E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Obama administration on Wednesday backed off a draft policy to restrict target shooting on federal land near residential areas.
In a memo, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he would direct his agency to "take no further action to develop or implement" the draft. U.S. News & World Report posted a copy of the memo on its website.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., last Friday sent Salazar a letter asking that the draft policy be canned, saying he worried it would be taken advantage of by anti-gun rights groups. "Any draft proposal regarding recreation on public lands must continue to guarantee hunting opportunities," he wrote.
In a statement issued along with a copy of the letter, Rehberg said the Obama administration "is uncomfortable with gun rights, and eager to restrict the Second Amendment at every opportunity."
"In a state like Montana, where the federal government is by far the largest land holder, preserving Second Amendment rights on public land isn’t just a question of good policy," he said. "It’s a question of protecting our way of life from big-city meddlers."
The rationale cited in the draft included public safety on areas maintained by the Bureau of Land Management.
"As the West has become more populated, recreational shooters now often find themselves in conflict with other public lands users, and the BLM is frequently called on to mediate these conflicts," the draft stated.
"Closing areas where risks are high may reduce shooting related conflicts, and may also reduce legal claims against the BLM for shooting-related injuries or damages," the draft concluded.
Rehberg and others opposed to the draft were particularly concerned with criteria they felt would allow land managers to unfairly limit target practices. The draft would have stated that "the specific shooting activity must not:"
- "Cause a public disturbance or create risk to other persons on public lands.
- "Deface, remove or destroy natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property.
- "Facilitate and create a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property.
- "Violate existing use restriction, a closure and restriction order, or supplementary rules notice."
A committee that advises the federal government on hunting issues had earlier also voiced concern about the draft.
"The Council concludes that its implementation will have the practical effect of moving recreational shooting off public lands, thereby diminishing public access to public lands," the group stated earlier this month in comments to the BLM.
The group, known as the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, drafted recommendations such as building berms to enhance safety. Its members include hunting associations as well as The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.
Leave a Comment:
I can't believe it finally some common sense from government.
Really? I was thinking just the opposite. Sounds like a good idea to restrict shooting near residential areas. What if kids are playing on the other side of the hill or someone's dog runs across the field of fire? Those items listed at the end of the article look like common sense to me.
I own and shoot guns. I am not anti gun. But I think it is a good idea to restrict shooting near residential areas. I have seen too many idiots out there to not think that it is a good idea.
So if I shoot a weapon, am I creating a "public distrubance" and are my shell casings creating a condition of "refuse accumulation", even if I pick them up? It seems this law basically allows anyone to complain about a shooter on public land.
Somebody likely mentioned the 10% FET on guns and ammo.
Really! Common sense? Yeah....it's just such a great idea to let you gun nuts shoot to your heart's content....until you manage to shoot some kid through his bedroom wall, or some mom while she's walking the dog. But, of course, your "right to bear arms" trumps any of our rights to be safe. Give me a break!
AG99 -
Do you really think there are playgrounds and homes on BLM land? In most places residents are miles away from where the public can perform their recreational activities. It's the people riding ATVs and Mountain Bikes on the trails that have the most cause for concern.
I think there is definitely potential for injury or worse when you have people on trails below a drop-off where other people are shooting. However, I've also seen how the BLM can go nuts and practically eliminate areas where you can shoot. Table Mesa near New River, AZ is a perfect example. I used to shoot there all the time. Unless you are a biker too deaf to hear gun shots and too stupid to stay on the trail there is very little chance you will get shot. When I went there in early May almost every area we once used had been closed down to shooters. There was only ONE location that was available, and if someone got there first you could be waiting for hours. A public range doesn't cut it if you are a competitive practical shooter. You need the freedom and space to run drills.
I was just in Tonto National Forest a couple of weeks ago and none of the trails in the canyon leading to Bartlett Lake allowed shooters, so there are plenty of places on gov't land where gun safety is a non-issue. Why take away what is left for the rest of us?
Tes so i am gun nut cause I hunt and have guns LEGALLY? way to judge.
Need to restrict idiocy, not everyone's gun useage. People with common sense know where and how to shoot safely. Citified morons, aka city slickers, are infesting all hunting areas. As for the the comment about accidently shooting someone's dog who's out roaming the woods,,,,, well, the odds are probably 10 million to one. There's few dogs, lots of open land, and bullets are small.
So now it will be a question of local-yokels accidently killing neighbors.
Maybe we let the people of Montana decide?
From the article above; "In a state like Montana, where the federal government is by far the largest land holder, preserving Second Amendment rights on public land isn’t just a question of good policy," he said. "It’s a question of protecting our way of life from big-city meddlers."
They forgot the asterick after the headline. *until after the election.
Exactly. He only did this because his approval rating is in the toilet.
You people all happy with giving up rights for a feeling of safety...
go to a different county please..you are the bane of liberty.
Why is the headline labled "limiting target practice" when what it is really talking about is hunting on federal land?
I'm a gun rights advocate (target practice on non living targets), but do not advocate killing animals.
Okay, can we shoot near your neighborhood then?
Lolly:
So what's the problem? If there are no residential areas near BLM land, then this law wouldn't apply. That's what this law was about; shooting near residential areas.
These are the actions the legislation sought to prevent:
Do you really think it is OK for people doing target practice to act that way? Do you believe it is just fine to put others at risk, to deface boulders or buildings, to leave their garbage behind, to ignore use restrictions?
