GOA Differs From NRA on Sportsman's Act

Kirk Freeman

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Mar 9, 2008
44,520
113
Lafayette, Indiana
S.3525 amends "Toxic Substances Act" to exclude ammo and fishing tackle from regulation of EPA.

GOA opposes the bill; NRA is for the exclusion.

Those of you who are GOA member, why is Larry Pratt against 3525?:dunno:

What are you receiving from him on this? Could you please post it?

Shocker: GOA Opposes Dem Sponsored Bill | Shall Not Be Questioned
 

hooky

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Mar 4, 2011
6,457
48
Central Indiana
Yesterday's Email:

Senate to vote on the Federal Land Seizure Act on Thursday

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) -- who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America -- is pushing a “hunting” bill that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes.

Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday.

ACTION: It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525. Click here to tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.

BACKGROUND

(1) When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison for applying clean dirt to a junkyard adjacent to a sewer, which was determined to be “wetlands.” But environmentalists have been brilliant in taking seemingly innocuous programs and massively expanding them through fraudulent interpretations or tiny loopholes.

(2) S. 3525 has “sweeteners.” It allows archery bows to be transported through national parks under very limited circumstances, although Obama could do this by administrative fiat. It also allows, but does not mandate, Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for target ranges. But none of these small discretionary provisions offset the potential damage this does to the rights of individual landowners.

(3) THE ISSUE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY: If this is the Democrats’ sop to gun owners, it may make it a lot more difficult to secure national concealed carry reciprocity or to stop anti-gun measures and treaties.
THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH S. 3525

The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]

Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”
WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS?

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.

The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.

Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats -- a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.

WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?

This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.

So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds -- and there is no protection in the bill against that.

Click here to contact your Senators
 

hooky

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Mar 4, 2011
6,457
48
Central Indiana
Modifications ? :dunno:

That's the only communication that I've received.

I'm inclined to say oppose, but I've got a personal experience around "wetlands" issues that causes my knee to jerk.
 

hooky

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Mar 4, 2011
6,457
48
Central Indiana
I was saying that I have no idea what modifications are being suggested, because that's the only communication I've received from them on this piece of legislation.
 

Prometheus

Master
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Jan 20, 2008
4,455
48
Northern Indiana
I was saying that I have no idea what modifications are being suggested, because that's the only communication I've received from them on this piece of legislation.

That's all I've seen too. Not to say there isn't more, I've been swamped lately.

I could actually use someone else to help me, but I'm not hiring. Thank obama and the republicans and democrats who supported obamacare for that.

Having a good background with dealing with unintended consequences of this sort of crap, I'd say oppose it as well.

The minor benefits are easily trumped by the virtually unchecked ability to seize land for virtually any reason with little to no recourse.

Obviously the nra supports it, they can claim a small up front victory and then when it goes horribly wrong (and it will) they will use it as a massive fund raising campaign.
 

ThrottleJockey

Shooter
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Oct 14, 2009
4,934
36
Between Greenwood and Martinsville
................

Obviously the nra supports it, they can claim a small up front victory and then when it goes horribly wrong (and it will) they will use it as a massive fund raising campaign.
^^^THIS^^^ I've found it to be a pretty good idea to vehemently oppose anything the NRA is "okay" with lately. I make pretty sure everyone knows just how I feel about their sellout BS and compromise....
 
Top Bottom