Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks - Page 7

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 budokaitd I expected the NRA to appeal this crap. By the way, Hilary Clinton appointed the judge that made this ruling. Obama ...

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 115

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

  1. #91
    Senior Member Array CR2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by budokaitd View Post
    I expected the NRA to appeal this crap. By the way, Hilary Clinton appointed the judge that made this ruling. Obama is also trying to disarm our commercial pilots.
    Disarming our pilots, make our vets pay for combat related wounds, wishing to "talk with moderate Taliban"... why not just wire a hot line straight to Osama Bin Laden?

    Man, it's getting HARDER to sleep comfortably these days
    http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
    Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/


  2. #92
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Why didn't the DOI just answer the question? The lead came from the ground and now it's being put back.
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Again - the arguement has NOTHING to do with LEAD. The arguement has to do with people who wrote in admitting they want the ability to defend themselves from angry bears, charging elk, and hungry mountain lions. If people defend themselves from these animals, then there is SOME environmental impact and NO EIS was done to show how 'negligable' the affects on the environment would be.

    That's the arguement, not saying I agree with it. but it supports the park rangers position that the animals lives are more important than those of people. They've worried the whole time that 'trigger happy' visiters would get easily scared and start blasting animals in self defense.
    tinkerinWstuff hit the nail on the head. The disagreement isn't about lead, it's about wildlife. As we all know, all of us CCers are just chompin' at the bit to go hunt a Grizzly with our 9mm. I will, however, readily admit that from my own observations there are some true idiots that visit our parks.

    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.

    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  3. #93
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It isn't the judiciary's function...
    Exactly.

  4. #94
    Member Array belltoller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spring Lake, NC
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    If people defend themselves from these animals, then there is SOME environmental impact and NO EIS was done to show how 'negligable' the affects on the environment would be.
    An EIS is only required when there is "significant" environmental impact. "Some" EI would not be enough, and even if it were, there is another assessment the government can do called an Environmental Assessment ("EA") which is basically a less intensive version of an EIS, and it primarily used in situations there would would be "some" impact, but not "significant".
    HK .45C
    HK P2000SK 9mm LEM

    Any questions?

  5. #95
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    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.)
    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.

  6. #96
    Member Array belltoller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spring Lake, NC
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I don't believe the court's order is valid, because the plaintiffs had no standing
    I'm curious how you would argue that the NPCA does not have standing in this case?
    HK .45C
    HK P2000SK 9mm LEM

    Any questions?

  7. #97
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    While that level of corruption certainly happens from time to time, it is very unfair to propose that this is what occurred in this case.
    UNFAIR??? this is our gov't we're talking about, and a political party platform/3rd parties who despise the 2A and the foundation of our country, IMO fairness has nothing to do with it, they work for us

    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

    Quoted by BlackPR
    The whining about a grand Obama conspiracy is just loony, and shows a decided lack in critical thinking skills.
    its not just a Obama conspiracy...its just that much easier for certain things to take place with him in the oval office
    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
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  8. #98
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,054

    Don't enjoy that too much

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Exactly.
    SD, don't enjoy that too much, you might hurt yourself.

    There is still a huge difference between what you have been claiming and what I just stated for this particular set of facts.

  9. #99
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by belltoller View Post
    An EIS is only required when there is "significant" environmental impact. "Some" EI would not be enough, and even if it were, there is another assessment the government can do called an Environmental Assessment ("EA") which is basically a less intensive version of an EIS, and it primarily used in situations there would would be "some" impact, but not "significant".
    They didn't do either one. That's the problem.

    All of you folks who keep talking about lead really need to read the opinion so you know what's going on and can properly discuss it.
    Last edited by sgtD; March 22nd, 2009 at 03:20 AM.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  10. #100
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    ...this is much faster then I thought. Man, oh man, it is going to be a long few years

  11. #101
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Exactly.
    Here we go again!!!!

    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.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

  12. #102
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    Here we go again!!!!

    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.
    I humbly stand corrected. As most regular readers know, I am adamantly opposed to judicial review. However, it is very clear that in this case our Representatives have enacted legislation to empower the courts to take this action. Very, very different than the courts empowering themselves.

    sgtD, thanks for a very informative post.

  13. #103
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,054

    Not quite so right

    Quote Originally Posted by sgtD View Post
    Here we go again!!!!

    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.
    Of course there has to be judicial review of decisions for aggrieved parties and the rule makers must have to make rules consistent with other legislation which is pertinent. When they don't do this there has to be review.

    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?

  14. #104
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    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.'
    "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?

  15. #105
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    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?


    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.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast

Sponsored 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, 08:01 PM
  2. National Parks and such
    By Agave in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 8th, 2008, 08:02 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, 01:54 PM
  4. Federal Court Blocks Bloomberg Move
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 10:19 PM
  5. CCW In National Parks
    By Captain Crunch in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 29th, 2006, 01:29 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.