TexasCHLforum.com

Captain Matt wrote:Is there anything decent people can do to prevent it?

Not at this point. The NRA is intervening in both cases and I'll update everyone as I can.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I don't think so. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would hardly be necessary, since the carrying of handguns wouldn't have an environmental impact in the legal sense. Nothing else in the complaint amounts to anything more than Brady propaganda. Unfortunately, unless the judge dismisses it as frivolous, it will have to play out so it will keep the issue in the media. It's possible the court will issue an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the new rule, pending a determination on the merits. I think that's unlikely.

Chas.

Ahhh .. Publicity. Silly me I didn't think of that as a motive. I believe that an injunction would only happen if the court saw the new rule as causing irreversable damage? Am I right? thanks for making this clearer.

Correct, the theoretical standard for getting an injunction requires irreparable injury (damages) if the injunction is not granted and a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. I say theoretical because the irreparable injury (damages) prong is often ignored. I still think an injunction is unlikely unless they get an anti-gun federal judge.

Chas.

Regrettably, I have to retract my statement and say that I'm very worried about the new National Parks rule. At least one more organization has joined the suit and the chance that a temporary injunction will be issued is much higher than I thought. There is still no basis for an injunction, but apparently that isn't going to matter. This will keep the concealed handgun ban in place long enough for the new administration to have his people reopen the comment period and then kill the change.

This is not a certainty, but I have just learned information that makes it far more likely.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I don't think so. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would hardly be necessary, since the carrying of handguns wouldn't have an environmental impact in the legal sense. Nothing else in the complaint amounts to anything more than Brady propaganda. Unfortunately, unless the judge dismisses it as frivolous, it will have to play out so it will keep the issue in the media. It's possible the court will issue an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the new rule, pending a determination on the merits. I think that's unlikely.

Chas.

Ahhh .. Publicity. Silly me I didn't think of that as a motive. I believe that an injunction would only happen if the court saw the new rule as causing irreversable damage? Am I right? thanks for making this clearer.

Correct, the theoretical standard for getting an injunction requires irreparable injury (damages) if the injunction is not granted and a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. I say theoretical because the irreparable injury (damages) prong is often ignored. I still think an injunction is unlikely unless they get an anti-gun federal judge.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have attached a copy of the Brady complaint in federal court, if anyone is interested.

Chas.

Is there anything that could stick? The premise doesn't like anything that any court would buy into.

I don't think so. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would hardly be necessary, since the carrying of handguns wouldn't have an environmental impact in the legal sense. Nothing else in the complaint amounts to anything more than Brady propaganda. Unfortunately, unless the judge dismisses it as frivolous, it will have to play out so it will keep the issue in the media. It's possible the court will issue an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the new rule, pending a determination on the merits. I think that's unlikely.

Chas.

I have attached a copy of the Brady complaint in federal court, if anyone is interested.

Chas.