No -- of course it is not a good idea to unduly restrict public access to public lands. But really, if the lands are public that means we all are responsible for taking care of it. Much of that we do through the taxes we pay. Perhaps there ought to be an 'acceptable use agreement' that continues to allow target shooters to do their target shooting -- and also expects them to be responsible citizens, taking care of the land they are using.
It seems to me the Fed just keeps failing us.
Incorrect, the law is about creating a "public disturbance" which is deliberately vague.
Wow- BLM land usualy butts up against trust land. We do not have any restrictions in az....and hardley any accidents. I have more of a prob with broken bottles and shell casings. I pick mine up....you should to. We are used to being able to take our guns anywhere. Saw a private sale in a bank parkinglot the other day...no one batted an eye.
Tes, can you pinpoint when some gun nut shot a child through the wall when firing their weapon on federal lands or is this just your imagination? I am an independent and want to ask a question. I have seen many of my rights disappear in the last few years. What right do I have to maintain federal lands when someone purposely builds a house on the other side of the federal land. The federal land was their first, now we have to change our rights due to someone else who decides they do not want hunting or shooting on these federal lands. Is this fair? I think not.
If they woulda caved to the anti-gun lobby on this; it wouldn't be without political cost. Montana is not California, Mass, or some other largely liberal state. Chances are, they'd find many an annoyed person from the patriot network up in the hills, if they went pulling this off :p
Oh, and someone was correct, the land use restrictions that can be imposed... When I was in Montana back in the early 1990s, I remember this political cartoon in one of the local newspapers. It had 2 apes hanging about. And one ape told the other "This just in. We have to have an environmental impact study, to be permitted to evolve". Anyone familiar with the land use battles that can ensue if one wants to tap into geo-thermal waters (even if they are a ways from Yellowstone) will get the analogy there. In many other parts of the country, people don't have to go through quite as much beuracracy, and given it is people's way of life there to hunt and stuff.... The liberatarians in the area would not be pleased if gun restrictions came down the pike, to say the least.... It'd certainly be a way to stir up the political scene a bit....
KiloByte: That's not what the article says: "The Obama administration on Wednesday backed off a draft policy to restrict target shooting on federal land near residential areas."
I'm amused by the people who proclaim "oh, so your right to own a gun trumps my rights to safety."
Guess what, you don't have a right to safety, at least a constitutional right. You do have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not to safety. Yeah, yeah, I know.......in a utopian world where all mankind have kind souls, and there's no poverty, there may not be a need for those dreaded firearms, nor the need to practice in order to defend yourself. But this is not the world we live in.......and never will be.
So, given the world we live in, and the U.S. constitution, my gun rights "do trump your so called right to safety."
And, when the @!$%# hits the fan, you'll probably beg for someone like me to protect you from your fellow man.
Tom, you brought up an interesting point about letting the state decide. But, federal law governs federal land. So you can run into legal issues when state laws attempts to dictate policy on state lands. These issues would be better dealt with on a state-by-state basis. One solution would be for the federal government to lease the land to the state for a number of years or for the state to offer to buy the land from the federal government. Sections bought could specifically be used by hunters if the state desires it. Could also restrict the sales to only public lands x-miles away from residential areas. Or, you could use a new federal law that only restricts target shooting etc. within x-miles of a residential area.
Also, moondog you're incorrect in your statement. The right to safety is directly tied to the right to both life and the pursuit of happiness. One's pursuit of happiness by being safe from accidental shootings is just as important as your right to feel safe and pursue happiness when owning a firearm. I hardly think you'll find someone that feels they have the right to pursue happiness if they are continually faced with the fear of immediate death. This is why laws that restrict such behavior are legal. For example, if you decided to take your gun and fire it in the air during a presidential speech, the safety rights of those there would trump your second amendment rights.
You can't simply make a blanket statement that one right trumps another. Context of that right and degree are extremely important considerations when making laws.
Someone who's continually faced with the fear of immediate death should rely on the government to protect them.......yeah right.......
And thats all it takes to convince you? Who cares what the article says, the important part is the terminology used in the bill itself.
Much ado about NOTHING
You know there have been ongoing attempts in Washington to release so called non essential National forest and park lands to developement all over the country...i have a suspicion that this propasal is actually intended to further facilitate this action in the future. Its all too vague to call it directed at gun or hunting rights to me...but one thing is for certain without an area designated for target pratice or sighting in sporting rifles it certainly will put a serious crimp in the ability for rifle hunters to insure and maintain accurate firearms before and during the season. I see nothing wrong with restricting the area to regions more remote than a few hundred yards from some populated region... it just is good common sense...but if the propasal doesn't have some agenda of exclusion to target shooters and rifle hunters in general why not a simple proposal for rellocation of existing ranges? And proposals for construction of future ranges that are not immediately adjacent to residential areas? There is far more here than meets the eye and whether you are a gun owner or a hunter or not...if anyone truly cares about the natural resources of this nation...to turn a blind eye to such a proposal is pure folly!
How about the FEDS (Mr. QE Bernanke) canning the idea of another Federal Reserve Stimulus to invigorate the economy in the amount of $ 1,000,000,000,000 - $ 2,000,000,000,000 ?
Oh, MSNBC completely forgot about reporting this initiative.
Back to the article.
First it was to hold in abeyance the Keystone project from Canda because the environmentalists were opposed to the pipeline.
Now it is to hold in abeyance gun restrictions by the BLM probably because Mr. Obama will infuriate yet another voter base.
Sheeeesh, just what can we expect from this Administration tomorrow ? Seems everything this Administration does domestically and Internationally is completely controversial and lacks common sense.
