Brady Bunch sues to stop CC in Nat Parks

[Red Hat]

What bothers me most of all is that the Brady Bunch is redressing their grievance of a clear discretionary executive power within the judicial branch. This is a huge slippery slope for the court to endeavor.

The court should dismiss this action, under the constitutional political doctrine of the separation of powers.

I agree. The track record for courts legislating from the bench is not good. The problem now is the libs have control and all appointments will be people that will legislate from the bench.

 

[gvaldeg1]

What bothers me most of all is that the Brady Bunch is redressing their grievance of a clear discretionary executive power within the judicial branch. This is a huge slippery slope for the court to endeavor.

The court should dismiss this action, under the constitutional political doctrine of the separation of powers.

That is an absolutely brilliant comment Steelhorse! On that basis alone, the Court should not grant the lawsuit "certiorari" and basically refuse to even hear it.

 

[Colt 45]

I guess they think that the BGs have been waiting for years for them to make it legal to carry in National Parks, just so they can get a legal permit to carry and walk into a National Park and wreak havoc. That makes a lot of sense.

Max

 

[HK4U]

I guess they think that the BGs have been waiting for years for them to make it legal to carry in National Parks, just so they can get a legal permit to carry and walk into a National Park and wreak havoc. That makes a lot of sense.

Max

Sense and the Brady Bunch are two terms that do not go together.

 

[tattedupboy]

That is an absolutely brilliant comment Steelhorse! On that basis alone, the Court should not grant the lawsuit "certiorari" and basically refuse to even hear it.

And in the unlikely event that the Court does overturn this decision, we can expect the Obama administration to uphold it. Based on the merits of the case alone, I don't think it'll get anywhere, but I've been wrong before.

 

[Red Hat]

Brady is off-target

Here are a couple of the few rebuttals to the lawsuit. About 99% of the articles on this subject have been against CC in Nat Parks. They are now using the Brady Bunch talking point, "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks." Which makes no sense at all!

Link Removed

Brady is off-target
By The Daily Sentinel

Friday, January 02, 2009

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is out to block the right of individuals to carry concealed weapons on national park property.

That’s hardly surprising, given the Brady group’s historic fight against handguns. What is unexpected is the organization’s claim about why the ruling by the Bush administration that allows people with concealed-carry permits to bring their guns into national parks and monuments was wrong: It allegedly violates federal environmental regulations.

Oh, come on. Do Brady officials think there will be so much lead flying once guns are allowed in parks and monuments that rivers and streams will be polluted? Do they really believe, as their lawsuit suggests, that concealed weapons pose a serious hazard to endangered species?

We understand Brady arguing against guns in parks as a public-safety issue, but even that argument is difficult to sustain. As one of Brady’s own studies says, it’s tough to determine how many crimes have been committed by people holding legal concealed-carry permits. However, statistics from Florida, where a concealed-carry has been in place since 1987, show only a tiny percentage of permits were revoked because of a gun-related crime.

Also, people with permits are legally able to carry their guns on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property, and there hasn’t been a significant increase in crime on those lands. That’s why 50 U.S. senators, including soon-to-be Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, urged that guns be allowed in parks.

Holders of concealed-carry permits aren’t going to litter park landscapes with shell casings or randomly blast endangered species. This isn’t an environmental issue, despite what the Brady Campaign claims.

Link Removed

Some don't understand Second Amendment


By DAN CARTER
Guest commentary



Dan Thomasson's Dec. 10 column, "Guns in National Parks will cause mayhem," was a very-overdone attempt to sensationalize something small into something big. Basically, the change is whatever concealed-carry law a state has, it will also apply to national parks within the state. Nothing really earth shattering. Since concealed-carry permit holders are not shooting up their home towns, they will probably not begin shooting up national parks. I don't see anything to be alarmed about here. There is however, something alarming about a national syndicated columnist demonstrating such ignorance and arrogance concerning the Constitution and Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia did not have to "Validate the claim of Constitutionally-guaranteed gun privileges for individual Americans." First of all, the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not guarantee "privileges." The Bill of Rights clarifies "rights" that every American has, granted by their creator, that the government can not take away. Secondly, gun ownership by individuals was the Founders' intent from the beginning. If you research the actual words of the Founders of our nation and Constitution, it is very clear how they felt about a man being armed for defense of his person and property, his nation and liberty. There are a number of scholarly works substantiating this. I have seen no historical research to refute it. It was their belief that arms in the hands of honest men would detour criminal activity and government tyranny. Apparently, they are right. In the past two decades a majority of states have allowed for concealed carry of handguns, and have seen decreases in crime. During the same period, England and Australia confiscated guns and crime has risen drastically and continues to do so. Taking guns from the good guys will never convince the bad guys to play nice.

