PDA

View Full Version : Brady sues to overturn NPS carry rule


Telperion
12-30-2008, 10:15 AM
The sore losers at the Brady campaign are now suing the government to get an injunction against the National Park carry rule going into effect next year. Their argument? That allowing guns violates the NPS' mandate to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife", and that carried guns has an environmental impact that requires an EIS.

Link to their complaint: http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/kempthorne-complaint.pdf

avidone
12-30-2008, 10:21 AM
Can't believe what I am reading in the complaint. I personally feel safer after this rule change!

nick
12-30-2008, 10:23 AM
I wonder if they've ever considered removing themselves from the Earth in order to help the environment. Probably not.

Bruce
12-30-2008, 10:25 AM
We need to sue Sarah et al for conspiracy to deny us our civil rights under the Second Ammendment.

Telperion
12-30-2008, 10:51 AM
The section on standing is equally cute:

Suzanne Verge, a member of the Brady Campaign living in Santa Monica, California, regularly uses, visits, and enjoys national park areas, including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants' failure to comply with the Organic Act, NEPA, and the APA directly harms Ms. Verge by reducing the safety and enjoyment of the national park areas that she visits and by increasing the risk of wildlife poaching. As a direct result of defendants' unlawful rule change, Ms. Verge will no longer visit some national park areas that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons because of fear for her personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas, and she has cancelled plans to visit such areas due to this rule change, unless and until Interior rescinds this rule change. Consequently, defendants' unlawful actions have harmed Ms. Verge by eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities in national park areas, including Yosemite National Park. Moreover, even if Ms. Verge were to visit such areas, defendants' unlawful rule change will lead to increased poaching of wildlife or increased risk of such poaching, which will diminish the quality of her experience in such areas.

"Directly harms"? "Unlawful rule change"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean... :D

Bruce
12-30-2008, 10:59 AM
The section on standing is equally cute:
Suzanne Verge, a member of the Brady Campaign living in Santa Monica, California, regularly uses, visits, and enjoys national park areas, including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants' failure to comply with the Organic Act, NEPA, and the APA directly harms Ms. Verge by reducing the safety and enjoyment of the national park areas that she visits and by increasing the risk of wildlife poaching. As a direct result of defendants' unlawful rule change, Ms. Verge will no longer visit some national park areas that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons because of fear for her personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas, and she has cancelled plans to visit such areas due to this rule change, unless and until Interior rescinds this rule change. Consequently, defendants' unlawful actions have harmed Ms. Verge by eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities in national park areas, including Yosemite National Park. Moreover, even if Ms. Verge were to visit such areas, defendants' unlawful rule change will lead to increased poaching of wildlife or increased risk of such poaching, which will diminish the quality of her experience in such areas.


"Directly harms"? "Unlawful rule change"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean... :D

Funny, I don't recall the NPS saying it was okay to shoot in the parks, just okay to carry concealed in the parks if one has a CCW.

bwiese
12-30-2008, 11:03 AM
Funny, I don't recall the NPS saying it was okay to shoot in the parks, just okay to carry concealed in the parks if one has a CCW.

Correct.

Yeah, we're gonna hunt elk with a 5-shot S&W 38Spl Model 60 belly gun.

The Bradys are really losing whatever credbility they have throwing out these readily-determinable-as-specious claims.

emc002
12-30-2008, 11:04 AM
The section on standing is equally cute:



"Directly harms"? "Unlawful rule change"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean... :D

Somebody needs to put a tail on Ms. Verge to see if she still enters Nat'l Parks or not...

Annie Oakley
12-30-2008, 11:15 AM
Suzanne Verge, a member of the Brady Campaign living in Santa Monica, California, regularly uses, visits, and enjoys national park areas, including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants' failure to comply with the Organic Act, NEPA, and the APA directly harms Ms. Verge by reducing the safety and enjoyment of the national park areas that she visits and by increasing the risk of wildlife poaching. As a direct result of defendants' unlawful rule change, Ms. Verge will no longer visit some national park areas that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons because of fear for her personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas, and she has cancelled plans to visit such areas due to this rule change, unless and until Interior rescinds this rule change. Consequently, defendants' unlawful actions have harmed Ms. Verge by eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities in national park areas, including Yosemite National Park. Moreover, even if Ms. Verge were to visit such areas, defendants' unlawful rule change will lead to increased poaching of wildlife or increased risk of such poaching, which will diminish the quality of her experience in such areas.

