Brady Group Sues to Stop Concealed Weapons in Federal Parks

imported post

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irWgvJzXz3UFknRjrJgjierKwnFwD95D7ILG0

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."

imported post

Another article here:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/brady_campaign_sues_to_stop_national_park_gun_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/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

How do these people keep from getting hit by bolts of lightning for lying so blatantly?

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA...

Click to expand...

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}"

imported post

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

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. Assholes...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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."

 

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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:cuss:

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:cuss:

Click to expand...

Oh, yes. :X

imported post

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

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?:cuss:

imported post

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

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. :exclaim:

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.

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