Just in - court blocks rule allowing CCW in National Parks

[DOGOFWAR01]

Simple solution, deep six all gun laws except the Second Amendment. Enough said.

Next get all the Commies, Nazis, Facist, and Socialist out of office one way or another and keep them out. Enough said.

Seal the Borders and established a "dead man's zone" on the Borders.

Death sentence for murders, rapists, robberies, vehicle thefts, gang members, and drug runners, no jail time over 30 days just Death sentence every Saturday at Noon on the Court House Squares across the Country open to the Public for viewing free of charge.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

SD,

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.

Or perhaps the judge made an error. Same end result either way, and not good.

[SelfDefense]

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.

sgtD, you did a great job with the US Code so there is really nothing with which to take issue. You did not make an unqualified assertion. You provided irrefutable evidence as to why judicial review was warranted.

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 agree completely. It doesn't take much to assume aggrieved status.

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.

Indeed. The President has little real power, except in a time of war because of his power as Commander-in-Chief. The real power is vested with the people. The biggest influence any President has is the Constitutional power to appoint Federal judges. Of course, Congress can dissolve every Federal court (except the Supreme Court) if we so choose.

While many lament this turn around, the people have decided to check Executive power. That is quite different than the judicial review many here support, that of overturning legislation, the will of the people.

[Hopyard]

While many lament this turn around, the people have decided to check Executive power. That is quite different than the judicial review many here support, that of overturning legislation, the will of the people.

Not quite. Agency rule making authority comes from laws having been passed creating Agencies and giving them that authority, and not from executive authority by itself.

E.g., Congress creates Agency A to deal with issues B & C , and perhaps make regulations regarding how B will operate, but reserving action on C to Congress itself.

So, it is not executive authority that is being checked in a case like this one we are discussing, but authority granted to NPS by legislation. Hence, the judge was reviewing--to use an overused word these days-- a derivative of legislation. Back to our long standing discussion (which no one else is really interested in, I suspect) regarding judicial review.

Told you not to laugh too hard at my earlier comment.

[SelfDefense]

Not quite. Agency rule making authority comes from laws having been passed creating Agencies and giving them that authority, and not from executive authority by itself.

E.g., Congress creates Agency A to deal with issues B & C , and perhaps make regulations regarding how B will operate, but reserving action on C to Congress itself.

So, it is not executive authority that is being checked in a case like this one we are discussing, but authority granted to NPS by legislation. Hence, the judge was reviewing--to use an overused word these days-- a derivative of legislation. Back to our long standing discussion (which no one else is really interested in, I suspect) regarding judicial review.

It was my understanding that it was a Bush executive order. The agencies, no matter how they are created, are under the executive branch. Even Federal Courts, that Congress creates at their pleasure, are still subject to Executive appointments.

It is exactly the Executive power (of Bush) that was reviewed. I imagine you would want an Obama executive order to confiscate guns reviewd by a court, no?

Told you not to laugh too hard at my earlier comment.

I never laugh.

[DOGOFWAR01]

A Right not exercised is a Right losted.

in general terms, Open carry is what good people did until about more or less 1900 then nothing then recent years it is in many people minds vogue to carry concealed, have multi worthless sorry pieces of paper called permits or licenses to carry concealed to make some people feel special or superior or whatever term they fancy themselves.

Yes I have a worthless piece of paper I had to pay the govt for so I could concealed - Yes I had to pay money to exercise my God-given Right to protect me and mine by carrying concealed. Stupid laws, made by People Control Freaks we elect as representatives of the people, sheriff, attorneys, etc - yes we did it to ourselves. Stupid.

The way it should be:

Carry anyway you like - concealed or open, this should be your option not the govt's option.

Carry anything you want - handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife, tomahawk, or whatever, this should be your option not the the govt's option.

Carry where ever you want - home, to work (not in work - your employer's option), church, post office, any govt building (pay for with your taxes), this should be your option not the the govt's option.

Carry anytime you want - day or night, this should be your option not the the govt's option.

Do not need stinking pieces of paper (Permit or License), this should be your option not the the govt's option.

A word on felons, if you are a felon then in most cases you should be hung or shot, in a few cases in jail - if you use to be a felon and are out of jail then you did your time and are a free man - so you can have guns and carry guns just like anyone else otherwise you should be hung or shot or in jail.

Only gun law the USA needs is the Second Amendment.

A Right not exercised is a Right losted.

[Miggy]

And so is the grammar & spelling

[Hopyard]

It was my understanding that it was a Bush executive order. The agencies, no matter how they are created, are under the executive branch. Even Federal Courts, that Congress creates at their pleasure, are still subject to Executive appointments.

It is exactly the Executive power (of Bush) that was reviewed. I imagine you would want an Obama executive order to confiscate guns reviewd by a court, no?

I never laugh.

Figured as much, that you never laugh.