Um, okay...bu-bye :seeya:

yellowfin
12-30-2008, 11:15 AM
We need to sue Sarah et al for conspiracy to deny us our civil rights under the Second Ammendment.That can actually be done in Pennsylvania.

nick
12-30-2008, 11:27 AM
Hmm, if Suzanne Verge were afraid of cars, would we be talking about making Santa Monica pedestrian-only? If she were afraid of spiders, would we be talking about eliminating all spiders in Santa Monica?

bulgron
12-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Just out of curiosity, is it possible for the Obama administration to refuse to defend the new regulation, and so the Brady's win by default?

USN CHIEF
12-30-2008, 11:54 AM
Is this for real? What ****ing planet does she think she lives in? I can't believe that they are wasting our tax payer's money on this bull****.

Bruce
12-30-2008, 11:58 AM
Somebody needs to put a tail on Ms. Verge to see if she still enters Nat'l Parks or not...

She'll be a shut in if she realizes that by going out in public, she is around people who are carrying "loaded and concealed firearms" every day.:eek:

6172crew
12-30-2008, 12:03 PM
Wonder where they will shop for the judge?

Captain Evilstomper
12-30-2008, 12:05 PM
damn man, and i was going to go poaching with a Rem 700 stuck concealed in my waistband. i better not or Ms Verge may feel threatened..

tyrist
12-30-2008, 12:26 PM
Correct.

Yeah, we're gonna hunt elk with a 5-shot S&W 38Spl Model 60 belly gun.

The Bradys are really losing whatever credbility they have throwing out these readily-determinable-as-specious claims.

Don't you know....if there is a firearm around it's going to eventually go off by itself. It's why we need to ban gun instead of banning crimminals...it's not their fault the gun went off.

truthseeker
12-30-2008, 12:28 PM
From what I have seen from some of those "Government Agencies" it will be a toss up as to whether she will get her way. The reason I believe that is 50% are for gun rights and 50% are against gun rights.

So basically it will come down to what the JUDGE believes.

postal16
12-30-2008, 1:35 PM
This reminds me of when I almost made a Vegan I worked with starve to death by asking him if his produce came from a "blood free" farm after he got on my case for hunting dove.

The poor guy found out that almost all farmers allow hunting to take care of pesky animals eating their crops, and in the 2 weeks it took him to find a guy who truely was blood free, he was looking more peekid then usual.:drool5:

Maybe that is why she lives in Santa Monica, she knows how few CCWs the LA Sheriff hands out...though it would be interesting to find out if she has a CCW, wouldn't that be fun to exploit!

TSD!
12-30-2008, 2:04 PM
Next time she is in a Nat'l Park, I hope a Mt. Lion eats her!

7x57
12-30-2008, 2:06 PM
Correct.

Yeah, we're gonna hunt elk with a 5-shot S&W 38Spl Model 60 belly gun.


OK, like sarcasm noted and all, but while I'm sitting home sick and half-coherent it brings a smile to my face to imagine instead that this is a post in "Shoots, Meets, and Range Stories" announcing a *very* *special* Calguns hunt. :-) I impatiently await the full report on you eeling up to within belly gun range of a bull elk and making a clean one-shot kill with your .38 snubby. Now *that's* bragging rights!

You'll have to cape it out with your fingernails and teeth to match the kill, I think. I recommend you instruct the taxidermist to do the mount with a totally gobsmacked expression on its face.

If there is enough demand, maybe F&G will create a special "snubby season."

Apropos of nothing, while thinking of ridiculous hunting seasons it suddenly occurred to me that depleted uranium bullets should remain lead-free to whatever the F&G tolerance is for quite a while.

OK, that sounds like fever talking, so back to the couch. :-)

7x57

rrr70
12-30-2008, 2:11 PM
Next time she is in a Nat'l Park, I hope a Mt. Lion eats her!

:D LOL

Glock22Fan
12-30-2008, 2:18 PM
Gosh! I didn't realize that all the would-be poachers of the past had been detered because they couldn't legally carry a concealed weapon!

And, I also wonder how many would-be poachers have a CCW permit.

dreyna14
12-30-2008, 2:30 PM
This b**** is a f****** reatard. "I'm cancelling my trips because I don't feel safe." WAAAAAAHHHH. Cry me a f****** river. The whole basis upon her argument is that people will be poaching wildlife so she feel unsafe. So what the hell is she afraid of? Don't get me wrong, everybody on this board knows at least one person whose head they'd like to have mounted on their wall, but come on. Let's keep it real.

deleted by PC police
12-30-2008, 2:43 PM
Can we sue the brady's for waisting tax dollars? The government is broke as a joke and defending this case is the last thing they need to be spending money on.

