Snowflakes in Hell


Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania

Brady Campaign Files Suit over National Park Issue

author Posted by:Sebastian on date Dec 30th, 2008 | filed Filed under: Anti-Gun Folks

The Brady Campaign has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Department of Interior from changing its rules to allow concealed carry in National Parks.

The rule will allow guns in rural and urban national park areas around the country, from Wyoming’s Yellowstone and California’s Yosemite to Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park, home of the Liberty Bell. 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.

Carrying firearms is still prohibited on the National Mall and at Ellis Island, because the states they are in prohibit carrying of firearms.  Hell, even Independence Hall in Philadelphia will still be off limits, because while Pennsylvania allows for licensed concealed carry, access to Independence National Historical Park is through a a federal facility, where guns are still illegal.  This is fear mongering, pure and simple.  As usual with the Brady folks, these claims are patently false.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy, who worked in the DOI Solicitor’s office as an attorney for a number of years, has some thoughts on this as well.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. National Park Carry Update
  2. Another View on National Park Carry
  3. PSH Alert on National Park Carry

tag6 Responses to “Brady Campaign Files Suit over National Park Issue”

  1. Brady Campaign sues to stop Nat. Park carry – Call me Ahab Said,
    December 31st, 2008 at 8:23 am

    [...] Hardy has an analysis of the issues with their suit here.  Sebastian points out there are some logical inconsistencies in the complaints of the Brady Campaign.  From his blagowebs: Carrying firearms is still [...]

  2. SayUncle » Straws, grasping Said,
    December 31st, 2008 at 10:03 am

    [...] Update: As usual with the Brady folks, these claims are patently false. [...]

  3. Cemetery's Gun Blob Said,
    December 31st, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Idiots.

    Moronacy like this dictates that the NRA, or some other large gun rights group point out what a bunch of retards the Brady Bunch is by doing press release or something pointing out, like what you mention, that CCW is already prohibited at the landmarks that have their knickers in a twist.

  4. Pro-Gun Progressive » Standing Said,
    December 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am

    [...] As others have noted, it comes as no surprise that the Brady Bunch has their facts garbled. How can you expect to successfully bring suit to the highest courts in the land and advance your cause when you fail to command even the most perfunctory facts of the case? One gathers that at this point the BC et al are dilettantes, superficially making stabs in the dark at relevancy without any real broad-based support or coherent agenda. In other words, the thinking over there seems to be “well we lost big on the be-all, end-all endgame at the SCOTUS, we’ve been abandoned by the one political party that used to actually answer our calls, our viewpoints are less popular year by year, and we’re running low on cash…I guess it’s better to do something, anything at all, no matter how disorganized and ill-conceived, since it’ll otherwise obvious that all we’re doing nothing.” [...]

  5. Mayor Joel Stoner Said,
    January 1st, 2009 at 1:16 am

    Does the Brady Bunch, even have a legal standing to sue on this issue? It does not harm them in any way.