PDA

View Full Version : Obama admin to restrict firearms usage on public land, open range etc.



Little-Acorn
11-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Many have speculated that Operation Fast and Furious (a Federal program to waive firearms regulations and let straw purchasers bring thousands of guns across the border into Mexico with little or no tracking) was the first leg of a plan to increase firearms violence to the point where people would demand "more gun regulation".

Concern over the massive gunrunning schems, and the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and Americans such as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry with guns purchased through the Fast and Furious program, is reaching a fever pitch. But there is no overt evidence connecting Fast and Furious to President Obama's new push to restrict people from hunting and target shooting and bringing firearms onto public land, open range etc.

The government has been treating firearms as horrible things that no one in their right mind should ever touch, much less own; and has been remaining comparatively silent on the roles privately-owned firearms have played in preventing crimes and protecting people. After decades of badmouthing, the Federal government is now announcing that the reason they are starting to ban guns from open range and other public lands, is because people are worried or scared of them.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/12/congress-subpoenas-attorney-general-holder

Obama Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands

November 16, 2011

Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.

Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.

"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.

If the draft policy is finally approved, some public access to Bureau lands to hunters would also be limited, potentially reducing areas deer, elk, and bear hunters can use in the West.

Conservationists and hunting groups, however, are mounting a fight. One elite group of conservationists that advises Interior and Agriculture is already pushing BLM to junk the regulations, claiming that shooters are being held to a much higher safety standard than other users of public lands, such as ATV riders.

"They are just trying to make it so difficult for recreational shooters," said Gary Kania, vice president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. His group is one of several, including the National Wildlife Foundation, Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council fighting the new rules. During a two-day meeting ending this afternoon, they are drafting their own changes to the BLM rules.

"What we probably are going to be looking forward to is a reversal," said Kania. Asked about how to handle people who freak out when they hear shots on public lands, Kania said, "I don't know how to quanitify 'freaking out,'" and noted that he's seen people panicing when fly fishing in float tubes but nobody wants to ban then from rivers.

ConHog
11-16-2011, 01:03 PM
What the hell? Let's forget about the second amendment issue here for a moment and just concentrate on this.

One group of people can demand that an activity that they don't like not be allowed on public land? What is wrong with people?

PS - people who are likely to be "freaked out" by gunfire probably are not making big use of national parks anyway.

logroller
11-16-2011, 01:33 PM
I with CH, nevermind the unlikelihood this rule would stand up to legal scrutiny. Let's see where else We can abate a social conflict issue-- Let's start with people 'flippin out' over OWS protests. Clearly they have caused a social conflict, shall we ban protests from public lands too?

ConHog
11-16-2011, 01:45 PM
I with CH, nevermind the unlikelihood this rule would stand up to legal scrutiny. Let's see where else We can abate a social conflict issue-- Let's start with people 'flippin out' over OWS protests. Clearly they have caused a social conflict, shall we ban protests from public lands too?

I just find it repugnant that any person would try to restrict another person from enjoying a legal activity. Hell, it freaks me out to see fat people walking around, I don't want them outlawed though.

Nukeman
11-16-2011, 01:52 PM
What the hell? Let's forget about the second amendment issue here for a moment and just concentrate on this.

One group of people can demand that an activity that they don't like not be allowed on public land? What is wrong with people?

PS - people who are likely to be "freaked out" by gunfire probably are not making big use of national parks anyway.Happens EVERY year at Christmas time on courthouse lawns across the country.......

MtnBiker
11-16-2011, 02:23 PM
Acutally, the bigger concern is how much "public" land the Federal government owns and regulates in individual States.

logroller
11-16-2011, 02:49 PM
Happens EVERY year at Christmas time on courthouse lawns across the country.......

If public funds are used for Christmas displays, than those opposed to that use of their tax dollars have a legitimate complaint-- which can be made aside from any religious concerns. If you meant instead, say carolers singing on the courthouse lawn, then I would say no compelling public interest exists.

As I interpret the article, they're saying the firing of weapons on public land devalues other legitimate uses. Which, in and of itself, makes sense. Say I am a bird watcher, gun blasts would certainly make my enjoyment less feasible. Conversely, if i can't shoot my gun, so too have I been prevented from my legitimate enjoyment of the land. It sounds to me like the Obama admin is taking sides; which I think is unfair because we already have many places where one cannot shoot guns, National Parks for example-- why can't the people who don't want guns around go there instead? I understand the need for a balance, so that everyone has an equal opportunity to enjoy our land; but what Obama offers here is anything but balance.