.
KiloByte: Since I couldn't find an actual copy of the policy in question, just people's reaction to it, then of course I'm going to accept what's in the article, as most other people here are doing. Why are you so quick to assume it isn't accurate? Have you read this policy yourself? Does it talk about restrictions near residential areas or just BLM land in general?
Moondog, you are not addressing the argument put forward... I provided you with an example of when your rights to use your gun are trumped by others safety rights. Granted it was a bit of an extreme example, but your argument was based upon an absolute. Absolutes are very bad when looking at laws and rights. Your right to own and use a gun is trumped in many situations. If you actually thought about this example in detail, you would have realized that a better argument for you would have been to show how shooting in such areas didn't create a public hazard and therefor the right to safety wasn't hindered much if at all. Instead, you made a false statement regarding gun owning rights trumping the right to safety. That is a false statement so it hinders your argument as opposed to helping.
I wonder what the federal definition of "near" is. 100 feet? 1 mile? 5 miles? 20 miles? What is considered a residential area? A population of 1/sq mile? 1000/sq mile? Is a cabin up in the woods a residential area? Who decides you're too close? Is it spelled out or is it up to the discretion of the BLM officer? These are where the law could make some sense or be a complete joke.
When I lived in CA almost all BLM land was closed to target practice except for maybe shotguns. Places that had been defacto target ranges were suddenly closed for no good reason I could see except someone had a burr up their butt about guns.
We all know that all gun owners are of sound mind and would always take the necessary precautions to assure that their shooting is safe, will cause no harm to neighboring properties, livestock, signs, buildings etc etc etc....so why would you need any law to enforce that???????
A gun owner and hunter for 48 years.
Why do we have bag limits, seasons, etc if all gun owners always do the right thing???????
Why do we have reduced speed limits in residentials areas.... by this logic you should be able to drive as fast as you damn well please on public roads and if you smash in to some kid, dog, house well that is their tough luck they shouldn't be living where you want to hoon around. Second Amendment my A__— this is politics at it's worst.....if Obama is for it it must be rejected out of hand, no matter how much sense it makes.
I like this one!
Let the Rednecks shoot each other on public lands.
That's ok but as the code of the Redneck is to consume as much alcohol as possible before shooting they are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders rather than the other Rednecks they are aiming at, and beside they generally shoot each other at home why the need to rubbish the public lands with their remains.
Moondog - it seems this regulation would have been enacted solely for people like you...maybe you in particular....people who believe that their rights always trump anyone elses' rights.
Just because you have the right don't make it right.
A Yank - yeah, perhaps.
Actually, this is all pretty funny. Assuming you don't have rifle ranges in you states that are more backward then New Mexico, you have to go to the middle of nowhere to sight in your guns? Whatever. Here, though, in New Mexico, there is a lot of flat open land with scattered housing. When people shoot guns, other people shoot back. That's a fact, so don't come here and shoot if you don't want return fire.
AG99....this bill has been widely discussed by law enforcement in AZ. They all concluded that it would have effectively shut down shooting on public land period.
shooting activity must not:
Cause a public disturbance or create risk to other persons on public lands. 43 C.F.R. § 8365.1-4(a) (Public health, safety and comfort);
Deface, remove or destroy natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property. 43 C.F.R. § 8365.1-5(a)(1);
Facilitate and create a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property. 43 C.F.R. Sec. 8365.1-1;
Violate existing use restriction, a closure and restriction order, or supplementary rules notice. 43 C.F.R. §§ 8365.2-5(a), 8364.1, 8365.1-6.
You can view it here...
hxxp://www.fws.gov/whhcc/doc/draftBLMshootingsportspolicy.pdf
In a separate proposal, the BLM wants to establish a permanent ban on shooting on 1.4 million acres outside Phoenix, citing litter from shooter is destroying the land. I guess it will still be open for illegals to destroy as they pass through though.
That's Rubbish....although coming from Ariz I am not entirely surprised. Do you know how much money comes in the Ariz economy via hunting.....and you think they are going to forgo that. I have hunted public lands in Ariz and the rules above are for the most part included in Hunter Safety Courses, good safe hunting practices and just plain common decency. The fact is there are a lot of idiots who are able to acquire guns (seems to be in plague proportions in Ariz) and Regulations and Laws are required to assure the rights of the all the people are maintained to a reasonable degree. You want to trash the place go ahead and do in your own back yard not on public land.
I own and shoot guns. I am not anti gun. But I think it is a good idea to restrict shooting near residential areas. I have seen too many idiots out there to not think that it is a good idea.
Absolutely agree. It's not that I don't think people should have their gun rights restricted, I just think there are too many irresponsible people that there has to be some reasonable restriction.
That said, you have to be careful where you draw these lines. Where I live you have to travel far to get to a place where you can shoot rifles.
Fact, that would be the benefit of having separate laws for different states depending on the geography and population. Hard to do though at the federal level since federal laws are uniform. Best result is to restrict it to some generic distance away or to sell the land to the states.
Too all you people that resent the 2nd amendment, how about we also take away your 1st amendment rights to post your opinions here or anywhere else, or maybe make Catholic the only allowed religion. Maybe we should take away your 5th amendment rights to not having self incrimination. How about your right to peaceful assembly to protest?. Bet you would be against that wouldn't you? You have to preserve the ENTIRE Bill of Rights or they all become subject to removal by the government once one precedent is set.
