I can only hope that the courts ultimately decided that no environmental study was necessary on the CC rule change because if the EPA gets involved, Heaven only knows which direction it will go.
I don't believe the court's order is valid, because the plaintiffs had no standing; that means the court is without subject matter jurisdiction, because there isn't any actual case or controversy before the court. Thus, the order is void.
I do not expect the "Holder Justice Department", as Eric Holder describes it, to advance this theory. (Interesting that it is no longer the United States Justice Department.)
I don't doubt for a second that people in this administration will try/do anything they can to chip away at the 2A, no matter what it is, no matter where it is, they will do anything behind the scenes, cover up/embellish to make it appear to be something else; if we don't look at these things in this regard then we will continue to have our 2A rights slip away
its not just a Obama conspiracy...its just that much easier for certain things to take place with him in the oval officeQuote:
Quoted by BlackPR
The whining about a grand Obama conspiracy is just loony, and shows a decided lack in critical thinking skills.
whining...no, its a practical discussion
looney? not hardly, thats just nonsense to say so
lack of critical thinking skills? no, I think not talking about this is lacking in critical thinking,
if we remain quiet and sit back in our easy chair thinking, naw....they aren't going after our guns...then in a few years we'll look just like UK/Australia
don't agree with it fine....but don't call us loony and lacking in thinking skills, the people that are attacking the 2A have put in plenty of planning/thinking on their ways of restricting our rights and we need to counter it
...this is much faster then I thought. Man, oh man, it is going to be a long few years
Hopyard and SD, this time you are both incorrect. It is the job of the Judge to review the rule change. When Congress passed 42 U.S.C § 4331 et. seq.and 5 U.S.C § 701 et. seq.they provided in the legislation that decisions made by administrative agencies is subject to review by the Federal Court. See Below.
From the opinion:"The Complaint filed by Brady and the 3 Amended Complaint filed by NPCA collectively assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,"
Pertinent part of the Act:
§ 702 Right of Review
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein
(1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.
From the opinion:
Prior to issuing the Final Rule, the Department of the Interior did
not prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to the
National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4331, et seq.
Pertinent part of 42 U.S.C. granting judicial review.
which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review of any action referred to in such sentence may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination. Any petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register,
Jurisdiction has to be established before a court will even hear a case, and it was established in the statutes by Congress. So if you don't like the courts reviewing agency regulations, talk to your Congressmen and have them change the law. Until then, it's their job to do it. Sorry.
sgtD, thanks for a very informative post.
But, a pure policy issue which doesn't wrong anyone--that is, no one suffered any damages or is likely to suffer damages, doesn't seem to me to be what the code you quoted is about.
Yes, somewhere along the way the judge made a decision that there was an aggrieved party, and she later made a decision that somehow environmental regulations were "impacted."
I disagree on both points. No one suffered harm of any sort by the rule change, policy change, so there was no "aggrieved party, and policy is the province of law makers and rule makers not the judiciary.
Second, it was quite an unrealistic stretch to argue that environmental laws are applicable to what would be extremely rare circumstances in which a wild animal was shot for self defense purposes.
And I think a third error has been made if the NRA claim that they have "appealed" is true, as I can't imagine how they have standing of any sort. And nor did Brady. The park employees perhaps, but not the others.
Now, had a park ranger been injured by a cc er's negligent discharge, we would have an aggrieved party with a legitimate complaint that the policy of allowing cc in the park was a cause of the harm done. Or, maybe if it was really clear that such an event would be inevitable the park employees could consider themselves aggrieved, but I don't think either is the actual situation.
At this point there has been no harm, no foul, there is no legitimately aggrieved party, and I don't think the code you cited should apply-- but IANAL and only pretend to play that part here for discussion sake;
so-- heck Sgt, you are probably right.
SD, you are giving up too easily. What's with this 'humble" stuff all of a sudden?
The more I think about this - by the judges way of thinking, all rule changes will now require an EIS because I'm sure someone could always twist an arguement around to claim some part of the environment may be affected.
'if we put screens on the windows in park buildings, then the mosquitoes won't be able to bite park visitors and won't have as much food. So clearly there is "some" impact on the environment.'
SD, I enjoy it more when you make me work a little to prove my point, rather than just allowing me to make unqaulified assertions. It is typical for Congress to do this as a check on the executive branch powers granted to regulatory agencies.
I agree with you on the issue, and I wonder how standing was granted for Brady and the NRA???, but I think I have some idea. I don't have time to look it all up though.
The environmental organization "friends of the parks" [?] or whatever they are called, obviously must have shown that they have standing as an agreived party,(or a reprsentatives of a class?). This must have been granted by statute (creating a "cause of action") and also under the standards of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (where ther was no standing) and it's predicessors.
I think this standing issue goes back to one of the early Sierra club cases, but like I said, I'd have to look it up to be sure. There are probably some lawyers on here who know and surely they also know much more about Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure than I do. I feel pretty safe in saying that standing in environmental/public land cases is approached a bit differently than in some other areas of law.
Anyway, long story short, IIRC if a group can show that they or their members have been harmed, adversly affected or aggreived by such an action, they have standing. (like you said obviously no one has been harmed here.)
However, the statute quoted previously also allows for injunctive relief in equity while the rule change is being reviewed. In order to be granted such relief a party must show they they are "likely" to suffer irreperable harm. How they did it, I don't know, but they obviously did. I don't think its that hard if you are group that is considered a "stakeholder." At this point I wish we had the opposing party's lawyers on our side, since they seem to have done a better job. At least the judge thought so, and agreed with their position.
I mentioned in previous posts, that there is a slim chance that this could be reversed, however I realize that we are now in a much weaker position, given the mistakes that have been made to this point. (of course, I have to qualify that again, by saying I have not read the pleadings and am only going off of what the judge provided in the opinion)
The biggest thing people should take away from this is the importance of who they choose to vote for as President, since it is the president who appoints agency administrators and Fed. Judges.