Brady Bunch sues to stop CC in Nat Parks


Red Hat

New member
Leave it to them to try anything. The problem is the U.S. District Court will probably side with them.:mad:

The Associated Press: Group sues to reinstate firearms ban

Group sues to reinstate firearms ban

By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued the Bush administration Tuesday in hopes of stopping a new policy that would allow people to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

"The Bush administration's last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law," said Paul Helmke, the group's president. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."

An Interior Department spokeswoman refused to comment on the lawsuit, saying the department does not discuss pending litigation.

The Brady Campaign sued the Interior Department and its secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, as well as the leaders of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service in U.S. District Court. They want a federal judge to issue an immediate injunction stopping the elimination of the 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

But under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

The rules change would take effect before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January. Overturning the rule would take months or even years if the Obama administration wanted to, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."
 

ecocks

New member
Hmmmmmm.....

"The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

Funny, sounds like shorter lines, safer atmosphere and better people in the parks to me - where exactly is the downside to that?
 
G

gpbarth

Guest
"We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."

Making it easier????? The dangerous people have never had much use for legal weapons and carry permits. And I don't see where the current laws against violence with a handgun have stopped murder and assault. All this does is make it LEGAL for law-abiding citizens to carry their LEGAL weapons, with PERMITS, into places where previously only criminals did so illegally.

The Brady Bunch is calling all of us "dangerous people." Interesting question: did John Hinckley, Jr. have a legal weapon and a carry permit? Little-known fact - Hinckley had been arrested in Nashville TN 6 months earlier carrying 3 guns in a suitcase, 2 of which were the same .22 type of revolver that he used in the Reagan attempt. Then-President Carter was in Nashville at the time. Hinckley's family had also admitted that their son had been under psychiatric care.

So, despite having been under psychiatric care, despite having been arrested for carrying weapons previously (6 months), Hinckley was able to buy another revolver from a pawn shop, and get within firing range of President Reagan.

Now, how many EXISTING laws were broken in this process? And how would this have turned out, had any of those EXISTING laws been enforced, and Hinckley been prosecuted and thrown in jail...six months earlier?

I rest my case, your honor! Now let me into Yellowstone with my concealed XD-40, which I am legally licensed to carry after I went through a 3-day waiting period to buy it, and took a course recognized by my home state of Florida, which included a background check, fingerprints, and 3 months of waiting. Am I one of your "dangerous people?" I think not!
 
Last edited:

murf26

New member
Dangerous people?????????????????? Give me a break. The bad guys are the dangerous ones. They don't care whether CC is banned or not from national parks. They are going to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it, wherever they want. I take it as an insult being paired with some idiot bg. We, as a rule, are the more law-abiding citizens of the bunch. We've had the training and know the consequences of any screw-ups. As far as I'm concerned, the Brady Bunch are the bad guys.
 

ricbak

New member
I am at lose for words..... This is so asinine. Most of these people only go outdoors to cut their grass, and then maybe not even then. I don't know...
 
G

gpbarth

Guest
Brady Group, PETA, Sea Shepherd. What do they all have in common? They're all radicals without a clue! And can be dangerous if left unattended.
 

Templar

I'm a square
You know I try to be respectful of the opinions of other people but what the heck do people like the Brady Bunch use to base they're opnions on? With all of the facts out there showing who are committing the gun crimes and who are not, are they really so caught up in they're own rhetoric to see the truth?
 

johnsteele

New member
"We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."
I'm not a dangerous person. The State of Florida has issued me a Concealed Firearms License so as far as they are concerned I'm not dangerous.

Can we sue the Brady Bunch for defamation of character or slander?
 
W

wolfhunter

Guest
You know I try to be respectful of the opinions of other people but what the heck do people like the Brady Bunch use to base they're opnions on? With all of the facts out there showing who are committing the gun crimes and who are not, are they really so caught up in they're own rhetoric to see the truth?

The only fact the Brady Bunch is interested in is the fact that gun owners aren't subjects.

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" was just on. Clint's character said, "There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those with loaded guns, and those that dig." Kinda puts it in perspective.
 
G

gpbarth

Guest
If the Brady Center was some little-known loud-mouthed bunch (like the Westboro Baptist Church), we could just laugh at them and ignore their pitiful existence. But as a political lobby group, that cannot be done. Even if they ARE morons. I really feel for Jim Brady, I do. If someone shot me in the head, I'd be a little more than pissed. But I'd go after the scum that shot me, and others of his kind and make stronger laws to keep BGs off the street. You'd think the entire group got shot in the head, 'cause they don't make much sense.

BTW, I like Clint's (other) lines in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" :

Bounty hunter: You're wanted, Wales.
Josey Wales: Reckon I'm right popular. You a bounty hunter?
Bounty hunter: A man's got to do something for a living these days.
Josey Wales: Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Why am I not surprised? Of course they'd try to reverse it. I hope they get laughed out of court like they deserve to be.
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
Why am I not surprised? Of course they'd try to reverse it. I hope they get laughed out of court like they deserve to be.

I'd like to think that they'd get "laughed out of court" but , unfortunately, the Brady Bunch" has become fairly powerful politically and they can afford high-priced liberal attorneys for their side of the case. Logic dictates that their case should fail but it may come down to a matter of the opinion of 3 Justices on the DC Court of Appeals. If the Brady Bunch is successful, it's unlikely that the highly liberal Eric Holder (Obama's Attorney General nominee), would appeal it to the Supreme Court. We'll just have to see how this "shakes out". I think that this is the most important gun rights case since DC v Heller.
 

gdcleanfun

Banned
Y'know, the last National Park, and private campground for that matter, I entered didn't have a metal detector across the road. Who is to know if I cc when I enter or not? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
 

ecocks

New member
Y'know, the last National Park, and private campground for that matter, I entered didn't have a metal detector across the road. Who is to know if I cc when I enter or not? Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!


The only problem with that is that if you ever get outed, you're probably going to lose the CCP and face a Federal charge. It isn't like carrying in a Simon Property mall and simply being asked to leave, you say okay and then go. There was a post here from someone (Toreksha?) last year whose son was cited with carrying while traveling on the Natchex Trace State Parkway. He was facing all kind sof trouble. Anyone know how that turned out BTW?

Toreksha, if that wasn't you please accept my apology for raising your name.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
What bothers me is the fact that antis and anti groups make no attempt to distinguish law abiding gun owners from criminals. At first glance, not wanting dangerous people to carry in national parks does make sense (I know I don't want dangerous people carrying there, or anywhere for that matter); however, they also make no attempt to stick up for the law abiding, thus lumping them into the same category as criminals. :mad:
 

Steelhorse

New member
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.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,136
Messages
621,672
Members
74,107
Latest member
Clydesdad
Top