Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Federal judge blocks CCW in national parks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    A federal judge has blocked the new CCW rule in national parks.

    Thatguy Workman comes out swinging with bare knuckles in his new Seattle Gun Rights Examiner column:
    http://tinyurl.com/parksCCW
    and if that doesn't work, try this:
    http://www.examiner.com%2Fx-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m3d20-Blocking-CCW-in-national-parks-helps-antigunners-suppress-the-truth

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    All I can say is WOW!
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Joe:

    Feel free to forward those links to everyone you know, on every blog, every website, every chat group you visit.

    And thanks for the kind "WOW!"





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    I got this email from a friend while on my planning period at high school Good thing there weren't kids in the room because I used words that I'm pretty sure their parents wouldn't approve of them hearing at school.

    This judge is a travesty. I read the entire ruling and I still can't see where there is going to be any irreparable harm to the national parks or the Brady Bunch if the rule is allowed to stand while the court case is going through. What a travesty.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    So in the 2 months and 9 days how many gun incidents were there? How many poaching incidents were there? How many animals were harmed by bullets?

    According to them there should have been bloodshed as soon as this was allowed on Jan 11th.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    But the judge did it on an environmental grounds and not a 2nd amendment so they do not have standing to use their normal arguments anymore. At least that is the way I see it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2211970/posts

    National parks gun ruling is judicial activism, not justice
    Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 21 March, 2009 | David Codrea
    Posted on Sunday, March 22, 2009 6:03:20 AM by marktwain
    I'll leave it to others to present statistical arguments refuting U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's insane ruling that an environmental impact study has any relevance to real-world consequences if existing state laws regarding concealed carry are applied in national parks. The crux of her extremist position?
    The lynchpin of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. Let us forgo legalese weasel-wording, because this is, by the kindest interpretation, chicanery. We need to apply a bit of common sense here.
    All one needs do is look at the outstandingly nonviolent record peaceable gun owners have already established. I'm not a believer in permits to exercise a right, but I cede it demonstrable that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. There is simply no reason to believe the track record experienced in 48 states to date will radically change once national park boundary lines have been crossed--especially with the again demonstrable record peaceable gun owners have established in national forests, where the federal ban has not applied.
    But the ignorance and the lies that exploit it are shameful. Ask yourself--what kind of person would rely on these to disarm you?
    The ruling to allow guns does not authorize hunting. Poaching is already illegal.
    The ruling to allow guns does not authorize target shooting. There will be no ranges, no accumulation of discharged bullets and spent casings on national parks land.
    And we again know from experience that most DGUs (defensive gun uses) end without a shot being fired.
    What this means is Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Brady Campaign, et al, subscribe to the perverted value system that the potential for an immeasurable effect on the environment outweighs the right of a human to defend their life and the lives of their loved ones. That is what it boils down to.
    Bottom line: They would rather see you dead than armed. And they'll use the force of the state to bend you to their will.
    That's despicable.
    But fine--let's use their "logic." Let's get equally ridiculous.
    Where are the studies "to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts" of park rangers and law enforcement discharging their weapons? Have they been completed? Based on what? And if so, what basis would anyone have to believe law-abiding citizens would conduct themselves differently? Or do the "Only Ones" magically leave no tracks?
    If the evaluations haven't been completed, doesn't this mean we need to disarm them now--lest the last pristine places on Earth become irrevocably toxic wastelands?
    To suggest that the extremely rare occasion of a discharge in a DGU will have any measurable impact on an environment that can include thermal features exuding (GASP!) "greenhouse gases," or wholesale roadkill slaughter is sheer nonsense. We can't allow anti-human law to be made based on that.
    We need to recall that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."
    We need to recall that the Constitution mandates an express prohibtion on the lawful authority of government, specifically, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    We need to understand the purpose behind ordaining and establishing said Constitution was--and is--to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
    How does ruling from the bench that you or I must place ourselves and our loved ones at risk--because some government bureaucrat didn't crunch some meaningless numbers--accomplish that?
    "[T]he law is a ass- a idiot," the character Mr. Bumble says in Charles Dickens' immortal "Oliver Twist."
    I can't help but wonder what Bumble would say about Colleen Killar-Kotelly.

  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Here is the 44-page, March 19th decision in the case of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Salazar.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    It's time for us to sue. We should be taking the offensive on this, and not allowing our enemies to determine the battle. The park ban cannot stand, after Heller.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    It's time for us to sue. We should be taking the offensive on this, and not allowing our enemies to determine the battle. The park ban cannot stand, after Heller.
    NRA and Mountain States Legal Foundation both filed motions to intervene as defendants, at their own request and were added to the lawsuit. They have already filed an appeal on this. Join the NRA and donate to the MSLF.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    olypendrew wrote:
    It's time for us to sue. We should be taking the offensive on this, and not allowing our enemies to determine the battle. The park ban cannot stand, after Heller.
    NRA and Mountain States Legal Foundation both filed motions to intervene as defendants, at their own request and were added to the lawsuit. They have already filed an appeal on this. Join the NRA and donate to the MSLF.
    I'm saying, we shouldn't be satisfied to defend the current rule, which is unconstitutional in itself. The Second Amendment makes no distinction between concealed weapons and those carried openly. But the rule being defended in he lawsuit requires concealed carry, and doesn't allow one to carry even so much as a flintlock rifle ito the parks. If courts are now to be guided by the historical meaning of the second amendment, how can it be that the federal government can outlaw keeping and bearing a flintlock muzzleloader, while way back in the undeveloped wilderness? Or any other gun?