Anyway, let's clear up something. Agencies of the Executive Branch are creations of Congress through legislation. E.g., Dept. of Homeland Security is a creation of Congress. Their ability to make rules that affect the rest of us comes from Congress through legislation authorizing and prescribing how rules are to be made and by what authority. With some exceptions for national security, proposed rules are published in The Federal Register, there is a public comment period, there are then published Agency responses, and a publication of the final rules, after approval by other governmental Agencies such as OMB, final approval sometimes by White House staff, and for example, sometimes concurrence of key legislative committees; which do sometimes not like proposed rules at all and can block them or threaten to take actions which effective block the proposed rule from going forward.

Earlier in this thread there was a reference to comments that the NPS received during the public comment phase of the rule making process. Therefore, the proposed change, the change which now has an injunction against it, was not something done by a presidential order but by the much more orderly process of rule making. It might be that the idea to make the rule originated with The Executive, but the rule making goes through a process. Rule making is an odd kind of process in that legislation is happening, but it is happening through actions of an Executive Agency.

E.g., Congress creates an Agency with a mission to supervise the commerce of widgets. Congress is uninterested in the nitty gritty and leaves that to rule making by the created Agency.

Now, getting back to another theme here, tin foil hats, that is the category in which the last sentence in the quoted material above fits. It is an absurd hypothetical that not only wouldn't happen but couldn't happen.

[sgtD]

Figured as much, that you never laugh.

Anyway, let's clear up something. Agencies of the Executive Branch are creations of Congress through legislation. E.g., Dept. of Homeland Security is a creation of Congress. Their ability to make rules that affect the rest of us comes from Congress through legislation authorizing and prescribing how rules are to be made and by what authority. With some exceptions for national security, proposed rules are published in The Federal Register, there is a public comment period, there are then published Agency responses, and a publication of the final rules, after approval by other governmental Agencies such as OMB, final approval sometimes by White House staff, and for example, sometimes concurrence of key legislative committees; which do sometimes not like proposed rules at all and can block them or threaten to take actions which effective block the proposed rule from going forward.

Earlier in this thread there was a reference to comments that the NPS received during the public comment phase of the rule making process. Therefore, the proposed change, the change which now has an injunction against it, was not something done by a presidential order but by the much more orderly process of rule making. It might be that the idea to make the rule originated with The Executive, but the rule making goes through a process. Rule making is an odd kind of process in that legislation is happening, but it is happening through actions of an Executive Agency.

E.g., Congress creates an Agency with a mission to supervise the commerce of widgets. Congress is uninterested in the nitty gritty and leaves that to rule making by the created Agency.

Now, getting back to another theme here, tin foil hats, that is the category in which the last sentence in the quoted material above fits. It is an absurd hypothetical that not only wouldn't happen but couldn't happen.

Agreed Hopyard, but I think SD does have a point and one that we should all be aware of. While it is not a direct executive decision like he was saying, his point is a valid one; in that we may not like the outcome of this case, but it is important to allow judical review of admin. agencies. Otherwise, the "executive branch" through its agencies would be allowed to try to get around polcies and procedures, until such time that Congress stepped in that is.

Depending on the outcome and which side your on, all laws can be used as either a sword or a sheild. I for one am thankful for checks and balances when they work, even when they work agaist my side.

BTW - It's nice to see you two getting along with one another so well.

[Hopyard]

Agreed Hopyard, but I think SD does have a point and one that we should all be aware of. While it is not a direct executive decision like he was saying, his point is a valid one; in that we may not like the outcome of this case, but it is important to allow judical review of admin. agencies.

Absolutely he has a point, provided that the judicial reviewer doesn't lean over and tilt or twist backward to allow an allegedly "aggrieved" party who shouldn't have standing in the first place get into court. As I wrote earlier, I think the judge goofed. But that is my layperson's opinion and I am certainly biased in favor of one side on the broader issue of cc in the parks.*

SD and I have a significant difference of opinion. I believe it is he who opposes judicial review of legislative action, period. He seems to believe that any such review is not provided for in our founding document and is therefore illegitimate. That is where he and I disagree. Legislative actions are subject to judicial review to make certain they don't conflict with other existing law or violate existing rights, and similar such niceties. And so too, rule making.
______________________________________________
*I'm all for judicial review of Agency rule making, because that is the only real check on the rule making process other than to get Congress to step up to the plate and act responsibly-near impossible.
If a rule causes harm, creates an aggrieved person, they need redress. You pointed that out earlier. All I said earlier was that setting policy by itself is not the job of a judge. NPS developed a cc policy and I don't believe there actually was an aggrieved party with standing.

I know of Agency regulations which have caused a great deal of harm to individuals, to employers, and to commerce, and where because of the high costs of litigation and the complexities of suing Uncle, the aggrieved can't get their day in court. One Agency knows darn well the harm they are doing, knows they are violating current law, but the political appointees heading it will not lift a finger to change regulations instituted during the Reagan administration. (Haven't yet communicated with the new appointees and don't even know if any have been appointed just yet.) The Agency responds only to the wishes of a narrow industry segment with lots of dough and cares nothing about right and wrong. No need to go into it here, but stuff happens. Money talks.