Concealed Carry in National Parks Suspended -- NRA Files Motion To Appeal

Gamuru · 03-21-2009, 06:29 AM

Posted on the NRA's website concerning concealed carry on federal lands:

Quote:

Friday, March 20, 2009

On Thursday, March 19, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges.

In Thursday's ruling, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior rule that took effect on January 9, 2009. The revised rule allowed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense in national parks and national wildlife refuges located in states that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Today, NRA filed a notice of appeal in Federal District Court to oppose the preliminary injunction.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, "NRA is moving aggressively to protect this common sense rule and that's why we filed this notice of appeal today. Just as we did not give up the fight to change the old, outdated rule, we will not give up our fight in the courts to defend the rule change. We will pursue every legal avenue to defend the American people's right of self-defense."

Until further notice, individuals cannot legally carry loaded, concealed firearms for personal protection in national parks and wildlife refuges.

UPDATE: This Washington Post article gave the Why? behind the ruling:

Quote:

[U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly] noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not "authorize" environmental impacts. Calling this a "tautology," she wrote that officials "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation" to evaluate environmental impacts and "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts" of the rule.

So, the injunction was granted because the government didn't do an environmental impact study when it issued its new rule? And what, pray tell, would be the impact of people carrying a concealed weapon? Would it somehow be more than carrying a concealed wallet or a concealed drinking straw? I see no need for an impact study. It's just a smoke screen; a BS excuse to stop the process by the liberals.

gusgus · 03-22-2009, 07:49 PM

Impact, I like impact.

Picture hiking into the same country which the Bear man (read he was a dillweed without a clue) was eaten along with his less than intelligent girlfriend, unarmed.

More Grizzilies than anywhere in America, yet it is not legal to have a weapon.

My answer is and always was "yea riiight!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamuru

Posted on the NRA's website concerning concealed carry on federal lands:

UPDATE: This Washington Post article gave the Why? behind the ruling:

So, the injunction was granted because the government didn't do an environmental impact study when it issued its new rule? And what, pray tell, would be the impact of people carrying a concealed weapon? Would it somehow be more than carrying a concealed wallet or a concealed drinking straw? I see no need for an impact study. It's just a smoke screen; a BS excuse to stop the process by the liberals.

GixxerPete · 03-23-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamuru

Posted on the NRA's website concerning concealed carry on federal lands:

UPDATE: This Washington Post article gave the Why? behind the ruling:

So, the injunction was granted because the government didn't do an environmental impact study when it issued its new rule? And what, pray tell, would be the impact of people carrying a concealed weapon? Would it somehow be more than carrying a concealed wallet or a concealed drinking straw? I see no need for an impact study. It's just a smoke screen; a BS excuse to stop the process by the liberals.

Clearly the added weight per park visitor of their concealed weapon (1-3 lbs or so, depending on weapon of choice) would have a dramatic negative effect on the parks: excessive wear on the trail systems, park benches, etc etc. By banning this extra tonnage in our state parks, we guarantee the integrity of the trail systems & other facilities for generations to come.

Coug91 · 03-23-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GixxerPete

Clearly the added weight per park visitor of their concealed weapon (1-3 lbs or so, depending on weapon of choice) would have a dramatic negative effect on the parks: excessive wear on the trail systems, park benches, etc etc. By banning this extra tonnage in our state parks, we guarantee the integrity of the trail systems & other facilities for generations to come.

Just make the fatties pay a per pound entrance fee - $0.25 per pound for every pound over your max ideal body weight.