ping for later reading.......
I guess we’ll see if it sets a precedent.
I must say that armed sexual deviants trippin’ balls is a bad combo.
Appalling.
What is it about the 2nd Amendment that don't they understand?
These little brown-shirt Napoleon's will try ANYTHING they believe they can get away with....
...And not back off until sufficiently challenged and/or soundly beaten in court.
I think one bored attorney with some nice letterhead and 15 minutes pro bono time would settle this....
--OTOH--
Who knows...
They might threaten to shut down the entire event unless everyone agrees with their new policy...??
Awww.... dang....
Tooo bad...
..For all those naked druggie hippie-freak commune-lovin' Obammie voters....
... and all their demons....
Just sayin
itle 43: Public Lands: Interior
Subtitle B: Regulations Relating to Public Lands (Continued)
CHAPTER II: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SUBCHAPTER H: RECREATION PROGRAMS
PART 8360: VISITOR SERVICES
Subpart 8364: Closures and Restrictions
8364.1 - Closure and restriction orders.
(a) To protect persons, property, and public lands and resources, the authorized officer may issue an order to close or restrict use of designated public lands.
(b) Each order shall:
(1) Identify the public lands, roads, trails or waterways that are closed to entry or restricted as to use;
(2) Specify the uses that are restricted;
(3) Specify the period of time during which the closure or restriction shall apply;
(4) Identify those persons who are exempt from the closure or restrictions;
(5) Be posted in the local Bureau of Land Management Office having jurisdiction over the lands to which the order applies;
(6) Be posted at places near and/or within the area to which the closure or restriction applies, in such manner and location as is reasonable to bring prohibitions to the attention of users;
(7) Include a statement on the reasons for the closure; and
(c) In issuing orders pursuant to this section, the authorized officer shall publish them in the Federal Register.
(d) Any person who fails to comply with a closure or restriction order issued under this subpart may be subject to the penalties provided in ? 8360.0-7 of this title.
It would seem Burning Man LLC has rented the desert and does not want the liability of dead ‘guests’.
If this works out, maybe next year they’ll declare the festival a drug-free zone.
A side note, you all know that RIAA is rescinding Jefferson Airplane’s Gold Album certification for doping?
Don’t have the slightest idea what or who the “Burning Man” is or was. Other than the hazard of a burning man carrying ammo while on fire, I really can’t see what objection to the others carrying the BLM would have.
Relax, everyone.
This is Nevada. The BLM can squawk all they want. If folks in those parts wanna be packin, there ain’t a DAMN THING the BLM will do about it. They don’t have the guts to step into a drug induced crowd in a western desert and start something like that.
So they can burn effigies but not shoot?
So they declare that it is an act of performance art for the spectators to shoot at the burning effigy, and it's okay.
“The prohibitions above shall not apply to . . . any person authorized by Federal law to possess a weapon,”
“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Well, that should make this pretty easy, shouldn’t it?
“The prohibitions above shall not apply to ... any person authorized by Federal law to possess a weapon,”
The Constitution is the supreme federal law, is it not?
Step 2 is to declare that ALL land is Federal land...
BINGO!!!!!!!
” temporary weapons-free zone”
Soon............coming to a town near you, then your town and then your house.
And...........where is the Republican outcry?