Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

Well, the problem here is that the law does appear to call for an environmental analysis of the impact of the rule change. While I think a great argument can be made that there is no impact, the previous administration did not do that analysis (and if they had, the rule change would not have happened before the change of administration).

As a result, you can make the argument that the environmental analysis needs to be made - and now it will be made by this administration if the appeal is unsuccessful. While that doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling the ridiculousness of asserting that concealed carry has an environmental impact should give a very clear indication of what type of firearms policies the administration will pursue when they have carte blanche.

For what it is worth, this judge has popped up before on firearms-related issues such as McCain-Feingold regulation of the Internet.
 
Folks, did you expect anything different? A lot of you weren't around in the 50s and 60s so you don't really know what struggle it has been to give the citizens other basic rights like voting and the right to peaceably assemble. Back in the 50s and the 60s there were a whole lot of judges who dissented.

For those who are interested here is a link to info about the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: http://www.nradefensefund.org/
 
the ridiculousness of asserting that concealed carry has an environmental impact

The injunction was not issued on the basis on poisoning the air, water, or soil.

Public safety and protection of natural resources are indisputably encompassed within the definition of “environmental impacts” that must be considered pursuant to NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 (defining environmental impacts to include “ecological, . . . aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health,” effects, “whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”).

The Bradys claimed safety ('I don't feel safe in parks when other people have guns') and aesthetic ('I can't sleep for thinking about "seeing or contemplating the bison being killed" by people with guns') impacts.

The judge said that the claims raised by the anti-gun folks (as part of the 125,000 public comments on the proposed regulation) could not just be ignored, but had to be considered and a rational decision had to be reached, with the basis for the decision recorded. The DOI did not document the decision on why the regulation should be exempt from an environmental assessment or impact statement.

The Brady claim of fear that guns would be used in the parks was actually confirmed by the DOI and NRA position that the regulation was intended to allow concealed carry so that people would have guns to use (albeit in self-defense) in the parks. The flaw appears to be that DOI did not explain why the Brady fear was ill-founded.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top