PDA

View Full Version : Rep. Bob Bishop speaks out (again) on the National Parks issue


Glock22Fan
05-07-2009, 9:24 AM
Sorry if this is a dupe.

Mr. Bishop, a Republican, represents Utah's 1st Congressional District. Back in January I posted a link (sent to me by Jason, who also supplied this one - thanks, Jason) to an article by him supporting the planned rule change regarding CCW in National Parks.

Now he speaks out against the appeal court ruling that upheld the injunction banning the rule change on "environmental" grounds."

Nice that some pols get it. Pity some judges don't. Even bigger pity that the number of judges making rulings like this is likely to go up in the next four years.

link to article (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31751&page=4&viewID=912836) My emphasis.

In January, I praised changes to the National Park Service regulations that allowed law-abiding Americans the same right to carry concealed weapons inside our national parks as they have outside of the national parks. Reversing a clear violation of the Second Amendment, the Department of the Interior changed their regulations whereby National Park Service (NPS) lands would be governed by state concealed firearms laws.

For all the reasons I articulated in my earlier commentary, this decision was a welcome change. Coming on the heels of the District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s draconian gun laws, one would think this would be a fairly easy issue for those tasked with upholding and enforcing our nation’s laws. Sadly, it seems personal political beliefs are ruling the day.

On March 19, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided to grant an injunction against these new regulations going into place. Most interesting is Kollar-Kotelly’s reasoning and what she refused to consider when arriving at her decision. Astonishingly, in Kollar-Kotelly’s 44-page opinion, there is not a single mention of the Second Amendment. Not one. Not a single mention of whether or not the Heller decision is relevant. In a case involving the federal government essentially banning the right to bear arms, this wasn’t even an issue. Even though Kollar-Kotelly notes one of the main reasons why NPS gun regulations were changed concerns “self-defense,” she never addressed whether Second Amendment rights might be violated.

Continues . . .

Liberty1
05-07-2009, 11:40 AM
Sorry if this is a dupe.

Mr. Bishop, a Republican, represents Utah's 1st Congressional District. Back in January I posted a link (sent to me by Jason, who also supplied this one - thanks, Jason) to an article by him supporting the planned rule change regarding CCW in National Parks.

Now he speaks out against the appeal court ruling that upheld the injunction banning the rule change on "environmental" grounds."

Nice that some pols get it. Pity some judges don't. Even bigger pity that the number of judges making rulings like this is likely to go up in the next four years.

link to article (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31751&page=4&viewID=912836) My emphasis.

The NPS rule change was only dealing with concealed firearms. Heller quoting Robertson v Baldwin is going to give these judges a lot of cover on 2A issues unless one uses the CGF/SAF Gura/Kilmer CA 12050 suit tactic and mentions in arguments that loaded exposed carry is proscribed IMO.

I have not read any of our side's responses or motions in this case (any links?). And IANAL.

demnogis
05-07-2009, 12:26 PM
The only method that was available was CC if you were a valid CCW permit holder. No LOC. No UOC. No keeping of firearms in locked containers (except if the firearms is inoperable).

The rules basically say no carry, at all, at any time in National Parks. The same goes for State Parks in CA.