The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Apparently, in 2000, Corzine donated $2500 to CeaseFire NJ, and then received and endorsement from them. Bryan, I hate to break this to you, but it’s supposed to work the other way around. You’re supposed to give money to Corzine’s campaign, and offer him an endorsement that helps him win, with the idea that such support will not be forthcoming in the future if he doesn’t vote your way.
But it’s interesting that in New Jersey politicians buy interest groups rather than the other way around.
How the mighty seem to have fallen. I first wondered when a few months ago a friend of mine noticed that their domain was in redemption, basically meaning they hadn’t renewed it, and the registar was giving them a grace period where they could get the domain out. We had designs on grabbing it and using it to promote a pro-gun message. Alas the folks at New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense got it before we did. We’re happy it at least ended up in the hands of a pro-gun group and not a domain farm. Their previous page can be found here, in case you were wondering.
Of course, this could just be some carelessness on the part of a volunteer, or on Bryan Miller’s part. I know he’s been rather busy lately losing in Trenton on his gun rationing scheme, so renewing the web site might not be much on his mind.
But a quick look through GuideStar shows they haven’t filed a form 990 since 2000, which means they are below the $25,000 income threshold for years. A quick search of New Jersey’s public charity search turns up nothing. The last address listed for CeaseFire turns out to be a church in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
But a quick check of their incorporation status turns up something interesting. From 2003 to 2008, their incorporation status was listed as suspended. They reincorporated last June, using a law office as their agent and mailing address for the corporation. Bryan Miller is listed as the incorporator.
I now believe CeaseFire New Jersey to either be entirely the creation and pet project of Bryan Miller, or very close to it. This likely means that CeaseFire is, in fact, effectively defunct as a political entity, even if it remains incorporated in name. In short, there is absolutely nothing backing up Bryan Miller, except perhaps his relationship with the media. For the “Garden State’s leading organization devoted to reducing gun violence,” their grass roots look an awful lot like a barren field of dirt. Legislators in New Jersey fearing Bryan Miller can threaten their seats should fear not. CeaseFire New Jersey truly is a paper tiger.
The fake pro-gun group American Hunters and Shooters Association seems to take one position in some places online, and other positions on their web site. It would seem they are now waffling on the .50 caliber ban. I anxiously await Bob Ricker’s explanation that we “self-defense whakos” just don’t understand their subtle nuance.
Well, it looks like we’ll never be able to level the accusation that anyone is in Bryan Miller’s pocket.
Looks like the lawsuit against a gun shop which sold the shotgun to the Trolly Square shooter is proceeding. Seems it was a pistol grip shotgun, which is a pistol, which means you have to be 21 to buy one from a dealer. The Trolly Square shooter was 18. Remember all the noise they made about PLCAA preventing lawsuits against dealers who sold guns illegally?  Another bit of hysteria that turns out to have been untrue.
UPDATE: And in the commentary, we have yet some more confusion between gun owners about whether a pistol grip shotgun is a shotgun or a pistol. If you shorten it, is it an SBS, or AOW? I think it’s an AOW right? Might depend on whether it ever had a shoulder stock. I think. Not entirely sure. And the Bradys would like to tell us this industry isn’t regulated enough.
Given the recent dominance of gun bloggers on the Examiner.com sites, it would probalby the last place I’d want to take an anti-gun stance. Howard Nemerov gets to him first, it seems. I would ask Mr. Mallowe to look at Pawlowski’s murder’s criminal record, and the various other high profile killers in Philadelphia which I’ve profiled, and seriously tell me the problem is with our gun laws.
For those of you looking for a quicker, less lengthy analysis without all the legal mumbo jumbo, let me briefly summarize the Brady pleadings in this case:
Whaaa! You didn’t listen to us! Whaaah! We submitted all those comments and you dismissed them *sniffle*. National Parks are going to go from a place where children can frolick and play to a place where they are cut down by gunfire on a regular basis because these concealed weapons license holders are dangerous people *whimper*. Why doesn’t anyone listen to us anymore? We tell you the parks will run red with blood and you ignore us? We tell you that you need to prepare an EIS to tell everyone how many children a day will be cut down by the environmental menace that concealed carry clearly is, and you claim some petty exemption.
Well, no more big Mr. Meany Kempthorne! We’re going to sue you! That’s right. We’re going to MAKE you listen to us. We’ll make sure that neither you, or any future Secretary of Interior can ever ignore the needs of the children by allowing concealed weapons in National Parks, EVER. Then you’ll see we’re important! Then you’ll be sorry you didn’t listen to us!
Yeah, that’s basically the gist of it.
Introduction
The Brady Campaign would appear to be going through discovery in trying to build it’s case against the rule change that allows people with state licenses to carry a firearm in a National Park in states which allow for such a thing. Their press release here and blog post here give some idea of what their public line of reasoning is, but you can find the actual complaint here.
Organic Act Claims
They make many claims in the pleadings, but one of them is that these regulations are actually required in order for the NPS to fulfill its goal under the National Park Service Organic Act. One would have to wonder, then, how the National Park System was misregulated from the years 1916, when the Organic Act was passed, until 1960, when the National Park Service first promulgated regulations on carrying of firearms within the National Park System. Either way, the Brady Claim under the Organic Act is that by allowing concealed firearms, they put the people in danger, and threatens other’s enjoyment of the parks.
NEPA Claims
The second, and probably more interesting claim is that the Department of the Interior violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to perform an Environmental Impact Statement on any federal action which “may significantly impact the qualify of human environment.” The NPS claimed in the rule which eventually appeared in the Federal Register on December 10th, that:
Consistent with this commitment, we have analyzed the final rule under NEPA and concluded that (i) the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210 since the final regulation is in the nature of a legal change to existing regulations, and (ii) no “extraordinary circumstances” exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded.
That regulation that covers that claimed exclusion is here. NEPA requires all federal agencies to promulgate regulations to implement their compliance with NEPA, which DOI has done. The exclusion claimed under the Department of Interior regulations are among the category of “Categorical Exclusions” which are allowed by the agency regulations promulgated in 40 CFR 1508.4.
Categorical exclusion means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (§1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Brady’s claim under NEPA is essentially that concealed weapons represent a threat to human health, and thus an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared.
APA Claims
The third leg of the Brady Campaigns case asserts that the Department of Interior violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which is the federal law that outlines the rulemaking process. The Brady assertion under this act is that their new rule was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion […]” Largely because the DOI “acted hastily and in utter disregard of the procedural mandates of the APA […] Indeed, in their rush to judgement, defendants failed to adequately consider and address most of the approximately 125,000 comments that opposed this rule change, including the Brady Campaign’s comments, in violation of the APA.” I’m pretty sure the vast majority of the public comments were in favor of this rule change, and that most of those 125,000 comments were pro-gun.
Conclusion
In their Prayer for Relief, the Brady Campaign is not only asking for this rule to be overturned, but also for a permanent injunction to be placed on the Department of Interior from ever promulgating any regulation allowing for possession of loaded and concealed firearms in National Parks. I think the Brady case is pretty weak, but it will be up to the Solicitor, now under Obama, to defend this regulation in court, so it’s hard to say what will happen. It’s amazing that their hysteria and desperation manages to come through clearly in their pleadings, and I also think it’s interesting they mislead the court that there were huge numbers of public comments against this rule change. Let us hope this regulation stands.