TexasCHLforum.com

Aggie_engr wrote:Not the judge, but someone from a group that brought on the suit.

"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..... 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."

I tend to agree with the NPCA. It does increase the risk to park visitors that are there to try and rob or rape. Without CC in the park, the BG's have free pickin's of the folks who now can't defend themselves.

I can see this environmental study only having to say one word...

"lead"

"Oh, we cannot introduce increase levels of lead into the already strained enviroment of the newly endangered Speckled-Striped Suckle Minnow."

That would be horrible!

If the judge was moral and not moron the ruling would apply equally to guns carried by public servants and private citizens.

Boomerang, the judge may feel like you do or she may not, but her ruling can only apply to the case in her court. The rule being challenged only applied to citizens.

This is one of the cases where I don't like the judge's ruling and its effects, but from what I can see, she followed the law. I try not to condemn people for doing their job, even if I disagree with what they do.

I am trying to find what the department did about the law requiring an environmental impact study. From the way the media is reporting it, they tried to do an end run and ignore it by saying the rule does not allow for an impact to the environment. The judge caught it by asking why the people will be allowed to carry and not use them weapon for self-defense (meaning there will be some small impact). They might have been better off doing a short study saying how few people will actually shoot to show the effects will be negligible.

The judge may or may not be anti gun, but she obeyed the law as I understand it (and no, I am not a lawyer and have not done research in this area to be sure I know what I am talking about).

I'm not saying which way the judge should rule. Only that they shouldn't violate equal protection under the law.

Sorry, boomerang. I may have misunderstood you originally. I agree with the principle of what you are saying. The law should not create special classes of people like LEO versus citizen. I guess I am defending the judge because she only gets to rule on what is brought before her and what the laws say or do. In this case, for example, she cannot say cops cannot carry if no one else can because the only questions in front of her was the new rule allowing CHL to carry.

What about the law that banned guns in the parks? Can we get the judge to overturn that because there was no environmental impact study? Also stop the gun ban for COE lakes and post offices and other federal property. Fair is fair.

Read in the paper yesterday that the White House will not appeal the judges ruling.

If I'm not mistaken, the NPS folk aren't allowed to carry guns in the NP's either. At least that is what was said in one our C. J. Box books when Joe Pickett was after BG's in Yellowstone. FWIW, C. J. Box is a good read.

We're thinking about heading to Utah in a little while to see the hoodoos. I'd feel a lot more comfortable being able to carry. I wonder how the Feds and Utans feel about the MPA?