The very epitome of legislating from the bench

After reviewing the tortured legal reasoning in the summary of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision, it's apparent to even this non-lawyer that she saw fit to issue the injunction barring the legal concealed carry of firearms in national parks solely because there was no study done to evaluate the possible detrimental "environmental" effects of allowing people to do so:

"The lynchpin [sic] of Defendants’ response is that the Final Rule has no environmental
impacts–and that Defendants were not required to perform any environmental analysis–because the Final Rule only authorizes persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms. In other words, the Final Rule has no environmental impacts according to Defendants because the Final Rule does not authorize any environmental impacts. By relying on this tautology, Defendants (1) abdicated their Congressionally-mandated obligation to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts, whether authorized by the Final Rule or not, and (2) ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts, including (i) Defendants’ own long-standing belief under the previous regulations that allowing only inoperable and stored firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges was necessary to safeguard against certain risks to the environment and (ii) the almost universal view among interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals (all of which suggests that the Final Rule will have some impact on the environment)."

Umm, excuse me, Judge? There was no study done because there is absolutely no harm done to the environment from carrying what's essentially an inert piece of metal and wood or polymer into and through the parks!! By your reasoning, one would think that firearms were made out of plutonium or asbestos or even something worse, like maybe tobacco.

The only possible "harm" (for lack of a better, much less harsh term) to the precious, precious environment could only come about if the weapon were to be lawfully discharged to defend the firearm's owner against attack from predators (whether human or animal), in which case the unbelievably negligent effect of having a scant few grams of lead possibly being left in the park grounds (and this would only come about if the lawful firearm owner were to miss their target) would be completely outweighed by the fact that one or more innocent lives were saved. No spotted owls would be killed, no water would be poisoned, and I daresay that the park would somehow make it another couple of centuries or so, despite the grave injury that 200 grains or so of lead (roughly the size of a pencil eraser, for those unfamiliar with firearms) would inflict upon it. Additionally, it's safe to say that most reasonable people would value a human life more than just about anything else that can be found in a national park, if it came down to a true emergency situation.

At least that's how a rational person would see it. Judge Kollar-Kotelly apparently disagrees, and she holds the gavel.

We can only hope that more balanced appellate jurists will immediately be asked to reverse her flawed decision, which has no logical basis in either legal or real-world venues.

More when we can review the decision in its entirety.

UPDATE: Commenter jdege left a very insightful response which pointed out that I did indeed miss the most obvious point in this discussion; therefore I wish to reprint his remarks here so that everyone will be sure to see them:

"The new rule didn't authorize bringing firearms and ammunition into the park. The old rule authorized bringing firearms and ammunition into the park, provided the firearm was cased and unloaded. The new rule just allowed people to put the ammo into the firearm.

Any environmental impact under discussion is that caused by the difference between having a firearm and ammunition next to it and having a firearm with ammunition within it." (Emphases mine)

Good catch, Jeff.