Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 104

Thread: Brady Group Sues to Stop Concealed Weapons in Federal Parks

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...KwnFwD95D7ILG0

    Group sues to reinstate firearms ban

    By JESSE J. HOLLAND

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued the Bush administration Tuesday in hopes of stopping a new policy that would allow people to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

    "The Bush administration's last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law," said Paul Helmke, the group's president. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."

    An Interior Department spokeswoman refused to comment on the lawsuit, saying the department does not discuss pending litigation.

    The Brady Campaign sued the Interior Department and its secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, as well as the leaders of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service in U.S. District Court. They want a federal judge to issue an immediate injunction stopping the elimination of the 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

    The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

    But under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

    The rules change would take effect before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January. Overturning the rule would take months or even years if the Obama administration wanted to, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."


  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Another article here:

    http://www.newwest.net/topic/article..._rule/C41/L41/

    GROUP SAYS RULE VIOLATES SEVERAL FEDERAL LAWS
    Brady Campaign Sues to Stop National Park Gun Rule
    The new rule applies to rural and urban national parks. If it goes into effect on January 9, it would allow concealed firearms on the National Mall just eleven days before the Obama Inaugural Celebration.

    By Bill Schneider, 12-30-08

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, America’s largest anti-gun organization, sued the Department of the Interior today to prevent the implementation of the controversial administrative rule allowing loaded and concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    “The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, in a press release. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”

    In a phone interview with NewWest.Net, Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney for the Brady’s Legal Action Project, said his group “is looking at all options,” but thought it was vital to file the lawsuit as soon as possible instead of waiting to let the rule go into effect and work through the long political process of trying to get the Obama administration to overturn it.

    Many other groups also oppose the rule, he noted, but at this point the Brady Campaign is going it alone with this lawsuit with no co-plaintiffs.

    “The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.”

    The Washington Post had estimated that as many as five million people will be in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Obama inauguration, predicting that the celebration might be “the single biggest gathering of people America has ever seen.”

    “This rule affects both rural and urban parks like the Liberty Bell,” Vice said. “Some of our members are now afraid to take their kids to Ellis Island.”

    This is why the lawsuit asks for a temporary injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect on January 9, he added. “But we’re concerned about all the parks, not just the urban parks.”

    The fundamental legal issue, Vice explained, is that the rule violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    “They (Interior Department) did no environmental analysis or review at all,” he explained. “When you have so many people with strong opinions on both sides of an issue, it’s important to follow the law and do a review process.”

    Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA, Vice answered, “Even Reagan did this.”

    He refers to the NEPA analysis and review President Ronald Reagan’s administration conducted when the current rule, which requires guns to be unloaded and inaccessible when taken into national parks, was implemented in early 1980s. “This rule should at least require the same review,” Vice insisted.

    According to the Brady Campaign press release, the new rule also violates the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.

    You can read the entire legal complaint here.

    Link to complaint is: http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pd...-complaint.pdf


  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."
    And nothing of value was lost.

    People have the right to self defense, it's a natural right. People also have the right to live in a bubble or seal themselves in their house if they're SO afraid for their lives.

    Good riddance, I don't need any Brady Campaign members in any of the parks I visit.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Looks like they are once again appealing to totally erroneous fear-mongering:

    The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.
    How do these people keep from getting hit by bolts of lightning for lying so blatantly?

    TFred


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA...
    Actually, to my recollection, this was exactly the reason given in the revision for not conducting an environmental study.

    From the Department of the Interior:

    "Issue 11: The proposed rule should have been subjected to a full
    environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act so
    that the public could comment on the impacts of the rule on the
    environment.

    Response 11: The Department agrees that policies and rules which
    have a significant effect on the environment must be fully analyzed
    under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Consistent with this commitment, we have
    analyzed the final rule under NEPA and concluded that (i) the action is
    subject to a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210 since the final
    regulation is in the nature of a legal change to existing regulations,
    and (ii) no ``extraordinary circumstances'' exist which would prevent
    the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded.
    Id. This decision is fully described in our decision document dated
    November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at {weblink cut}"

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    There are somethings that even a bolt of lightning won't touch. Notice how Sarah Brady doesn't complain ever of STDs?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Wow, we as gun owners really have the Brady Bunch against the ropes. They are pulling out all the stops and resorting to outright boldfaced lying.
    Evironmental impact?!?!? WTF?!?!? Don't worry Brady's, I won't bring my low yield tactical nuke hollowpoints into the park...idiots...
    Oh, and they totally ignore the fact (a word they've disassociated with) that only states that have CC provisions can allow LAC's with CCW's into the parks. Ellis Island doesn't count since CC isn't allowed in NYC (for the most part) and they don't honor any other states CCW. The National Mall is the same thing.
    So they are "boycotting" NP's? Good. Stay out. Go live in the city and deal with the druggies and homeless. ********...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."
    So does this mean the Brady Bunch will no longer be going out in public where it is permitted to carry a firearm concealed because they fear for their safety? If they fear for their safety where guns are allowed then maybe they should pack heat. I'm so tired of people thinking they can force me or my family to be a victim.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I really firmly believe that gun control has failed. The Brady Bunch are a political embarrassment. It's over. This pathetic flail will accomplish nothing more than getting the Brady Bunch publicity one last time.

