TexasCHLforum.com

No longer valid

link to article?

The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. now that the Bush Administration will be allowing guns in these national park areas.

This statement would have a lot more credibility if New York and Washingtong, D.C. were shall issue states and had reciprocity with other states for concealed carry. Even with the rule change, I don't believe it is possible to carry in New York City or D.C. (unless you are very politically connected).

Once again, The BradyBunch demonstrates its propensity for lying.

"The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."


Man those national parks get more and more attractive all the time.

"The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

They must lead miserable lives on a daily basis. Aren't there something like 44 states with Concealed Carry?

Purplehood wrote:

"The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

Why? Are they planning on attacking us and are afraid they may get shot when we stop them?

Will they move to Zimbabwe when they realize American citizens are "permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in" most of the USA?



I'll give each of them a Billion dollars if they move there permanently.

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

Chas.

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
They offer no proof that any danger is created, and no reasoning that I can see why the same process that made the laws can't change it again.. What is their basis? I am trying to understand not start Brady flame fest.

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.

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.

. .

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.

Could OCO file a similar suit against DC or NYC for not allowing non residents to legally open carry?

As a result of the DC and NYC government's unlawful activities to disarm potential crime victims, OCO and its members, along with many other Americans, will sustain imminent and irreparable harm.