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When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally
enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison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.
I signed. But being in MI. Our Sen, are as big a D as they get. But I signed and sent it anyway.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Delete