Brady Campaign sues to block Park Service rule
Yep, there might be some serious standing issues. Brady Campaign in itself, as a corporation, is not affected by the rule. It has to argue organizational standing, that it should proceed as a surrogate for its members. That requires it to show (1) its members suffer harm in fact (so broadly defined that, yes, they can easily show that. Just get some to say they'll quit going to parks that allow guns, or be apprehensive when doing so). (2) that the harm is "germane" to the organization's purpose and (3) individual participation is not required (again, easily shown).
(2) *might* be a problem. The purported harm in fact is that members don't go to certain parks, and Brady Campaign's purposes do not include getting people into parks. But there was, during my time at Interior, a ruling by the DC Circuit that held that HSUS had standing to sue over hunting in wildlife refuges (which allegedly left their members disgusted at gut piles, etc.) even tho it, too, was not a travel agency. The DC Circuit held that "germane" was a very broad term.
Hmm, according to Helmke, I'm a dangerous person? Still not sure how this rule change will affect Ellis Island.
Posted by: Jay at December 30, 2008 12:32 PM
Sounds great. This is the ideal test case to bring to the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of "bearing arms" (peaceful carry), without having to deal with incorporation issues. Hopefully the Bradys will regret filing this suit. They filed in the District of Columbia (D.C. Federal Court), which is specifically bound by the Heller decision not only by the Supreme Court, but by the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals (the "Parker Decision").
Posted by: Kman at December 30, 2008 12:35 PM
Wow, am I dumb. I didn’t know I could carry in the national mall. I thought the new rule required that I be able to legally carry in the state, in order for me to carry in a national park. I’m not sure what state the mall is in, nor do I think Florida has recip rights with D.C. Am I missing something or is Sarah just being hysterical again??
Posted by: Chuck at December 30, 2008 12:43 PM
Does Brady have standing to sue? How has the Brady Organization been injured by this new rule?
Posted by: Tom in Seattle at December 30, 2008 01:07 PM
It's way past time where we pressed forward in court ... Not doing so sooner was near disastrous.
Posted by: bill-tb at December 30, 2008 02:35 PM
If the Bradys are found to have standing, and an injunction is issued, then someone who regularly goes to National Parks and has a state carry permit ought to file a complaint to intervene and a motion to lift the injunction, arguing that the Brady injunction is in violation of his 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms" under Heller. If the Bradys have standing, anyone has standing.
Posted by: Kman at December 30, 2008 02:43 PM
If this will keep the tree-huggers out of the parks, then it's all for the better. The tree-huggers have ruined Yosemite for everyone by forcing them to close roads and campgrounds.
Posted by: Smokey Behr at December 30, 2008 03:07 PM
"The purported harm in fact is that members don't go to certain parks"
Does the fact that the "members" would need to traverse other public areas, that have long been open to lawful concealed carry, have any mitigation against this argument? For a "member" in a state that permits concealed handguns, how do they explain that they would refuse to go to a park, yet they make daily use of other public facilities (roads, just to mention the obvious).
Posted by: Ed S. at December 30, 2008 03:25 PM
My fisking here:
Posted by: David Rittgers at December 30, 2008 04:34 PM
Shouldn't it have show that it has actual "members" first, not just employees claiming to be members.
Posted by: Ratus at December 30, 2008 04:38 PM
If the "staying out of National Parks out of fear" is important to the case can our side blow that argument away if it can be shown they don't stay out of states with concealed carry provisions?
Posted by: Joe Huffman at December 30, 2008 04:50 PM
I really wish they would just drop dead. I mean really. Just die already. Yeesh. I have such a negative visceral response to the Brady gang. Ick.
Posted by: Bill at December 30, 2008 06:20 PM
P.S. - the whole "concealed guns in the National Mall" thing demonstrates very clearly once again how the Bradys will flat-out, bald-faced lie to press their issue.
Since when can someone sue the federal government to stop a regulatory action based on an unfounded, irrational, non-specific, vague, general, unreasonable "fear for his personal safety"?
And they claim the rule requires an EIS?? Puh-leez!!
If there is any justice at all, the judge will dismiss - or even better yet, rule for the Department on summary judgment. But I know that's unlikely...
