imported post
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2211970/posts
[size="+1"]National parks gun ruling is judicial activism, not justice[/size]
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.