Ezerharden, you've missed the point here.... There's a difference between having your 2nd amendment right to own a gun and having the right to fire it for fun wherever you want. For example, I have the first amendment right to freedom of expression. However, public decency laws would prevent me from walking into a public school butt naked. Similarly, you have the right to own a firearm and use it, however, where you are allowed to discharge it can be restricted based upon public safety. You have a right to own and discharge a firearm. You do not have the right to discharge one in a public area creating both a noise nuisance and physical hazard. Hence the restriction on firing a weapon in particular areas.
Doggy, as a responsible gun owner I NEVER shoot near residences. Very recent example, Tuesday of this week I was in a very remote part of MI deer hunting. I had a great shot at 2 deer, however did not take the shot as they were heading toward a road. The shot was not safe so I did not take it. There are responsible gun owners and shooters and hunters out there. I agree with distance limits but the way this was spelled out was too vague. There were no defined distance limits. I have state land near me that I practice on. The areas that are used for shooting are clearly marked, berms in place, and far from any residential area (not that there are any around it). I agree shooting a rifle 20 yards from a house is unacceptable (Here in MI it is 500 feet minimum) I do not believe that it should be banned entirely. "Creates a public disturbance" well I have seen many throw parties that do that and nothing is done. "puts people at risk" again seen a lot of people leave parties drunk driving that does that too. If I go to any public land and it says to stay away from an area because it is a live fire range, I would be an idiot to NOT stay away. If you are worried about children, well, maybe actually being a parent and teaching your children to stay out of an area, or God forbid watching them might be a solution. I have lived in the country my whole life. the only two times I was ever shat at were on the East side of Detroit and in the Army. You will find that most gun owners and shooters are VERY responsible. Now look at Dick Cheney who shot his friend. Shooting at a quail. Quail don't jump that high. But of course being a politician he is above the laws of common sense. BTW I also always call out "Is anyone down there, or Is anyone down range" before I shoot and I look very long before pulling the trigger.
I'd just point out wto things. First, in Minnesota we ahve had some of the highest incidences of morons with guns shooting themsleves and everything else excpet the deer they were supposed to hunting than we have had in years. Second, a few years ago I almost got shot while driving down a PUBLIC access road when some morons saw some turkeys on the same road between me and them and ALMOST fired. At the last second one of them noticed my truck comeing down the road and stopped his buddy. The point is though, THE STUPID MORONS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HUNTING ANYWHERE NEAR THE DAMN ROAD INTHE FIRST F---ING PLACE! And this kind of total disregard for basic gun safety (and we won't even begin on all the trespassing these yahhoss engage in) is the reason we have to put some type of control on where gun nuts shoot - every single year they demonstrate in dead and wounded why they cannot be trusted to do it themselves.
I will agree to a certain extent. But spell it out and then actually ENFORCE it. Not all people that hunt or shoot are morons. Why penalize all of us for the stupidity of a few? If that were the case, we should ban voting because the people of Florida cant read a ballot right. I can't speak for all but I can say this, for myself I am more careful with a gun than I am with a car. You can at least stop a car, you can't stop a bullet. This vague language gives people who don't like guns the right to complain about hearing gunshots 2 miles away. Not bullet travels that far btw but the sound does.
If he didn't shoot how do you know his buddy stopped him? Was he right next to the road and you saw him aiming at you? If so call the police and he will be arrested and not be allowed to hunt again.
jpeg: Thanks.
can't stop me: Just read it. Great msnbc reporting, as usual.
can't stop me.....seems this regulation is designed specifically with people like you in mind. If you can't get the quote right you shouldn't even be allowed around guns much less own them.
Too many responsible gun owners and hunters around to allow people like you to stuff the rest of us up.
Ezer, this is why I've proposed several times that the law should be written to exclude shooting within x-miles of a residential area. To actually get that number x, you can talk with both residents within areas with hunting as well as hunter. I'm not proposing we give up the 2nd amendment right, I'm proposing that there are reasonable restrictions on where people are allowed to fire that weapon for shooting practice or hunting. You may be a responsible gun owner, you may also be a responsible driver but we still have speed limit laws. Not every hunter is responsible or their definition of being responsible varies widely. This is why you set a universal restriction so that even those that are irresponsible have a far lower chance of causing damage or harm. Laws are based more upon protections against the lowest common denominator of a group, not protections against the responsible individual. This is because the responsible individuals rarely put themselves in situations where they would be breaking a well written law, so having the law doesn't affect them much at all.
I can agree with distance limits, however the proposed bill as written did not have any limits. So as the bill was written I could be shooting 5 miles from a residential area, and be fined and/or arrested even though no bullet would travel that far.
actually, a high-power rifle round such as a 30-06 can travel as far as 10 miles (if you fire it at about a 45 degree angle upwards), a 50 cal can go even further(but you don't see too many people practicing with those.) the lowly .22 can travel over 1 and 1/4 miles
they aren't at all accurate at that max range, and have lost most of their punch, but are still quite dangerous
Oh, I see now. It's a real personal rights infringement.
These are the things hunters and those target practicing want to be able to do? Nice.
Brilliant retort...NOT
The extreme anti-gun people will find a way to enterpret these rules in their favor, thereby infriging on the rights of gun owners..be sure of that...then it will cost OUR government MONEY that we DONT HAVE to either correctly interpret these rules, or rule one way or another..Responsible hunters, and most of them are, would not do any of these things anyway...
My thoughts, exactly Rustboy. I would count myself privileged to live on land bordering public land. I would only hope for that to bring me peace and comfort.
