Does Personal Freedom Require an Environmental Impact Statement?

Apparently, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly thinks that personal freedoms require an environmental impact statement. Yesterday, she issued a decision blocking implementation of a Bush Administration ruling that eliminated the unreasonable restrictions placed upon the lawful bearing of defensive arms in National Parks.

Why? Because the Interior Department had not conducted an environmental analysis of the impact! So, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, do we require that that all personal freedoms be analyzed for their environmental impact, or just the ones that activist liberals in the judiciary object to?

The right to bear effective arms in defense of one's self and one's family is an inalienable right that is only guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Too often, Americans misunderstand the Constitution as granting or giving freedoms, rather than protecting them against infringement. The Bush Administration reversed decades of willful infringement of the Second Amendment through their ruling last year. Judge Kollar-Kotelly proved herself an activist of the worst sort when she threw common sense and the Constitution under the bus.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms might not be your favorite personal freedom. It might make you uncomfortable and the thought of your fellow citizens with firearms might scare you. However, there can be no picking and choosing when it comes to the protection of inalienable rights. Without arms, a citizen is vulnerable to the predation of any stronger invidual or group, and is unable to enforce their own basic right to life and security from bodily harm.

Finally, I suggest that every reads Czech President Václav Klaus' book Blue Planet in Green Shackles to learn more about the thinly veiled Socialist agenda of the environmental movement and how they are bent on the destruction of personal freedom.