No ccw in nat. parks

[mudman]

   Judge in Washington over turns National ccw rule. Brady gushishs. On MSN

[Fatman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29781541/

Round 1. Expect her lone decision to be appealed and then overruled.  The challenge was obviously filed on the antis home field.

[Ping]

Sorry, just saw that you started this. This absolutely disgusts me and I will not longer visit a National Park. Ignorance is taking over the land and they are not keeping up with the signs of the times. The sign is "bad". Disgraceful and I am sure Teddy Roosevelt would feel the same way!!!!

[TAB]

It was not over turned... its a TRO( temperay restraining order)

[fightingquaker13]

It was not over turned... its a TRO( temperay restraining order)

Seriously no need to get get upset. A TRO is almost always granted pro forma if a plaintiff can bring forward a prima facea case that a rule is in violation of either statue or previous court ruling. It doesn't signify one way or another. It just says that the opponent has an argument; retreat to your corners, and we'll hold a hearing to go over the evidence. IF a case can be made there, and standing established, then a trial may occur. But at this point, a TRO is basically (though imprecisely) just like showing probable cause. The antis have it because for years upon years, the rule was no undissasembled guns in the parks (for fear of poaching). This IS a legitimate state interest that goes to the very reason the parks were established, as conservation zones under TR, when native game was being hunted to extinction. Add to this that ccw permits are STATE issued and the parks are under federal soveriegnty,and the antis have a legit legal (if not moral) case. This wil be complicated and will probably NOT be decided on 2A grounds. The issues involve federalism and are a lot broader and murkier than just ccw. It doesn't mean we shouldn't weigh in, just understand that this is about more than just guns.
fightingquaker13

[Sponsor]

[jaybet]

Although I admit that I am not all that "outdoorsey"...I would not ever enter a wilderness area where I am not at the top of the food chain without substantial hardware to protect myself. The argument once again is stupid. I would not "poach" animals with my sidearm and my sidearm would not "Increase danger to park visitors" as the environmental and Brady assholes state. The fact is, CCW holders are more than likely the MOST law abiding citizens in the country. Silliness prevails, as usual.

[MikeBjerum]

Although I admit that I am not all that "outdoorsey"...I would not ever enter a wilderness area where I am not at the top of the food chain without substantial hardware to protect myself. The argument once again is stupid. I would not "poach" animals with my sidearm and my sidearm would not "Increase danger to park visitors" as the environmental and Brady assholes state. The fact is, CCW holders are more than likely the MOST law abiding citizens in the country. Silliness prevails, as usual.

Being too lazy to do the research myself ... Just because I can't carry my .357 or .45 concealed, can I carry my 500 mag in a holster?  In bear country I'd much rather have the 500 anyway ... Beats the hell out of jingly bells and pepper spray 

[shooter32]

Being too lazy to do the research myself ... Just because I can't carry my .357 or .45 concealed, can I carry my 500 mag in a holster?  In bear country I'd much rather have the 500 anyway ... Beats the hell out of jingly bells and pepper spray 

Beats the hell out of anything... that's for damn sure

[MikeBjerum]

Beats the hell out of anything... that's for damn sure

Our local daily paper ran this story yesterday, and it is gone today.  I was surprised by the number that thought it was rediculous not to allow concealed carry.  However, to this day I get shocked by the numbers that still cling to the idea that without concealed carry around they are safer and there will be no guns.  The sheep will not accept the idea that the bad guys will do what they want, when they want, where they want.

I had a discussion with one of our Pastors last week.  I told her the guy that was going to help at a service was a retired Chief of Police from the community where he lives.  She was concerned that he might carry until she realized I said he was retired.  It totally went over her head that retired or not he might still carry.  Then she noticed a look on my face and said you don't bring a gun in the Church ... You haven't brought a gun to Church ... Don't tell me if you bring a gun to Church.  All I said to her was the worn out phrase "Concealed means concealed, and you will never know if I'm carrying unless you are around when it is needed."  She followed up with "Do you have one now ... Don't tell me!"

[shooter32]

Our local daily paper ran this story yesterday, and it is gone today.  I was surprised by the number that thought it was rediculous not to allow concealed carry.  However, to this day I get shocked by the numbers that still cling to the idea that without concealed carry around they are safer and there will be no guns.  The sheep will not accept the idea that the bad guys will do what they want, when they want, where they want.

I had a discussion with one of our Pastors last week.  I told her the guy that was going to help at a service was a retired Chief of Police from the community where he lives.  She was concerned that he might carry until she realized I said he was retired.  It totally went over her head that retired or not he might still carry.  Then she noticed a look on my face and said you don't bring a gun in the Church ... You haven't brought a gun to Church ... Don't tell me if you bring a gun to Church.  All I said to her was the worn out phrase "Concealed means concealed, and you will never know if I'm carrying unless you are around when it is needed."  She followed up with "Do you have one now ... Don't tell me!"

Very well done!! You said all the right things in the right way. Hopefully she will never find out.