"Responsible hunters, and most of them are, would not do any of these things anyway..."
I do not know any irresponsible hunters. The gun owners I know are safe and respectful. That is not to say that there aren't irresponsible people who would do such. And that is why a reasonable set of regulations is...reasonable.
Would you outlaw OWS and other "Occupy" groups, too? They routinely cause public disturbances on public lands, deface or destroy plants, government and/or private property, litter, accumulate refuse, and abandon personal property. Would you prefer the U.S. to be like Syria, where the citizenry cannot bear arms, and government shoots protestors?
Paul, I agree with you. Happy Thanksgiving!
I agree with Rustyboy. Why wouldn't you want to do the things listed at the end of the article anyway?
A land manager could easily say shooting causes a public disturbance and could claim ricochets creates risk, thus shutting down all types of activities involving firearms on public lands.
A bullet may inadvertently hit and destroy any of the above, thus shutting down all types of activities involving firearms on public lands.
Same
Hmm leave it to the gov to force hunters to find the lead after shooting..
With this law it would just be a simple matter to shut it down but you didnt need anyone to explain all this to you, did you?
Sounds like OWS. Maybe we ought ban Free Speech as well.
Where I grew up, when you went out shootin, you went with beer and lots of it. Just head out into the sagebrush, put some bottles on a rock and start blasting. Handguns, shotguns and high powered hunting rifles. Sure there's a farm off that direction, a neighborhood this way and over there, a golf course where the doctors, lawyers and business people hang out. Eastern Montana was a strange place to be a child. It was even stranger as an adult.
Rusty, you are arguing against common sense.
Montana has the 3rd lowest population density in the US. Quit exaggerating as if its a Long Island suburb.
Oh, and if you want to see strange stuff try growing up in near a liberal city.
yep, I've seen several popular "open shooting " areas covered in broken glass, bullet-riddled engine blocks, and literally every other kind of trash that thoughtless slobs just leave there.
I clean up when I shoot, and so do many other responsible shooters, but some of the popular open shooting areas are a disaster area.
It saddens me to hear this but theres already laws on the books for this type of behavior. Last thing we need are more laws, while current ones are being ignored..
And who decides the definition of "reasonable". Quite a few people would say banning guns outright is "reasonable". And it also begs the question- if we need this regulation, how have we managed this long without it?
Just take a look at the Federal Register, it's 80,000 pages long now.
backcountry, ther is no doubt that the regulations books need an extremely thorough going over to eliminate contradictions, redundancies, and obsolete rules, (along with the agencies that enforce them)we could probably get that book down to a mere 5,000 pages.
I sure hope Rep. Rehberg builds a nice house right next to a public forest, bends over to pick up a rake in his own backyard, and gets shot in the a$$ by one of those heroic "responsible" hunters. That's what I would call poetic justice.
Cheney usually hunts elsewhere!
Robin,
Thanks for your classic comeback - it "made my day"!
I'm glad to hear you're wishing an elected representative gets shot. If that does happen, I sure hope some nice men in black suits come to visit your house with a warrant and some zip ties. THAT would be poetic justice.
Actually, Rehberg lives next door to a rifle range. I don't think he minds at all. But then again, Denny is a laid-back, likeable guy who tolerates other people and other viewpoints.
Jeff,
Looks like you need cheering up today. Tell you what - look up what Bette Midler says about people who can't take a joke.
Cheers!
Otter
Higher chance of getting shot by one of your tamed socialist animals receiving their gubment check than by any hunter I know.
Just saying.
Don't worry about Cheney, he's big on "canned" hunts. You know, when they bring in a caged animal and release it infront of his gun.
Cheney shot a lawyer. They shoulda' gave him a medal! Does anyone know whether Cheney got that bird when he shot the lawyer?
I think many have misunderstood my position. I am a gun owner and former hunter and do respect 2nd amendment rights. I just don't see how having some common sense (which nowadays is not so common) regulations that apply to those enjoying public lands should be deemed so egregious and constricting in their adoption that the government has to step in to stop the government. Which side is intervention?
Please just enjoy our public lands with respect to the land and to others enjoying the same.
Let's go shoot a turkey!
Rusty the problem isn't regulation, it is the wording is too vague. Give it more precise definitions and it might be more widely accepted by the responsible gun community.
"the specific shooting activity must not:"
If you substitute "camping" or "hiking" or just about any other outdoor activity for "shooting" in the first line the policy would probably not get the reaction that it did. All these restrictions do is codify common sense. Most true outdoorsmen follow these rules anyway and would be upset with those that don't. What's the issue here?
Guns, if we can't use them, they will say we don't need them.
The issue is the language used to justify a bad policy is always reasonable, hell bureaucrats know how to write!
Let's probibit camping or hiking on public land then if it makes so much sense.
Oh dear...Happy Thanksgiving anyway.
I used to live adjacent to Lost Nations State Forest in Michigan. Well inside the border was a military style facility for all kinds of weapons. The only issue I ever had was that is that I started a small fire when a tracer round got loaded into a clip out of a box of bulk .223's. I ruined a nice coat putting the fire out.
As Gov. Perry might say.... oops!
I grew up on a farm in upstate New York where hunting and target shooting was as natural as inner city folk catching a bus or cab or being mugged. No person ever threatened me while I was hunting. After twenty years serving my country in large metropolitan areas and a theatre of combat, I pity those who have never lived in a rural area. You do not know what you are missing when it comes to our second amendment rights. One needs to walk in freedom's shoes before throwing them them out.