Hopi
12-30-2008, 2:44 PM
I guess this is finally reason enough to give up my Brady Bunch membership....

hill billy
12-30-2008, 2:59 PM
Wonder where they will shop for the judge?

The suit was filed in DC district court. I guess they're hoping to find a pissed off judge who didn't like Heller.

yellowfin
12-30-2008, 3:05 PM
Can we sue the brady's for waisting tax dollars? The government is broke as a joke and defending this case is the last thing they need to be spending money on.Actually yes, we can and we should. This is a retaliatory tactic I've suggested repeatedly on here but have never gotten any kind of response on. Say the Bradys provide the lawyers for a city, a PD, etc. and they lose, costing the taxpayers lots of money. They are responsible for in essence pilfering that money from the citizens of that locale and can be sued for recovery of that money and all further expenses by the citizens of that place. If they've done it more than once, sue them again and then tack on punitive damages. They'd be on the hook for millions and after a while their sugar daddy Soros will get tired of writing them checks.

Has anyone tried this? Will anyone try this? Or are we just content to watch their antics, merely say "Oh look at those morons at it again" while they keep doing what they do with relative impunity? Start taking their money in big chunks and turn it around on them.

I'd personally like it to be taken a step further and hold them criminally liable for disarming victims in non CCW issuing places, for which they'd be on the hook for dozens if not hundreds of murders, thousands of rapes and tens of thousands of robberies, but that's a while off at the moment. But we should get to that when we can.

Gray Peterson
12-30-2008, 3:27 PM
That's possible that the new administration won't defend the rule. If I were the NRA, SAF, and VCDL I'd be applying for intervenor status like...now.

CHS
12-30-2008, 4:23 PM
This is hilarious.

This is like someone suing the Federal Highway Department for allowing and contributing to the construction of new roads because they are afraid of getting into a car accident or getting hit by a car when they leave their house.

I still get offended every single time the Brady's decide that when we're allowed to do a lawful act involving firearms, we're going to become criminals.

"OOoooo, I can LEGALLY carry into the National Park now. LETS KILL SOME ANIMALS EVEN THOUGH ITS ILLEGAL!"

I would Tea-Bag all of them if I could.

rrr70
12-30-2008, 4:29 PM
I would Tea-Bag all of them if I could.

I wouldn't do it. You can get some nasty diseases.:no:

bulgron
12-30-2008, 4:54 PM
That's possible that the new administration won't defend the rule. If I were the NRA, SAF, and VCDL I'd be applying for intervenor status like...now.

This is exactly my concern. What is intervenor status and how does it work?

Shotgun Man
12-30-2008, 5:07 PM
Great post. It really discredits the Brady Campaign.

I was suprised to read in 1983/84 Reagan approved legislation prohibiting concealable weapons in the National Parks.

That should not have happened. Did someone drop the ball?

otalps
12-30-2008, 5:52 PM
Afraid for her personal safety:rolleyes: Dumb, friggin bint!

She does have such lovely earings though...
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2008/la/large/Grassroots-Suzanne-Verge-et.jpg

Shotgun Man
12-30-2008, 6:13 PM
Afraid for her personal safety:rolleyes: Dumb, friggin bint!

She does have such lovely earings though...
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2008/la/large/Grassroots-Suzanne-Verge-et.jpg

How does he plan on using that baguette?

rrr70
12-30-2008, 6:20 PM
How does he plan on using that baguette?

Use your imagination.:D

jacques
12-30-2008, 6:36 PM
Afraid for her personal safety:rolleyes: Dumb, friggin bint!

She does have such lovely earings though...
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2008/la/large/Grassroots-Suzanne-Verge-et.jpg

Those earings scare me. I will not go where ever she may be. I think I need to sue her so she does not wear those ear rings.

Liberty1
12-30-2008, 6:56 PM
I't almost time for a UOC dinner in Santa Monica!!!

rrr70
12-30-2008, 7:02 PM
I't almost time for a UOC dinner in Santa Monica!!!

If only I lived there.:thumbsup:

otalps
12-30-2008, 7:05 PM
How does he plan on using that baguette?

I'd like to think he was planning on beating her about the head and neck with it. But seeing that the pic was taken at a Brady event he's obviously to much of a pansy ***.

Invisible_Dave
12-30-2008, 7:15 PM
The section on standing is equally cute:



"Directly harms"? "Unlawful rule change"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean... :D

Call back from 8 pages but I love that movie. I ironically just watched it last night.

hoffmang
12-30-2008, 7:21 PM
Just out of curiosity, is it possible for the Obama administration to refuse to defend the new regulation, and so the Brady's win by default?
NRA or SAF will be filing for intervenor, I'm quite certain.