Posted by: Bill at December 30, 2008 06:28 PM
This is just nuts.
This morning's SF Comical had an op-ed by "her nibs", Senator DiFi, in which she engages in all sorts of hand-wringing, claiming that this new rule will lead to poaching in our pristine National Parks, and lots of other mis-direction and general bilgewater.
Of course, she failed to point out that any loaded concealed carry in the California NPs would only be permitted to those who hold CCWs, which are rare in California.
I get so frustrated when these politicians are allowed to get away with their blatant distortions.
Posted by: CDR D at December 30, 2008 07:21 PM
"Your Honor, defendants would like to call this Kodiak Brown Bear to the stand as an expert witness on the tastiness of human flesh."
Posted by: hypnagogue at December 30, 2008 07:29 PM
Just get some to say they'll quit going to parks that allow guns, or be apprehensive when doing so.
Yeah, but are those same people apprehensive about going to the library, the grocery store, walking down the streen, going to get a driver's license, going to a state park, going to the pumpkin patch, etc, ad nauseum?
Posted by: ben at December 30, 2008 09:35 PM
An irrational fear is not a valid basis to challenge a regulation. It seems to me that in order to prevail, the Brady members will have to establish that the danger from criminals will increase with legal concealed carry in parks and that the danger is not offset by the increased safety of people being able to protect themselves. If they can come up with solid scientific evidence to support their position, I'll be shocked. In the mean time it's the legislature and the executive's job to make their best guess at the issue, not the judiciary. The legislature stated it's position on the issue in a little document called the Bill of Rights, a couple hundred years ago. Of course a friendly judge might be swayed by flawed scientific evidence.
Posted by: Critic at December 31, 2008 02:43 AM
Glad to see they're admitting their irrational fear of inanimate chunks of metal etc...
Posted by: Ian Argent at December 31, 2008 06:13 AM
The BradyBunch sure has a propensity for lying, don't they? DC has no provision for legally carrying a handgun and in NY you can't get a permit unless you're Chuck Schumer or somebody.
Posted by: Byron Dickens at December 31, 2008 08:08 AM
You don't understand Standing.
For the Fed Courts all anti-gun groups/people have standing and all pro-2ed groups/people don't.
Not having standing means that the Courts don't want to hear you. It has nothing to do with the law.
If they want to hear the case then there is ALWAYS standing.
See standing is easy to understand.
Posted by: Dan Hamilton at December 31, 2008 08:16 AM
I think many people in and around inner cities want to see gun laws for cities being more strict than gun laws in rural areas, or even suburban areas.
Posted by: JT at December 31, 2008 08:39 AM
It pleases me to see the Brady's et al. playing defense.
I predict this will work out well for us, and am generally fine with the Brady's spending their limited political and financial capital in this way.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at December 31, 2008 11:16 AM
Here is a Serious legal question that might sound rhetorical or sarcastic at first in re: your post:
“Brady Campaign sues to block Park Service rule
Posted by David Hardy • 30 December 2008 12:13 PM
Story here. Pdf complaint here.
Yep, there might be some serious standing issues. Brady Campaign in itself, as a corporation, is not affected by the rule. . . . ”
If the Brady campaign can file a legal complaint on the grounds that someone feels unsafe around guns, why can’t some other organization or corporations or body of people file a countercomplaint of some sort asserting that its members feel unsafe in areas where guns are banned or otherwise restricted or forbidden?
Am I missing something here?
After all, a “wilderness” area, even one completely devoid of human beings—armed or disarmed—is inherently unsafe, hence its being named “wild.”
We—the pro-2nd Amendment supporters—feel safer in a wilderness area which permits law-abiding citizens to be armed for purposes of lawful self-defense against predators of both the two- and four-legged varieties.
Somebody please explain to us all why a counterclaim or countercomplaint cannot be simultaneously be filed.
Posted by: Tarn Helm at December 31, 2008 02:18 PM
In paragraph 38 of their complaint,
38. In support of these comments, the Brady Campaign fully documetned the dangers
associated with concealed firearms.
Since merely refuting their position on this blog is preaching to a very attentive choir, I'd be more interested in a discussion of their published claims.
Posted by: Kerrmudgeon at December 31, 2008 02:51 PM