I assume Mr. Thomasson subscribes to the "collective rights" theory. This is a new philosophy of the last 70 or 80 years. The Supreme Court is not supposed to interpret the Constitution. Our government is based on laws, not the opinions of whoever is in charge at the time. That is how dictatorships and monarchies work. The Constitution is written in stone, the Supreme Court is only supposed to see whether or not new legislation violates the premise of the Constitution and amendments as written.

If the Second Amendment means the government has a right to form a military, and the military has the right to be armed, it is very out of place in a document that is widely recognized as stating the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. If we accept that the Second Amendment is about a "collective right," could we not also assume that the other nine may also be "collective rights?" If the Second Amendment is a "collective right" of the state to form a militia, perhaps Amendment 4 means that the "people's" right to be sure in their property means only their "collective" property; in other words, property owned by the state. Perhaps the First Amendment only applies to state organized peaceable assemblies. Could freedom of the press only apply to government publications?

Can the same proposed requirements of gun ownership be placed on other portions of the Bill of Rights? There are a lot of cyber criminals and sexual predators out there, perhaps a background check and waiting period would be prudent before a person can have Internet. If we required people to register what church they affiliate with and strictly control Bibles, Korans, and such, could we not better stop religious fanatics from causing mayhem? Some of these guys have perpetuated mass suicide and murder How many magazines does a person need to subscribe to anyway? A 27-inch television is fine, but anything bigger is just unnecessary for the general public to posses, and those 400-watt sub woofers, no way. Way too powerful for ordinary people to handle without disrupting the peace of the community. I-phones and Blackberries are way too powerful and concealable to carry without a permit.

There are of course some limitations on most all activities. However, we as citizens are generally trusted to use these and many other rights without government interference unless we violate laws or standards of decency that disrupt and harm others, then, the law will interfere. If we must seek government permission, it is not a right of freemen, but as Mr. Thomasson suggests, a privilege granted by government.

It seems that there are those who believe that merely possessing a gun makes a person a menace to society. There are over 700 million gun owners in this nation. I don't think we have even close to 700 million menaces. (see note at the bottom) There doesn't seem to be a very strong link here to justify arbitrarily interfering with one specific right of people who wish to access it. What other part of our Constitution would we be willing to give up just because there is someone who doesn't like it?

Before we start down a road we must look carefully ahead and see what could be at the end of the road. We can start a bad precedence. Smoking bans started with just some reasonable indoor public restrictions. Look where it has gone now? I am not a smoker but I detest the way government has micro-managed a person's choice to smoke. This is definitely a dangerous road for anyone who relishes liberty, particularly at a time when the federal government seems to completely disregard the Constitutional limits of the government's reach. Restrictions or meddling placed on one right today may be placed on another tomorrow, and once the government has done something it is very hard to undo it. Precedence from one case often spills over into another.

The Bill of Rights is a complete package, one leg supports the others. We can't pick and choose which parts we like and will uphold, and which ones we dislike and will let fall. If the structure is weakened by any one leg collapsing, we endanger the integrity of the whole structure. If we pick and choose to our liking, then others can pick and choose to theirs, their choices being different than ours That can't work. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a complete, package deal, if we discredit one part, then we risk losing the whole. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but without our swords, they can close our churches, stop our presses and take our property. A few formerly free countries thought, "that will never happen" -- but it did.

We have reached a sad time indeed when half of our Supreme Court does not understand the historical foundation of, nor have respect for, the law it has sworn to uphold and instead uses its position to insert their own opinions. Changing the Constitution is a long and tenuous process requiring a huge majority of our population to support it. It is not an undertaking to be left to a hand-full of elitist judges, politicians and journalists who sneer down their superior noses at us commoners who actually still believe in the sanctity of our Constitution.

Dan Carter is a resident of Layton.

There are over 700 million gun owners in this nation. I don't think we have even close to 700 million menaces

He made a typo in this statement. There are about 70 million gunowners in the US not 700 mil. 70 mil is a 2006 estimate. Since Hussein was elected that number has grown. A lot of first time gun owners have bought firearms in the last few months.

