Federal Judge grants Brady's motion to invalidate National Park Carry

imported post

Federal Judge grants Brady's motion to invalidate National Park Carry



-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Van Cleave
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Subject: VA-ALERT: Judge temporarily blocks National Park carry



----------------------------------------------------------------------

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a breaking story on the Washington Post, a judge has

placed a temporary block on carry in National Parks because the DOI's

process in doing the new rule was "outstandingly flawed."



Oh, baloney.



Anyway, we have not seen the actual ruling.



I expect this to be appealed and hopefully to get overturned. This

might also provide the impetus to pass a bill to allow carry and

bypass the DOI completely.



However, this just goes to show you that if you get the right judge

you can get a ruling that says the moon is made of green cheese.



In the meantime you might want to stop carrying in National Parks

until we get more information on this issue.



We'll keep you updated.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/19/AR2009031902801.html?hpid=moreheadlines



http://tinyurl.com/decxmt



Judge Blocks Bush Rule Allowing Concealed Weapons in National Parks



By Del Quentin Wilber

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 19, 2009; 5:35 PM



A federal judge today blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President

Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.



U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary

injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and

environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the

injunction against the controversial rule.



The three groups that brought the suit -- the Brady Campaign to

Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and

the Coalition of National Park Service Retires -- argued the Bush

Administration violated several laws in issuing the rule.



In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government's process had

been "astoundingly flawed."



The regulation took effect Jan. 9 and allowed visitors to carry loaded

concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. In the past,

they had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored

or dismantled.







-------------------------------------------

***************************************************************************

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization

dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to

Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.



VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org

***************************************************************************

IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.

To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you

receive messages, please go to:

https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=700018&id_secret=700018-67123f3d

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

imported post

As if the U.S. had any other reason to be really, really, angry. This country is turning into a powder keg.

imported post

The Brady Campaign to Protect Rapists strikes again!

I have enjoyed hitting up the National Parks exercising my right to protect myself.

I guess the Potomac has been running red with blood since National Park Carry went into effect.

imported post

An injunction, by definition, enjoins a party or parties from doing certain things.

In this case, it seems to me that the injunction must be against enforcement of the new Rule. But since the Rule is permissive in natureand not prohibitive, there is nothing to "not enforce".

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

An injunction, by definition, enjoins a party or parties from doing certain things.

In this case, it seems to me that the injunction must be against enforcement of the new Rule. But since the Rule is permissive in natureand not prohibitive, there is nothing to "not enforce".

Click to expand...

Ain't lawyerin' fun