    I don't think we should be satisfied with the little bone the DOI threw to us.



    Oh, and I've been a life member of the NRA for several years now. Before that I was an annual member for many years. I'll donate to any group that files suit in federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the parks ban violates the 2nd Amendment.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    I'll donate to any group that files suit in federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the parks ban violates the 2nd Amendment.
    +1

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    olypendrew wrote:
    I'll donate to any group that files suit in federal district court for a declaratory judgment that the parks ban violates the 2nd Amendment.
    +1
    Send some dough to the NRA, then, because they're already in court.

    Send some dough to SAF, because they're probably going to file an amicus brief in the case.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    On the NRA web site it states that "Today, NRA filed a notice of appeal in Federal District Court to oppose the preliminary injunction."

    How can the NRA possibly file an appeal, when they aren't even a party to the case?Only thedefendant canappeal the ruling. Go readthe decision at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2008cv2243-44and see who is listed as a defendant -- it's not the NRA.

    Until the NRA can show some documents that they are a party to the case, their claims of filing a notice of appeal should be treatedwith extreme skepticism (think fundraising).


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    On the NRA web site it states that "Today, NRA filed a notice of appeal in Federal District Court to oppose the preliminary injunction."

    How can the NRA possibly file an appeal, when they aren't even a party to the case?Only thedefendant canappeal the ruling. Go readthe decision at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2008cv2243-44and see who is listed as a defendant -- it's not the NRA.

    Until the NRA can show some documents that they are a party to the case, their claims of filing a notice of appeal should be treatedwith extreme skepticism (think fundraising).
    The NRA was granted legal standing in the case. That's been widely reported.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Dave, can you please post a link to the documents filed by the NRA? I'd like to see exactly how the NRA was able to become a party in the case.

    Thank you

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    Dave, can you please post a link to the documents filed by the NRA? I'd like to see exactly how the NRA was able to become a party in the case.

    Thank you
    Follow the link to the original decision by the judge. In the decision she outlines the various motions, including that by the NRA and by the MRLF to be added as defendants.

    But since you linked to the original decision can we assume that you read it first? Might want to take another look. It is quite clear.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    heresolong, I disagree with your conclusion that the ruling is quite clear with respect to NRA's standing in the case. Here's what the document states:

    For reasons the Court shall articulate by separate Order, the Court has allowed both the MSLF and the NRA to intervene as of right as Defendants in the above-captioned cases.8

    As the Court’s separate Order shall indicate, the MSLF and the NRA may intervene subject to limitations prohibiting them from raising claims outside the scope of those raised by the original parties or from raising collateral issues. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 738 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (describing with approval a district court’s use of restrictions on intervenors to facilitate the efficient resolution of the proceedings and to prevent undue delay or prejudice).

    Given the fact that the scope of NRA's involvevement will be defined by "separate Order", it is necessary to read the separate order to see how the "limitations" are defined. In plain English, the above referenced document is incomplete. Now, let's go back and look at the first page of the document that lists the parties. The parties are listed as:

    BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN

    VIOLENCE,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    KENNETH L. SALAZAR, Secretary of the

    United States Department of the Interior,
    et

    al.

    Defendants.
    Notice that the NRA is not listed as a defendant.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    For reasons the Court shall articulate by separate Order, the Court has allowed both the MSLF and the NRA to intervene as of right as Defendants in the above-captioned cases.8

    As the Court’s separate Order shall indicate, the MSLF and the NRA may intervene subject to limitations prohibiting them from raising claims outside the scope of those raised by the original parties or from raising collateral issues.
    Oh for pete's sake. This is getting ridiculous. "The NRA to intervene as of right as Defendants". How less clear can that be?

    You can petition to be allowed to be a defendant. The NRA did. They were added as defendants. The bit you then quoted showing the defendants at the top of the page is irrelevant. That shows only the original parties to the case. The judge allowed the NRA to become a defendant. They can then bring lawyers, file motions, file appeals, etc. You are nitpicking something to death here based on an apparent anti-NRA bias, as evinced by your claim that the NRA was making false claims in order to raise funds.

    They haven't made false claims, they are a defendant. The separate order, as it clearly states above, indicates that they can't talk about anything outside the scope of this case, which means that there are no discussions about 2nd Amendment rights. The discussion is only the legality of the process that the DOI used to adopt this rule.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    44Brent wrote:
    For reasons the Court shall articulate by separate Order, the Court has allowed both the MSLF and the NRA to intervene as of right as Defendants in the above-captioned cases.8

    As the Court’s separate Order shall indicate, the MSLF and the NRA may intervene subject to limitations prohibiting them from raising claims outside the scope of those raised by the original parties or from raising collateral issues.
    Oh for pete's sake. This is getting ridiculous. "The NRA to intervene as of right as of Defendants". How less clear can that be?

    You can petition to be allowed to be a defendant. The NRA did. They were added as defendants. The bit you then quoted showing the defendants at the top of the page is irrelevant. That shows only the original parties to the case. The judge allowed the NRA to become a defendant. They can then bring lawyers, file motions, file appeals, etc. You are nitpicking something to death here based on an apparent anti-NRA bias, as evinced by your claim that the NRA was making false claims in order to raise funds.

    They haven't made false claims, they are a defendant. The separate order, as it clearly states above, indicates that they can't talk about anything outside the scope of this case, which means that there are no discussions about 2nd Amendment rights. The discussion is only the legality of the process that the DOI used to adopt this rule.
    That is the way I read it also.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Posting Permissions

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