Imagine Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and Sarah Brady alone together in the wilderness, having backpacked miles from the nearest ranger facility. Now imagine an immediate threat--one that's been stalking them with deadly intent--confronts them, confident it has the advantage. [More]It may be hard to imagine this happening to them, but they'll do their damnedest to make sure if it happens to you, you'll be helpless.
Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at the latest national parks ruling. I also link to the latest from my fellow GREs.
Please share it far and wide.
4 comments:
Huge problem here. People are going to carry in the parks in the western states because they do not want to die from a bear attack. So a bear attacks and someone using their S&W X-frame and the bear runs off with a nasty injury. This person is in a catch 22 situation. Dose the shooter who saved their own life and maybe the life of loved ones and or friends let the park rangers know they have an injured bear on the loose. If they do they very well maybe charged with a felony. Or do they keep their mouth shut and hope this injured man killer dies before it attacks with more vigor than it would have otherwise.
This law or change in the law they way I understand it is. It covers folks with CWL's so we are not talking about just anyone carrying. In fact this should have been set so that any CWL/CCW from any state was good on federal parks.
This puts people in more danger because of injured man killers. Making it so carrying is needed more than before. What morons we have as poorly informed parasites as federal, political hacks on the bench.
David, have you read the opinion?
Her so-called reasoning suggests that self-defense itself would have a foreseeable environmental impact when a another person or a predatory animal is shot and killed.
Read this from page 3:
The lynchpin[sic] of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. In other words, the Final Rule has no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any environmental impacts. By relying on this tautology, Defendants (1) abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not, and (2) ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts, including (i) Defendants’ own long-standing belief under the previous regulations that allowing only inoperable and stored firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was necessary to safeguard against certain risks to the environment and (ii) the almost universal view among interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals (all of which suggests that the Final Rule will have some impact on the environment).
Mack--Shhhh...
You're giving away tomorrow's column...:)
Oh, uh, yeah -- okay.
;)
Post a Comment