    Their back has been broken; all that remains is the tedious chore of sweeping aside all the rotting detritus they left in their wake.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    FoGKeebler wrote:
    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

    *
    So does this mean the Brady Bunch will no longer be going out in public where it is permitted to carry a firearm concealed because they fear for their safety? If they fear for their safety where guns are allowed then maybe they should pack heat. I'm so tired of people thinking they can force me or my family to be a victim.
    It means that soon they will be too afraid to leave their houses, and victory will be complete. Our enemies will cower in fear from circumstances of their own design.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    What is it going to take for these law making gun control freaks to realize that LAWS AFFECT THE LAW ABIDING, NOT CRIMINALS!??! I don't fear a law abiding person carrying a gun, visible or not. I fear the criminal who carries, no matter how he carries.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lake Normanopolis, NC
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    What is it going to take?

    It will take that person to be a victim. I honestly hope they're not hurt but I believe that's what it will take to turn the opinions of diehard antis.A close relative, friend, co-worker won't do it asthat will just enable them to focus blame.

    Personal experience opens the door for change. But then... Some need to be slapped by reality more than once. As they say, you can't fix stupid.

    -R



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    I like many of you know the brady camps propaganda and what they really mean when they say what they say. Now it's the most clear it has ever been. Saying that letting people with concealed weapons permits carry in national parks=letting dangerous people carry guns is as transparent as it gets. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind if there ever was that that groups only purpose is to disarm us. BRING IT ON

  14. #14
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    tito887 wrote:
    I like many of you know the brady camps propaganda and what they really mean when they say what they say. Now it's the most clear it has ever been. Saying that letting people with concealed weapons permits carry in national parks=letting dangerous people carry guns is as transparent as it gets. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind if there ever was that that groups only purpose is to disarm us. BRING IT ON
    Oh, yes. :X
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The truth always come out when pressured. Further evidence that Brady is buckling at the knees.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Several years ago, I tried to get a law suit against the Brady bunch for libel, slander, defamation or what ever could be brought against them for classifying me as a threat.

    Perhaps it is time to sue THEM into submission?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Good idea. I feel personally libeled. Class-action anybody?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    To this day, I think a class action suit is warranted. This was WELL received on another forum and just kinda petered out after awhile. We need an attorney to take the case and sue the Brady bunch to theHell from whence they emerged.

  19. #19
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    I think, like the libs/antis do all the time....our struggle should be relabeled from 'gun rights' to 'self defense rights'. It seems to me that the vaguer and more emotional you make the topic the more people pay attention to it and buy into it. 'Gun rights' sometimes seems to create a predetermined negative position without the public really understanding the motives.



  20. #20
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    "The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

    Well, their absence from the National Parks wont dent the number of visiters in any noticable way since there's, if turnouts at Brady Bunch demonstrations is any indicator, about2 dozen members of the Brady bunch.

    But any reduction of the number ofmorons in the Parks is a good thing....

    III

    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    I sent them a thank you note for staying away from National Parks.:celebrate

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A96F958260

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6353

    Hows that gun ban working our for ya Brady Bunch? I know I feel safer

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...KwnFwD95D7ILG0

    Group sues to reinstate firearms ban

    ...SNIP...
    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."
    The down side of that sort of boycott would be ...??
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  24. #24
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...KwnFwD95D7ILG0

    Group sues to reinstate firearms ban

    ...SNIP...
    The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."
    The down side of that sort of boycott would be ...??
    It really is funny if you think about it.

    A certain percentage of the population has a CHP or equivalent, and a certain percentage of those people are actually carrying a gun.

    Now based on the fact that all "people in general" have a need to go to places like the store, the bank, the gas station, etc. but that all "people in general" do not have a need to go to a National Park, it seems that one is much more likely to encounter a person carrying a gun in their normal day-to-day activities around town, than in a National Park, simply because there are more people in stores than in National Parks.

    And even if that logic is a bit of a stretch, one is certainly hard pressed to argue that there would be more gun carriers in a National Park than one might encounter during any other ordinary day-to-day activity.

    As with everything these Brady folks put out, it not only doesn't make sense, it's the opposite of what does make sense! I think I've just confirmed why liberals support the unionization of our school system.

    TFred


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Now who didn't see this coming?

    So only pot growers and smugglers can go armed in the national parks?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •