Human Resource Selection 9th Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 10

Approximately 25 years ago, the Department of the Interior (DOI)implemented regulations that generally prohibited possession of firearms in national parks unless they were "packed, cased or stored in a manner that [would] prevent their ready use." A similar regulation applied to firearms in national wildlife refuges. On December 14, 2007, 47 United States Senators wrote to the Secretary of the Interior asking to have the DOI firearm restrictions lifted.
As a result, the DOI proposed a rule to better respect the rights of states, 48 of which "provide for the possession of concealed firearms by their citizens," a larger number than when the previous regulations were promulgated.
The proposed rule requested public comments until June 30, 2008, a date that was later extended by an additional 30 days. In total, the DOI received approximately 125,000 public comments on the proposed rule. Many of the comments suggested that allowing persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operative firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges would result in the use of those firearms, particularly for self-defense.
On December 10, 2008, the DOI published the final rule, which authorized persons to possess concealed, loaded, and operative firearms if permitted in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park or wildlife refuge is located.
Prior to issuing the final rule, the Department of the Interior did not prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4331, et seq.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Parks Conservation Association (Plaintiffs)have brought suit against DOI and other governmental entities and officials (Defendants)for DOI's failure to consider the final rule's environmental impacts in violation of NEPA.
DOI responded that the final rule had no environmental impacts, and that DOI was not required to perform any environmental analysis because the final rule only authorizes persons to possess firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, and does not authorize persons to discharge, brandish, or otherwise use the concealed, loaded, and operable firearms.
The Brady Campaign brought suit requesting a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of the final rule. What would be the basis of the suit? Should the Brady Campaign prevail? [ Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v Salazar, 612 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)]