Unfortunately, this is an informational post that updates an earlier one about the January 9th change in Federal law regarding concealed carry in National Parks.  In the original change, the Department of the Interior changed the existing regulations to conform to the concealed carry laws of the state where the park was located, thus eliminating confusion and conflicting laws between National Parks and the rest of the state where the parks are located.  On Friday, March 20th at the request of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the organizations listed above.  This means that until the lawsuit is settled, the law permitting concealed carry in national parks is on hold and cannot be implemented.

UNTIL THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND A FINAL DECISION REACHED, CONCEALED CARRY IN NATIONAL PARKS IS NOT PERMITTED.

Personally, I would consider dropping a letter to your elected representatives letting them know your opposition to this abridgment of your Second Amendment rights.  I would also suggest that you contact Judge Kollar-Kotelly and suggest that she stick to interpreting the law instead of attempting to legislate from the bench.  The judicial branch should not attempt to make law but rather interpret it.  The fact that she used the lack of any ‘environmental impact study’ as one of the main reasons for granting the injunction simply adds insult to injury.  I did not realize that as a person carrying a firearm and exercising my constitutional rights, that I have an ‘environmental impact’ on my surroundings.  In addition, based on my reading of the process, there was no ‘environmental impact assessment’ required by federal law.  Plain and simply, this is a judge who is letting her personal views get in the way of a proper interpretation of the law.  Unfortunately, Federal judges are appointed for life, so there is NO recourse if someone is blatantly disregarding their mandate to preserve and protect the constitution.

In the US Court system, the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate the following four things apply:

1. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
2. That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
3. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction,
4. That the grant of the injunction would serve the public interest.

In my own personal opinion, NONE of these would apply.  I’m not convinced that there is a ’substantial likelihood of success’ in light of the recent Heller decision affirming our Second Amendment rights.  I’d also be very curious about the ‘irreparable damage or injury’ that this law is going to cause the Brady organization.  I’m also at a complete loss as to the ‘balance of harms’ they suffer in this case.  I can definitively state that based on many of the comments I have heard and my own experience with the gun owning public, that this case does NOT serve the public interest of at least 85 million gun owners in this country.

My question would also be, who would be the victim of greater harm, the Brady Organization from passage of this law or a person who visits a national park and is a victim of criminal violence or death as a result of their inability to defend themselves from armed criminals who don’t give a damn about what the law says.

I have reprinted the entire article from the March 20th edition of the Washington Post below.

Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns In U.S. Parks

By Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 20, 2009; Page A09
A federal judge yesterday blocked a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by gun-control advocates and environmental groups. The Justice Department had sought to block the injunction against the controversial rule.

The three groups that brought the suit — the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees — argued that the Bush action violated several laws.

In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the government’s process had been “astoundingly flawed.”

She noted that the government justified its decision to forgo an environmental analysis on the grounds that the rule does not “authorize” environmental impacts. Calling this a “tautology,” she wrote that officials “abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation” to evaluate environmental impacts and “ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts” of the rule.

Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the department could not comment because of “ongoing litigation.”

The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allowed visitors to carry loaded, concealed guns into national parks and wildlife refuges if state laws there allowed it in public places. In most cases, a state permit would be required to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.

In the past, guns had been allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded, stored or dismantled; gun rights advocates said they saw no reason to be denied the right to carry concealed weapons in parks when they could in other public places.

Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses at the National Parks Conservation Association, said his group is “extremely pleased” with both the court decision and the fact that Interior is now conducting an internal review of the rule’s environmental impact. “This decision by the courts reaffirms our concerns, and the concerns of park rangers across the country, that this new regulation . . . has serious impacts on the parks and increases the risk of opportunistic poaching of wildlife in the parks, and increases the risk to park visitors,” Faehner said.