TexasCHLforum.com

Hot off the presses...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... eheadlines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, does this mean that if you're camping today you could be arrested in the morning if you have your carry piece?

I wonder if this judge was appointed by Obama?

Guess I will stick to Texas Parks until they can get this one fixed, again.

TYODR (ten year old daughter rule)

It's gonna be a long four years...

THe judge declared the process flawed. how is this so! Are judges supposed to be writhing the laws? Was the NRA at this hearing?

Well now, I believe we need to cut the judge some slack here.

She obviously looked at the evidence presented and saw the significant increase in visitor deaths caused by concealed carrying wackos in the last two months. When combined with the near annihilation of the great American Bison as a result of poachers carrying their buffalo guns concealed, she obviously had no choice but comply with the wishes of the anti-gun buffoons.

Makes me wonder if Leno will take the opportunity to ask the President his thoughts on this issue during this evening's show.

Gmckinl hit the nail on the head. It's going to be a long 4 years and we simply have to persevere.

Before we jump to conclusions, I urge you all to read the actual judge's opinion and not rely on the press reports. Many times, the press report is not accurate.

But, with that caveat, if the judge's ruling was how the paper reported, then she probably made the correct legal ruling. Federal law requires environmental impact studies on rule changes (as I understand it). While this one clearly has no real impact to the environment, the law still requires the study. You cannot get around it by just saying the proposed rule will not allow an impact.

if the NRA is smart (and I have faith their lawyers are smarter than I am), they will actually fight this on two separate grounds. One is the requirement for the impact analysis is an obvious waste of time and money. The second is that the old rule infringes on the Second Amendment right. I might even forego the 2A argument and just argue that the procedure met all intents of the law for protecting the environment.

The debate would be if this would increase the number of visitors to the park. If it does, then there is an environemtnal impact and the need for the analysis would have been accurate. I would argue that it might increase the number of visitors with guns by some minuscule number, but it would be balanced by the decrease in the number of liberal visitors who are afraid of the people with guns. Net result is still no impact.

There goes Mrs. Oldgringo's trip to Mt. Rushmore this summer.

Oldgringo wrote:There goes Mrs. Oldgringo's trip to Mt. Rushmore this summer.

...and our trip to Big Bend. I wanted to show my wife around there, but particularly along the border like that with the attendant increases in crime, it's madness to go into a wilderness area unarmed.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...it's madness to go into a wilderness area unarmed.

; and that's why the sane criminals do it all the time. Now only insane law-abiding citizens will be willing to venture into the wilderness.

Using the anti-second amendment group logic, does her decision apply only to her district?

The Annoyed Man wrote: ...it's madness to go into a wilderness area unarmed.

That's just what my daughter says about walking into her class full of 8th graders.

How could it increase risk to visitors? It would in fact do just the opposite! Do these people not get the fact that they are already around these scary people with their scary guns anytime they are out in public? The irrationality is just stunning...

Did the judge say it increased risk, or did the gun grabbers that were salivating over the ruling say that?

I refuse to read the article because my blood pressure has been within normal limits all day and I want to keep it there.

EDIT: Language.

Oh, darn!! There goes my chance to take down a bison or grizzly with my S&W .38!!

I believe the judge ruled on the basis of the lack of a required environmental impact study.

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."