Federal court's injunction against National Park gun ban repeal fails giggle test

imported post

Please read, DIGG, and pass on this Examiner.com news column:

http://tinyurl.com/crellv

SNIP

Don't get me wrong.

US District Court for DC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly might have gotten the law exactly right when she temporarily reversed the administrative repeal of the National Park gun ban on the grounds that the Department of the Interior "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not" [under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.].

But does this opinion pass the giggle test?

. . .

imported post

Environmental impact: weight of firearm may deepen impression of right hiking boot!

imported post

Makes me wonder what excuse will be used next to try to destroy our constitution .

Let ' s make sure we write this rule down and remember it . Perhaps we can use it against the anti-gunners in the future even though this is not a game .

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Environmental impact: weight of firearm may deepen impression of right hiking boot!

Click to expand...

You know, some of us are left handed, Donkey.

Some of you Northpaws even cross-carry. :lol:

imported post

Guilty on the cross-carry. Guess we will all have to pack a gun on each side for proper balance.

imported post

Or enough ammo to counter-balance, good balance and enough ammo are always prime concerns, and you can never have enough of either.

imported post

The question is how was the environmental impact evaluated for park ranger and associated employees when they carry their sidearms or longarms in parks?

imported post

Please, let us not forget to include the increased "carbon footprint" left by each of us as we carry our 50cal personal defense assault pistols and that 1000 rounds of exploding ammo just in case we are to see a crazed killer squirrel in our path at a distance of 3 feet!

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

The question is how was the environmental impact evaluated for park ranger and associated employees when they carry their sidearms or longarms in parks?

Click to expand...

The real question is: Was there an environmental impact study done when they banned guns in the first place?

Who knows... Maybe the occasional chunk of lead is good for the environment...

imported post

You know, the antis are more creative than Vincent Van Gogh ever was (and many times more delusional). This enviro angle is indeed a stretch.

When arguing against Missouri's proposal to become a "shall-issue" state, Hillary Clinton raised the spectre of - get this - "pedophiles with guns hanging out at playgrounds". Now if some perv wants to kidnap a child at gunpoint he is not gonna be concerned about the law (of course) and it would be better he had to worry about mommies with guns watching over that same playground, instead of having to time the police patrols to establish his window of opportunity.

But never mind. It is feeling safe that counts. The passengers in the plane feel safer at a lower altitude, right up until the moment the plane flies into a mountain.

imported post

Now wait what if you have to take a piss in the woods, do you have to wait for an environmental study first, I know you are not allowed to pee in the forest, but man do i have to go BAD!

imported post

Where does lead come from? The ground, or the environment. Shooting a firearm merely puts the lead back to where it came from. The cycle of life.

imported post

zig-zag wrote:

Now wait what if you have to take a piss in the woods, do you have to wait for an environmental study first, I know you are not allowed to pee in the forest, but man do i have to go BAD!

Click to expand...

About a dozen years ago I was at my annual fraternity reunion/campout/"no excuses weekend"/"let's pretend we're still 21 and bulletproof!" celebration of being middle-aged.

We hold this annual event in a U.S. Forest Service "wilderness campground", which means no electricity, no cell phone service, no running water (except the creek), no designated campsites, and no bathrooms except a single USFS "vault toilet" (outhouse) several hundred yards away.

We've been doing this formally since about 1980, and informally even longer. The local USFS folks know that we not only pick up after ourselves, we leave the whole campground cleaner than we found it.

This particular year, some newly-minted Possum Cop came by, and when he stepped out of his truck he almost fell on his face, because that shiny new badge was so heavy on his chest. He was determined to show us who was boss. It takes a special kind of inferiority complex for a 20-something ranger right out of academy to think he has to establish his "a-thor-i-tay" over a couple dozen 40- and 50-something guys sitting quietly around pitching horseshoes, playing hold'em, and drinking beer.

Anyhoo, he actually wrote one guy a ticket for peeing on a tree. When I made it back to civilization and looked up the USC cited on the ticket, it was an EPA violation: "Unauthorized deposit of bodily wastes in a watershed area."

:what:

The ticket went away because even his supervisors thought he was an idiot, but I guess that forever settled the question of what bears do in the woods.