Federal court's injunction against National Park gun ban repeal fails giggle test

March 29, 11:37 PMDC Gun Rights ExaminerMike Stollenwerk

Previous Next

11 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Don't get me wrong. 

US District Court for DC Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly might have gotten the law exactly right when she temporarily reversed the administrative repeal of the National Park gun ban on the grounds that the Department of the Interior "abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not" [under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.]. 

But does this opinion pass the giggle test? 

The new regulation merely permits the carriage of loaded handguns - not discharge of any ammunition from them.  Millions of Americans now routinely carry handguns in public in virtually every city and park in America, as well as in National Forests and on lands managed by Bureau of Land Management. 

Negligent discharges are extremely rare, as are discharges in defense of self or others. 
Could a few dozen or so possible bullets per year fired onto the 84.4 millions of acres of National Park lands possibly justify mandating environmental studies?

OK, let's think about this. 

Arming park rangers?

What if Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar decided that Park Rangers, currently unarmed, should start carrying side arms on DOI lands near or adjacent to the Mexican border due to rising violence from Mexican drug gangs.  Would Salazar first have to conduct an environmental study before Rangers could be armed? 

Desegregating federal schools?

Another hypothetical.  What if on federal lands there existed racially segregated schools.  And the federal administrator of those schools decided that this segregation must be ended by busing students around so as to comply with Brown v. Board of Education.  Would this action also me subject to injunction until an environmental study on the impact of bussing is completed?

These hypothetical results don't pass the giggle test.  Neither does the result in Brady Campaign v. Salazar.  Gun "carry" is a constitutional right said the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller.  The number of rounds which could reasonably expected to be discharged as a result of the National Park regulation change is statistically insignificant when divided over 84.4 million acres of DOI administered lands. 

But if Judge Kollar-Kotelly is correct and NEPA precludes the executive from changing federal policy to respect constitutional rights based upon a mere peppercorn of environmental impact, then Congress needs to change NEPA. 

For more info: See OpenCarry.org and DC Gun Rights Examiner.