Perfect
Very cool thing about Florida. I go from a huge metro area to wilderness in 20 min. in any direction.
It's a hard thing in our Country. The City people think that that they know everything about the rural areas and the Country roads crowd think that they know everything about the City LOL
Ya know what this sort of anti-gun rhetoric results in? People like a brother of mine who was a cop in Trenton, NJ; and the political powers that be concerned about the image if a cop defends themselves when dealing with drug dealers and gang bangers. So if they end up using their piece in self defense; well we can't have that because (and we've seen it happen before) some people figure the cop should have to wait until their shot, before they're allowed to do something about a perp comming after them.
Well my brother saved a kid the perp was going after, but in the process he's lost use of his righ hand (right handed), and surgery that could have saved use of his hand, well the cops health insurance wouldn't approve any medical expenses. So, after the fact it was determined that without full use of his hand, he can't do his job; termination of employment, loss of all vacation and sick pay, yadda, yadda. He's sueing the city, and a brother in law (police deputy chief in a different dept) thinks he has a very good case. But oh yeah, he's got a 7 year old; and well think of it this way, the perp was allowed to assault him, without having to risk a case of self defense, which could turn into a lawsuite against the department should a perpetrator not want to face the possibility of bodily harm even as he's intent on inflicting it on the cop. Yeah, great outcome some seem to go for....
Hope he wins, that is complete bullsh!t.
The bottom line here is that you have a really strong Anti-Gun lobby and politicians that do not respect the parts of the Constitution that do not pander to their base. That being said, it has little to do with common sense and more to do with fighting anti-gun legislation wherever it shows its face. Its like abortion, you need a strong Pro Choice lobby to keep radical right wingers from impeding on your constitutional rights of medical privacy in the same way you need a strong lobby like the NRA to fight every attempt to chip away at our rights. If they did not have dis-ingenuous motives the gun lobby would not have problem with this and maybe the "common sense of not shooting near homes" would be just that common sense. But its not, we know what they are after, we know they want to restrict the rights of citizens to protect themselves, legally carry, and impede on our 2nd amendment rights. That being said, any attempt that is backed by "common sense" is just another opportunity for the anti-gun politicians to chip, chip, chip, chip, and we wont let that happen. I am a liberal, but I am very happy the NRA has become the 800 lb gorilla, and cannot be moved.
Exactly Chris.
That is the approach that I have been using. "I can't tell you what church to go to which is your constitutional right. So what gives you the idea that I cannot exercise MY constitutional right?"
Ah but David, the Government always tells you what your rights are. The 2nd Amendment is your right to carry law, but you still have to jump through the state hoops to get a license to carry.
Who is the we and how do "we" know that? There is a big difference between "taking yours or my guns away" and reasonable restriction on the use of firearms.....the NRA has cost a lot of lives with their constant vigil against reasonable gun restrictions no matter what. The NRA are the mouth piece of the arms manufacturers.
The Second Amendment does not say anything about carrying a side-arm in public or shooting up the neighborhood for a bit of target practice. It gives you and me the right to "keep and bear arms" and it's intention was to be able to form militias rather than keeping a standing army which the forefathers thought was more of a danger to civilian government that citizens having and bearing arms when necessary.
Reasonable regulation on the acquisition and use of firearms will keep the body count down, just like speed limits, alcohol limits and seat belts.
Yeah, it does, keep means its mine, an bear means its on my person.
There's a lot of public land in DC, yes?
Some of the people who advocated this policy are like people who buy a house in a new development near an airport and then start complaining about the noise. People have been hunting and shooting on government-owned land a lot longer than there have been suburbs.
For real, if you are so scared there don't live in Montana next to a National Forest where people like to hunt. There are plenty of boring neighborhoods like the one I live in where the only gunfire is at a range 30 mile away. Get real, people, the idea of getting hit by some stray bullet is probably next to an alligator coming out of the toilet and biting your tush. This is just Anti-Gun Anti-Second Amendment BS.
Thank you Chris
It is much akin to recommending Chicago to become the 51st state. They think like New York that because all the people there want to break the constitution..they can.
It just does not work like that.
You know that a NY state CCW is not good in NYC but a NYC permit is good anywhere in NY State right? City trumping the state?
Retusn - great post!
Just pick up your expended shell casings and pack them out with you.
I think we all agree. Dont litter. Go ahead post your don't litter sign, and if you get caught, its 500 bucks or whatever, cigarette, cup, plastic bag, shell casing, computer, toxic waste, whatever.
but those"DON'T LITTER SIGNS" make great targets for target practice ! i always pick up my spent shells and others as i find them as brass is expensive ,both for reloads or scrap metal money
There are laws already on the books to prohibit the outlined unsafe and irresponsible activities. I do appreciate this administration giving us a glimpse at a piece of their agenda. Four more years of this administration and diguised laws like this will be in place.
Mtnview: Say again? You state that there are already laws on the books to prohibit the same actions called out in these regulations, but then say the regulations are a threat to your 2nd amendment rights, and a sign of a nefarious government agenda. Diagnosis: Obamaphobia.
kamudi
I don't need any other law than the 2cn Amendment for me to own and carry a firearm. But the states disagree. Hell in IL it is impossible to get a permit to carry, even though the 2nd Amendment says I can. State trumping the Bill of Rights?
Really, we need to encourage the discharge of firearms in or near residential areas. Parks with playgrounds too. Maybe malls, schools, public buildings. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Typical liberal argument. Create a strawman bearing no resemblance to the argument at hand, then beat him up.
