Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Judge enjoins allowance of CCW in parks | Main | Time for some laughs »

More on injunction against park CCW

Posted by David Hardy · 20 March 2009 09:56 AM

Dave Workman has thoughts and links.

Having read the opinion (linked in a comment to the prior post), I can see how this happened. All agencies have to comply with NEPA, the National Enviro Policy Act. NEPA isn't, as we bureaucrats called it, an action-forcing statute, it doesn't dictate a result. It requires that all agency actions be analyzed for environmental effects in a certain way.

Since it applies to ALL agency actions of any type, the lowest level of analysis, in fact non-analysis, are the categorical exemptions. That's where the agency lists all actions where enviro impact is virtually impossible. Hiring and firing. Repairs of existing structures. Issuing legal opinions. Maybe building shed-size storage areas. Stuff that just doesn't affect the environment.

Probably because this was being raced thru in the last days of the Bush Admin., that's all that Interior did in the way of NEPA. Just applied a categorical. They didn't put together the usual environmental assessment.

So they got nailed. You can see it coming. NEPA requires analysis of environmental impact, both good and bad. Well, if the rule does good things -- allows people to defend themselves against criminals and predatory wildlife -- that's a good impact on the human environment. Which means the categorical exemption is inapplicable.

It was a rushed rule, perhaps prepared by agency personnel who didn't care, or might even enjoy it if it got struck down. There might have been a chance at winning on standing to sue (and I note from the opinion the government didn't argue that!).

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Bloodbath | March 20, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply

FYI,

The NRA was an intervenor in this case and they have already indicated they will appeal the decision, even if the Obama administration does not.

David is correct in pointing out the standing argument as being what needed to be focused on, and that was a main argument of Mountain States Legal Foundation, NRA and SCI. Kollar-Kottelly's opinion virtually removes Article III standing as a requirement to bring a suit, and seems even more radical after the Supreme Court just recently released two cases that emphasis the Article III standing requirement (Winter and Earth Island Institute).

hga | March 20, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply

The details of standing, while very important, are sufficiently arcane I'll never have the time or interest to learn them. (That's what you hire good lawyers for; e.g. Parker became Heller because after Mr. Heller got his license refusal (apparently with the help or at least approval of some of the police) the other plaintiffs got stonewalled in NYC style.)

I know nothing about intervention beyond what I just looked up in Wikipedia, but in what universe does the NRA have standing to intervene and to appeal this decision on the basis that the plaintiffs don't have standing...?

Ken | March 20, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply

Has anybody seen the environmental impact reports for TARP? for the first bail-out bill? for the AIG rescue plan? [que the sound of crickets]

Jeff | March 20, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply

I'm glad to see that the NRA is intervening. If it were left to the government, we would be hosed. The government doesn't want to win this case.

This point--while true--leads us into a dangerous fight: "Well, if the rule does good things -- allows people to defend themselves against criminals and predatory wildlife -- that's a good impact on the human environment. Which means the categorical exemption is inapplicable." If that is the defense, then we enter a battle about whether CCW is an environmental benefit or detriment. And all of the Brady camp comes out screaming about how the trails will be covered in blood if we allow CCW in parks. It doesn't matter that it is a pack of lies; it doesn't even matter that we win the fight. If we have to engage in the fight, then we are back to trying to win the same ground again. We won't have our Parks victory. The victory will be tossed out and we will have to try again--but this time with an Obama administration.

We can't argue "environmental benefit." The only way to win is to show that there is zero environmental impact.

bill-tb | March 20, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply

Welcome to liberal Fascism, courtesy of environmentalism.

Exactly how does carrying a gun effect the environment? Couldn't the same warped logic of this Clinton appointee's logic, and the subsequent ruling, be applied to all CCWs? All guns everywhere?

Liberals are irresponsible and unaccountable and if you allow them to destroy your country they will. It's common knowledge that you cannot be rational and liberal at the same time.

6Kings | March 21, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply

"Exactly how does carrying a gun effect the environment?"

It doesn't.

"...categorical exemptions. That's where the agency lists all actions where enviro impact is virtually impossible."

And this is why it was categorized correctly. Carry a weapon has ZERO effect on the environment. Pure bullshit case that never should have been brought to court. You don't need a NEPA study.

Tom | March 24, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply

Allow me to put on my most paranoid hat here.

The environmental impact of self defense is slow murder of the earth in the eyes of the gorebal warming lunatics. They would rather see you dead at the hands of the "misunderstood" criminal or wild animal. You can't contribute (a byproduct of life) CO2 to the atmosphere, drive a car, use fresh water, reproduce that way and will have less impact on the environment. Google "georgia guidestones" They spell out the goals of these people. Genocide, eugenics, science as the new religion, global government, environmental worship (via agenda 21).

Leave a comment