ConHog
11-16-2011, 04:24 PM
Happens EVERY year at Christmas time on courthouse lawns across the country.......

And I don't agree with THAT either. Just stupid idiots who think the First Amendment says freedom from religion.

ConHog
11-16-2011, 04:29 PM
Acutally, the bigger concern is how much "public" land the Federal government owns and regulates in individual States.

I have no problem with the federal park system and such. I would hate to see some of our parks disappear because no one was around to protect them. Now if you want to discuss whether those parks should be owned by the feds but managed by private corporations, that would be a good discussion to have.

MtnBiker
11-16-2011, 06:06 PM
I have no problem with the federal park system and such. I would hate to see some of our parks disappear because no one was around to protect them. Now if you want to discuss whether those parks should be owned by the feds but managed by private corporations, that would be a good discussion to have.

Federal Parks are fine, I am referring to BLM land. Heck the federal government owns most of Nevada. In fact the government could retire a huge chunk of the debt if it would sell some of that land to US citizens that would in turn make it productive.

ConHog
11-16-2011, 09:56 PM
Federal Parks are fine, I am referring to BLM land. Heck the federal government owns most of Nevada. In fact the government could retire a huge chunk of the debt if it would sell some of that land to US citizens that would in turn make it productive.

Well SOME of that land has been rendered unusable for other purposes thanks to our government. But some of it certainly could be sold off.

red states rule
11-17-2011, 04:34 AM
DNCTV Host is stunned by support for people owning guns

Anyone surprised?


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/107493" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Psychoblues
11-18-2011, 12:13 AM
Back to the OP topic, it seems some changes have been made and better explanations that were not previously made available are now being published. It seems that most of the concerns were for people that "live" near areas where shooting may occur and felt unsafe being in a live firing area. Even down here in Mississippi we have no shooting zones, some government and some private and being respectful of the neighbors.

Here is what I think is a more up to date and informational article on the BLM decisions on the limiting of shooting on the less than 1% of federal land for socially conflicting reasons.

BLM Backs Off Proposed Regulations Banning Shooters From Public Lands
Agency was considering restrictions because HOMEOWNERS “freak out” hearing gunfire
by Jack Minor –

The government has reassured recreational shooters that they will still have access to areas for target practice after concern about the new guidelines was made public.


The Bureau of Land Management has proposed new regulations that could have greatly restricted recreational shooting on some public lands. In announcing the rules, the BLM said it was concerned about the possibilities of clashes between gun owners and encroaching urban populations that use the same land for hiking and ATV’ing.


U.S. News and World Report stated that the BLM admits safety was not the main reason for the new regulations.
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.”


If approved, the policy would have the potential to reduce access to lands hunters can use for deer, elk and bear hunting.
It could also affect local residents who often go out to the Pawnee National Grasslands and engage in recreational shooting. The government closed off 280 acres in the area in 2009 following several incidents where people were nearly hit with gunfire.
Despite the closures, shooting is currently allowed on 99% of the PNG............................................... .................................................. .................................

More: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11957

Sounds very reasonable to me. Should be considered a win/win by all involved.

Psychoblues

red states rule
11-18-2011, 03:00 AM
Got this in an email yesterday from a buddy of mine who is a hunter and owns several guns. It gives a good history lesson to the anti gun nuts


It is a fact that gun ownership of individual Americans is the reason the West Coast wasn‘t invaded by Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor

Adm Yamamoto, who lived in the US, had this to say about an invasion of America

“You cannot invade the mainland United States.There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

darin
11-18-2011, 11:04 AM
DNCTV Host is stunned by support for people owning guns

Anyone surprised?



Holy shit does that Anchor bother me. She's absolutely f'd in the head. I really - HONESTLY - cannot fathom the level of her ignorance; how can she believe the BS she's spouting??? wow. Mental Illness???

logroller
11-18-2011, 11:12 AM
Holy shit does that Anchor bother me. She's absolutely f'd in the head. I really - HONESTLY - cannot fathom the level of her ignorance; how can she believe the BS she's spouting??? wow. Mental Illness???

Oh she's no anchor, MSNBC is heaving to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaving_to).

red states rule
11-19-2011, 03:26 AM
Holy shit does that Anchor bother me. She's absolutely f'd in the head. I really - HONESTLY - cannot fathom the level of her ignorance; how can she believe the BS she's spouting??? wow. Mental Illness???

What would you expect DMP? She works along side the like of Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow - other objective journalists at DNCTV