Already there in your ghetto, Richard and encouraged by the admin's attitude toward illegals and gang members.
Richard: As Dr. Freud might suggest, I believe you may have issues with your mother that need to be resolved.
Typical, richard (dick!) as already stated there are rules against shooting near dwellings, camp grounds and such. No one is encouraging shooting up a playground or building. Why is it you anti gun fools always come up with the lamest arguments and thoughts? Since you know none of the rules why even comment/ Oh, that right, the overwhelming urge to spew useless and inane comments is always strong with your type.
Then how would you genius's limit the use of guns near hiking trails if they are on federal land?
As far as I can determine, states have limited power over what happens on federal land, so how are you going to stop your deranged brother-in-law from shooting up a school as long as he stands on adjacent federal land? Oh, THAT will never happen! Right? Even the NRA admits that on average, the number of guns in a household is inversely proportional to the number of years of education in that household. If the average gun owner were not below average IQ, we would not have as much to worry about, but....
a high IQ does not guarntee someone can function in society. "smart" people are usualy the dumest in terms of common sense.
LOL - see I have a high IQ but can't spell worth sh it
"Even the NRA admits that on average, the number of guns in a household is inversely proportional to the number of years of education in that household"
Actually,it's the exact opposite-people with an education,and an IQ higher than their shoe size own firearms,and believe in the 2nd amendment. The "average" gun owner has a college degree.
No idea where you got your mis-information-but that's what it is-likely from an anti-gun group,or writer.
Well around here I know most of the hunting areas warn people during hunting season and require hikers to wear orange vest on trails close to designated hunting areas...the camp grounds are closed during those times as well in and around those areas. This is really not as hard of a subject as everyone seems to be making it out to be...everyone just needs to be respectful of others.
I do not own a firearm, but I can't agree more with Larry1959, most of the men I know who use and own a firearm are the most reasonable and self contained individuals I know. I live in the city, I do not hunt, and ownership of a handgun for self protection ends up in the hands of felons frequently due to burglaries, so I have no real need for one. If lived out in a wilderness area I would definitely own one, just in case a bear might take to wanting a pie from the kitchen.
Have Gun, Have degree, Will travel.
BHO knows it is election year, time to back off all those things that would cost him votes.
He spent the last three years taking as many rights from us as he can, suddenly come election year he becomes "your buddy."
Votes count and unfortunately we have allowed sheep to vote.
yea and besides he needs another vacation .... NOT to be wasting time signing another stupid law that is unAmerican hes done enuf of that in the past 3 years
Typically Demoncrats are anti gun. That is why WI finally got CCW permits, a predominantly REPUBLICAN government with a REPUBLICAN governor.
Wow, obama is a genius! and a moron at the same time. Even liberals out west go shooting on the open range. GWBush tried something as stupid with the same results, no snowmobiles in Yellowstone! that lasted about 10 seconds. Allow the progressive left to get in office again in 2012, and there will be this and many other freedoms lost!!! if you believe that Obama is center your nuts, he is a leftist and a communist.
And you're a nut case!
And you would be the one to determine that? Arent you the guy who thought we ought to be like Spain and Italy? LOL Do you wake up screaming at the communists? Grow up. Nobody is saying gun nuts cant target practice. We would all support their doing it in their bathrooms with their tonsils as the target!
The right isn't protecting your rights. They are just telling you what they know you will believe. And it sounds like you will believe anything!
Get psychiatric help now.
The simplest reason for preserving gun rights is this: by restricting the right to keep and use a firearm to the police and military you end up with a heavily armed police force and an unarmed populace. Look at how well that's worked out in places like Egypt and Syria. Besides, this isn't about the right to kill if we want, it's about freedom of choice. The truth is that we have the freedom to choose or not choose to own fuirearms, and most of us choose not to. When was the last time any of you even saw a gun, let alone a gunfight? The people shooting each other are for the most part not going to give a hoot about the legal status of their weaponry anyway.
And speaking of the truth, I'm really tired of the horrification that's been the way of special interests (the Conservative Right breing the loudest, meanest Special Interest group around) lately. I'm sick of people choosing dramatic, inflammatory terms and then stretching them to apply to subjects they were never intended for in order to steer the dialog away from the actual facts. It's a tactic children use when theyr'e trying to get away with something they know the truth just won't support. It's cheating, plain and simple and it embarasses me in the eyes of the world that no one is the least bit ashamed about it.
You want to know why the Government is the way it is? Look around you. They're YOUR representatives, and they're doing a yeoman's job of it.
AC
But the sad part of it all is, that they were put there by we the people. Doesn't say much for the masses...own a gun and protect yourself from a government out of tune with people.
"The truth is that we have the freedom to choose or not choose to own fuirearms, and most of us choose not to."
That statement is nowhere near the truth,almost 50% of U.S. households own at least one firearm-those who don't own firearms are the people most likely to live in big cities,live in condos,or apartments,or some other form of living right on top of and/or next to their neighbors-they have no clue what it's like to live anywhere outside of a large city-
They believe that they should be who decides what people who live in rural areas should and should not be permitted to do-and the big-city types know it all,and feel they should be able to tell the "uneducated rednecks" what they can and can not do-and that is NOT a tactic of the right-it's a tactic of the liberal left,the extreme enviros,and the animal rightys whackos.
If you do some research on this issue-the whole thing started because some just moved from the big city libtards "freaked out" at the sound of gunfire-since it "freaked them out"-no one should be allowed to shoot.