The suit was filed in DC district court. I guess they're hoping to find a pissed off judge who didn't like Heller.

The DC Circuit is the home of the Park Service and the Brady Campaign. This is generally good for us as it's a more conservative court of appeals.

The bad news is that again the antis got lucky and the random district court judge is a Carter appointee. They're 4 for 4 in since Heller on bad judge draw.

However, I'd like to point out how sweet it is that the Brady bunch are now the group that has to sue after new laws unfavorable to their side are passed!

-Gene

yellowfin
12-30-2008, 7:24 PM
^ And the bad news of that is that they're still around and capable of filing any suit instead of broke, beaten, and banished. We need to finish them off and be done with them, as in have there be no Bradys tomorrow.

bulgron
12-30-2008, 8:13 PM
NRA or SAF will be filing for intervenor, I'm quite certain.

This is good news. I still have no idea how this intervenor thing works, but from the context it appears that the NRA or SAF can defend the regulation, assuming the status is granted.

Is there a way that the intervenor status can not be granted?




The bad news is that again the antis got lucky and the random district court judge is a Carter appointee. They're 4 for 4 in since Heller on bad judge draw.

Lemonaid from lemons. This can be our case that goes to SCOTUS where we argue that the 2A really does mean that we have the right to LOC outside of our homes.

hoffmang
12-30-2008, 8:31 PM
Is there a way that the intervenor status can not be granted?

Possible but not likely.

Lemonaid from lemons. This can be our case that goes to SCOTUS where we argue that the 2A really does mean that we have the right to LOC outside of our homes.

You'll note that Brady conspicuously avoids the Second Amendment in the compliant...

-Gene

RP1911
12-30-2008, 10:40 PM
Good. She will reduce her carbon footprint.

Quote:
Suzanne Verge, a member of the Brady Campaign living in Santa Monica, California, regularly uses, visits, and enjoys national park areas, including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants' failure to comply with the Organic Act, NEPA, and the APA directly harms Ms. Verge by reducing the safety and enjoyment of the national park areas that she visits and by increasing the risk of wildlife poaching. As a direct result of defendants' unlawful rule change, Ms. Verge will no longer visit some national park areas that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons because of fear for her personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas, and she has cancelled plans to visit such areas due to this rule change, unless and until Interior rescinds this rule change. Consequently, defendants' unlawful actions have harmed Ms. Verge by eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities in national park areas, including Yosemite National Park. Moreover, even if Ms. Verge were to visit such areas, defendants' unlawful rule change will lead to increased poaching of wildlife or increased risk of such poaching, which will diminish the quality of her experience in such areas.

BitterVoter
12-31-2008, 12:27 AM
Suzanne Verge, a member of the Brady Campaign living in Santa Monica, California, regularly uses, visits, and enjoys national park areas, including Yosemite National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Grand Canyon National Park. Defendants' failure to comply with the Organic Act, NEPA, and the APA directly harms Ms. Verge by reducing the safety and enjoyment of the national park areas that she visits and by increasing the risk of wildlife poaching. As a direct result of defendants' unlawful rule change, Ms. Verge will no longer visit some national park areas that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons because of fear for her personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas, and she has cancelled plans to visit such areas due to this rule change, unless and until Interior rescinds this rule change. Consequently, defendants' unlawful actions have harmed Ms. Verge by eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities in national park areas, including Yosemite National Park. Moreover, even if Ms. Verge were to visit such areas, defendants' unlawful rule change will lead to increased poaching of wildlife or increased risk of such poaching, which will diminish the quality of her experience in such areas.

So her argument is because the park is not allowing those licensed to carry to carry inside the park that they are "eliminating the opportunity for her to pursue recreational, aesthetic and leisure activities..."

I would argue the opposite was true until they turned the law around! I would also say that they are not eliminating any opportunity to enjoy the park SHE is making the choice not to enjoy it.

Mayhem
12-31-2008, 1:44 AM
I honestly believe that Suzanne Verge should be banned from national parks. By promoting herself as a victim and attracting criminals to herself she is putting other law abiding citizens at risk.

CCWFacts
12-31-2008, 2:47 AM
If the NRA / SAF gets involved in this, can they recover legal fees from the Bradys after they win? It would be great to see precious Brady budget going into the NRA's general fund, just like it's wonderful that DC is going to have to pay for a lovely new house for Mr. Gura etc?

bulgron
12-31-2008, 7:22 AM
You'll note that Brady conspicuously avoids the Second Amendment in the compliant...