 

[Jes]

Timely article

Here is a timely article from FOX on the 1 year anniversary of that GA hikers murder.
Link Removed
How would the brady bunch prevent this? Of course this couldn't have really happened right? I mean we made a law against murder?!?

ATHENS, Ga. — Friends of Meredith Emerson were distraught when she disappeared while hiking in north Georgia on New Year's Day a year ago. They were devastated when the 24-year-old University of Georgia graduate was found murdered one week later.

cont....

 

[gpbarth]

As far as the Brady bunch is concerned, ANY gun owner is dangerous. Their take is that if you are not military or law enforcement, you do not need a gun, period. Even hunting is frowned upon - after all, you can buy anything you want in the grocery store, so why do we need to go out and kill Bambi?

Well, they're up against people who believe that the only way we can be safe is if we have the right to protect ourselves. Just like cars kill (hundreds of) thousands of people every year, no one (but a moron) would think of outlawing cars except for public transportation/taxis. The Brady group is arguing a non-argument and actually expecting to win. The scary thing is that they're even being listened to.

 

[ecocks]

For anyone looking to pitch in on another forum on this subject:

Brady Campaign Sues to Stop National Park Gun Rule | Travel & Outdoors | New West Network

 

[gdcleanfun]

Here is a timely article from FOX on the 1 year anniversary of that GA hikers murder.
Link Removed
How would the brady bunch prevent this? Of course this couldn't have really happened right? I mean we made a law against murder?!?

ATHENS, Ga. — Friends of Meredith Emerson were distraught when she disappeared while hiking in north Georgia on New Year's Day a year ago. They were devastated when the 24-year-old University of Georgia graduate was found murdered one week later.

cont....

Well, duh, If this gal had been armed she might at least have had a good chance of still being here, but then, isn't that the whole point?

 

[Steelhorse]

Anyone else remember when Florida went RTC in the mid 80's? The predictions from the left, were that the entire state would essentially turn into a western cowboy movie bloodbath with the influx of "ordinary folk" with a pistol on their hip.

Then other states started RTC, each time the same predictions were made.

Now it's the National Parks, and the same tired, old prediction is rearing it's head once again.

Albert Einstein is attributed the quotation of defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Perhaps the Brady Bunch require some time in the political sanitarium.

 

[tattedupboy]

Let's just hope that some anti gun wacko judge like Jack Weinstein doesn't get to preside over the case. As long as that's not the case, I can't honestly see how this doesn't get dismissed.

 

[rt48]

So how many people think the Obama administration will bother defending the rule in court? If no one shows up in court to defend the rule, the Bradys will win by default.

 

[PlayLoud]

Maybe that's why Bush signed the order. He wanted to put Obama on the spot.

 

[gvaldeg1]

The Regulation allowing concealed carry in National Parks goes into effect on January 9th. Has anyone in here heard anything more about the asinine lawsuit from the Brady Bunch. They were seeking an injunction to block it immediately. Let's just hope that the Federal Court Judge has enough sense not to grant it.

 

[tattedupboy]

If this gets resolved before Bush leaves office, as it appear it will, I think that the CC ruling will stand. January 20 is the day to circle on the calendar, not just for the Obama inauguration, but for all things gun related.

 

[gvaldeg1]

Maybe that's why Bush signed the order. He wanted to put Obama on the spot.

Bush didn't sign the Order! It was signed by Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Here's a link to the whole text of the Order in the Federal Register:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29249.pdf

I really get a big kick out of misinformed people who try to pass off their own opinions as fact. For instance "he wanted to put Obama on the spot"! Gimme a beak PlayLoud. Or, are you just "playing loud"?

 

[mtndwell]

Does anyone know if they were successful in their request for the injunction? I haven't see anything yet and today is the day.

 

[gvaldeg1]

Does anyone know if they were successful in their request for the injunction? I haven't see anything yet and today is the day.

You are right! It went into effect today (January 9th)! I have seen nothing in the news and can't find anything about it on the net. My assumption is that the suit from the Brady Bunch was quashed. In any event...once something like this is in effect, it's very hard to stop or change.

 

[tattedupboy]

You are right! It went into effect today (January 9th)! I have seen nothing in the news and can't find anything about it on the net. My assumption is that the suit from the Brady Bunch was quashed. In any event...once something like this is in effect, it's very hard to stop or change.

Not very surprising considering that Obama hasn't taken office yet. However, once he does take office, we can expect good news events to be few and far in between.