Here's a thought-if you don't like hunting,trapping,shooting,ranching,farming,logging,etc-stay in the city.
...just for the record, I'm the son of a Master Gunsmith and a Veteran, and have owned, maintained and used firearms all my life. I am and always will be strong supporter of all of our Constitutional rights, not just the 2nd Amendment.
...and one more thing --- I stand by my assertion that the Conservative Right is the loudest, meanest Special Interest Group around these days. The anti-gun lobby is excessively earnest and their naive belief that banning gun ownership will work any better than banning alcohol did or banning drugs has has no historical support whatsoever, but they have yet to reach the extremes of misrepresentation committed by the Conservative Right regarding any issue they seek to restrict or point of view they seek to suppress. Even this discussion is a result of that misrepresentation -- we all should be acting as proper American citizens and presenting a unified front to our Representatives. We know what we want them to be doing right now! But instead we just bicker among ourselves about issues pumped up by talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, issues that sound IMPORTANT but have little if any relevance to the direction our Representatives are pointing our country. While we're distracted fighting with each other our "Representatives" continue handing our hard-earned prosperity and way of life to Big Money, pushing more and more of us out of the middle class and into skid-shack-company-store subsistence lives.
OK. I'm done.
AC
Just one more comment to Larry1959 ---
By your own words, "almost 50% of U.S. households own at least one firearm". If almost 50% of the households own a gun then simple arithmetic says that the ones who dont constitute the remainder, which has to be more than 50%. So by your own figures, more don't own guns than do. Granted, "most" isn't a quantified term, but "More" is closer to "Most" than "Less" is, so I'm standing by the essential truth of my statement.
Cheers!
AC
Why would a person raised in the lap of luxury; attended private schools and an Ivy league school want to limit the rabbles ability to have weapons? Mommy may have been on food stamps but grandma and grandpa were rich and took care of little half-&-half.
Well, when a celebrity gets killed, then the government will think again about this issue. As long as it is a regular person at risk, who cares? As long as I get to shoot my gun anywhere I want! Let's hear it for irresponsibility sanctioned by the government. Yippee!!!!!
I think JFK was a celebrity.
Jim,
you do know where the National forest system came from don't you? Ever hear of Theodore roosevelt? Care to know what and why Teddy did what he did and what motivated him to start that system in the first place? The whole purpose for the initiation of national forest and park lands were to preserve the natural resources of this country from developement and it was instigated and continues to be funded by large majority through sportsman contributions. Of course these people want to continue to have a place to practice these sports and guess what?.... thats what the National forests are there for!
This over dramatic crap of "oh you hunters and gun nuts want to shoot where ever you want to the detrement of everybody elses safety" Is just that! crap! But.... to wish to continue a heritage that was gifted to them by this very goverment seems fairly logical to me since these places are there because of and by and large financed by sportsmen.
There are plenty of opportunities for you and yours to go out and about on this nations park and forest lands in complete safety,before during and after hunting seasons and far away from target ranges...but you apparently aren't satisfied with that! But rather, want to exclude the very group that granted you that opportunity in the first place. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
Theres not a true sportsman here that would argue against safe use of firearms.... appropriate gun range to residential limitations or any of the other things that proposal addressed ,such as litter containment and waste removal .... every true sportsman I personally know polices themselves in those regards anyway...but you are so anti gun period! None of this actually matters to you does it? Guns are evil and gun owners are evil and you are just living on borrowed time until a stray bullet from a squirrel hunter cuts a furrow down your scalp!
Yet you are more than willing to get in your car drive in a frantic congestion of traffic and go to your local stop and rob... all of which have been proven statistically time and again to be far more and routinely dangerous on a daily basis than spending some time in a National forest near where a hunter or shooter might be.
Yeah Jim.... that makes good sense and is a perfectly logical argument.LOL.
Does this include target practice at illegals or not?
No, but it does allow shooting drunk fat guys in orange vests. LOL
tex,yet another one who actually thinks that the movies are true depictions of life.LOL. and I'm sure old tex here has a game controller in his hand right now..blowing up zombies with his faux ak47 .
Just make Dicky Dick Brain Cheney is target practicing to close to those residential neighborhoods!
Well Dick is O.K. IN MY BOOK. You aren't.
Exactly what would be the problem with restricting gunfire within "x" distance of any residentially zoned areas bordering or contained within fed lands without the bloat put forth in the draft? I know...too simple, right?
The problem is that the average gun nut cannot walk x feet from his pickup! Unless of course he accidentally throws his 6-pack out the window thinking it is his newborn baby girl.
In Arizona that law is already on the books. Fire a weapon within a quarter mile of a house and get caught, your going to jail and will pay a fine.
obama is a sneaky little liar. He will try and sneak something in on us to take away our Second Amendment rights. Part of obama's plan to destroy America is to dis-arm as many of of as he can so no one can fight back or protect themselves...... yep, obama is a sneaky little liar............
LOL
Paranoia strikes quietly until you wake up! Then you realize that you are the enemy and it is time to strike! Holy scat there William, seek help before morning!
Well, good thing Ace Hardware has a sale on deadbolts and fencing during Black Friday weekend...you can beef up your fortress mentality to help you sit comfortably and enjoy all of your conspiracy theories while watching FOX news...
LOL,well said for an affirmative action graduate.DD.
Hey Harlan, I have a bridge in Brooklyn, are you interested?
99.999% of people injured on public land fall. 99.999% who use fire ammunition on public land are perfectly safe. The .001% with a weopon are injured by another weopon or themselves.