-Gene

The fact that I'm not a lawyer must be showing.

Just because the Bradys don't raise the 2A in their complaint, that means we can't use the 2A in our defense?

yellowfin
12-31-2008, 8:11 AM
I have a much simpler thought to all of this. Since her suit is based on California parks and CCW's are so rare here the chances of ever even meeting someone are negligible, couldn't her suit be tossed on the simple grounds she has no standing because even if it were a threat, that it is statistically nonexistent?

bulgron
12-31-2008, 8:14 AM
I have a much simpler thought to all of this. Since her suit is based on California parks and CCW's are so rare here the chances of ever even meeting someone are negligible, couldn't her suit be tossed on the simple grounds she has no standing because even if it were a threat, that it is statistically nonexistent?

I half expect her suit to be tossed out on standing too, although a judge who is sympathetic to the Brady's position (as this one is rumored to be) might not do that.

As I said, turn lemons into lemonaid here. We need to shove as much pro-2A litigation through the courts as fast as we can before Obama can screw us up.

hoffmang
12-31-2008, 3:27 PM
Just because the Bradys don't raise the 2A in their complaint, that means we can't use the 2A in our defense?
Correct. Our side can simply say that the motivation for the change in the regulations were that the old regs violated the 2A as announced in Heller. As such, this is about constitutional rights and not about pollution as firing the firearm in anything but self defense remains barred.

I have a much simpler thought to all of this. Since her suit is based on California parks and CCW's are so rare here the chances of ever even meeting someone are negligible, couldn't her suit be tossed on the simple grounds she has no standing because even if it were a threat, that it is statistically nonexistent?

The Right People have already noticed that issue. However, Dave Hardy contends on his blog that standing on these administrative matters cases is pretty easy in the DC Circuit.

-Gene

gd-bh
12-31-2008, 6:39 PM
This b**** is a f****** reatard. "I'm cancelling my trips because I don't feel safe." WAAAAAAHHHH. Cry me a f****** river. The whole basis upon her argument is that people will be poaching wildlife so she feel unsafe. So what the hell is she afraid of? Don't get me wrong, everybody on this board knows at least one person whose head they'd like to have mounted on their wall, but come on. Let's keep it real.

hey, maybe her g/f, in a fit of lust, told her she was a "fox", and in her liberal minded state of delusion thought she really was a "fox", and therefore is worried a liberal poacher will harvest her since she is after all, a "fox", and therefore technically "wildlife"?

Who knows what goes through what substitues as minds for these type of fools...

hoffmang
01-02-2009, 2:31 PM
I just received confirmation from one of The Right People that NRA will be intervening in this suit to defend Interior's new rule allowing CCW.

-Gene

FoShizzle
01-02-2009, 2:32 PM
I just received confirmation from one of The Right People that NRA will be intervening in this suit to defend Interior's new rule allowing CCW.

-Gene

i expect the messiuh to overturn this real quick. he owes the brady bunch.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2009, 3:13 PM
i expect the messiuh to overturn this real quick. he owes the brady bunch.

I don't think so. This took over 9 months to implement with years worth of pressure on the DOI to actually make happen.

An executive order cannot be used to violate the APA. If it's overturned by later rule change, the NRA and SAF would likely sue.

FoShizzle
01-02-2009, 3:17 PM
I don't think so. This took over 9 months to implement with years worth of pressure on the DOI to actually make happen.

An executive order cannot be used to violate the APA. If it's overturned by later rule change, the NRA and SAF would likely sue.

Obama has already said he will use exec. orders heavily...esp. if he cannot get things past the congress. the guns in national parks is a hot and heavy loss of sleep for the pathetic anti-crowd and obama needs to make a good will gesture. i do not put it past that man for one minute.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2009, 5:44 PM
Obama has already said he will use exec. orders heavily...esp. if he cannot get things past the congress. the guns in national parks is a hot and heavy loss of sleep for the pathetic anti-crowd and obama needs to make a good will gesture. i do not put it past that man for one minute.

Then he will be sued for violating the APA.

bulgron
01-02-2009, 7:35 PM
Then he will be sued for violating the APA.

What is the APA?

The more I learn, the less I know.....

hoffmang
01-02-2009, 8:00 PM
What is the APA?


There is a Federal Administrative Procedures Act (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/study_aids/adlaw/). It is similar to California's and I forget whose came first.

-Gene