Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/16/2011 6:56:44 AM PST by Second Amendment First
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. [Read about the subpoena issued as a result of Operation Fast and Furious.]
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.
BLM actually invited the fight, seeking the council's comments. But officials suggested to Whispers that no changes are being planned to the draft regulations.
Over five pages, the draft BLM regulations raise concerns about how shooting can cause a "public disturbance." They also raise worries about how shooting and shooters can hurt plants and litter public lands.
This is the key paragraph foes say could lead to shooters being kicked off public lands:
"When the authorized officer determines that a site or area on BLM-managed lands used on a regular basis for recreational shooting is creating public disturbance, or is creating risk to other persons on public lands; is contributing to the defacement, removal or destruction of natural features, native plants, cultural resources, historic structures or government and/or private property; is facilitating or creating a condition of littering, refuse accumulation and abandoned personal property is violating existing use restrictions, closure and restriction orders, or supplementary rules notices, and reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate the violations by the BLM have been unsuccessful, the authorized officer will close the affected area to recreational shooting." [Check out new Debate Club about whether Congress needs to overhaul gun trafficking laws.]
Squeezing out shooters, says the draft policy, is needed because, "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."
At yesterday's meeting at Interior, the council balked at the BLM draft regulations, adding that the Obama administration was not being fair to shooters on the issue of safety.
In a draft retort to BLM, the council said other users of public land aren't required to be as safe as shooters. They note that shooters have a much lower injury rate than others, like ATV users. "The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.
What's more, the group charged that the BLM is acting in a contradictory fashion, encouraging the shooting sports while limiting shooting areas.
See: the month's best political cartoons. Read more: about Operation Fast and Furious. Check out: our editorial cartoons on President Obama. Tags: Barack Obama, gun control and gun rights « Previous Post Reader Comments Read all comments (31) Add Your Thoughts Comment 3000 characters left Name State Email Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.
Enter the words above: Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ. Well, heck, let's ban electric cars on public lands, because I freak out when I suddenly see some city person comes barreling down a road in their electric car and I can't hear them coming because they run so quietly. Let's ban hikers on public lands because they crush plants and that hurts more plants than a few bullets which are generally aimed at dirt for target practice. Let's ban boats on public waters because they scare the fish. Let's ban all humans from public lands due to any damage they might do and because meeting another human on public land could cause the other human to freak out. However, by all means, let's NOT ban OWS protestors from taking over private or public property, because even if other people freak out when they defecate on that property, or rape women, they support the Democratic party, so they should be allowed to do anything. Obama....hands off our gun rights!!!
JOHNDD of NM 9:44AM November 16, 2011 [report comment] This country is about to fall off a very high cliff into a totalitarian bowl of poo-poo! Grab your bonnet!
RIGHTSTUFF of TX 9:43AM November 16, 2011 [report comment] I'll consider this the day that the Obama Administration does something about the encroachment of the Mexican drug cartels into the public lands in the southern states. There are literally state parks that we're advised not to enter. THAT is a real threat to the public.
Btw, I'm not a hunter and not into gun sports. I just see the massive disconnect and shake my head. The government is rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. It's ridiculous.
I’m so sick of this POS Kenyan fraud, his POS sow of a wife, their 2 sprogs and the freeloading mother in law . 2012 can’t come soon enough. Keep your powder dry boys & girls, this could get world class interesting.
You’re right. These public lands will be easier to keep available if we (the shooting public) would take better care of the sites: Organize an annual clean-up weekend... encourage users to pack out what they pack in... encourage good habits (no glass, no dumping)... things like that.
The problem is the federal government owns too much land.
There’s no logical reason the federal government should own upwards of 50% of the land in some western states. None at all. Do you think the writers of the Constitution ever envisioned the federal government owning (and controlling) this much land?
I’ve lived in rural areas for years. I rarely hear shooting activities - unless I’m the one shooting.
During that time I’ve visited Detroit, LA, Seattle, and Chicago for just a few days at a time. I heard gunshots every night in those cities. Funny. The only time I hear gunshots in the boonies is during daylight.
FUBO!
Yes, there is a logical reason that much of the west is federal land. It was not some land-grab. It's owned by default. No one wanted to homestead it, few want to buy it. Look at the large areas of public land. They are largely desert or mountaintop. No roads, no power, no water. Want some? You can buy lots of it that have only the above problems, really cheap. 100 acres or more for $10K was common last year when I looked, if you didn't mind if it has no water and is landlocked by other property with no easement to get to it.
alot of shooters come from what is commonly called “white trash” and not for no reason.
'packit in, pack it out' is common sense on anybodys land, as is using proper targets...NOT bottles and such...
that said, gubmint will spend millions and billions in 'management' of land, but cant/wont dump those used tire shavings used for playgrounds or gravel it, or even concrete/asphalt the shooting area for easy brass cleanup ???
oh well, like anything else, a few dumbasses will ruin whats left of a good thing...but realistically, we could make it pristine and it wouldnt matter to the statists who think they own the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands.../rant
BTTT!
Back in 2001 or 2002, I visited my cousin who lived on 40 acres in the sticks outside of Ft. Myers, FL. On this particular Sunday, his neighbor must have invited a couple buddies over for some fun with their firearms. For about two hours all I listened to was full-auto weapons firing, semi-auto firing and even the resounding boom of a .50 cal.......... I sure would have loved to have gone over and met that guy.
Last auto fire for me was a United States Machine Gun, Caliber 7.62 mm, M60 on USS Gemini either Nov 85 or Feb 86. Don’t see the point in a 50 BMG, though I’d love to have one. What are they now? 9 grand? I could find a heck of a lot better things to spend 9 grand on. Let’s see that would be 7 or 8 M-4’s or 45 Mosin Nagant’s, 18 AK’s, or 6 or 7 Kimber M1911’s. The list goes on and on. :-)
Don't know how much they cost but if you can afford one, might as well buy one.
As for that next door outing I mentioned, judging by the number of rounds that were fired that day, whoever was in attendance could afford it..........as a side note, according to my cousin, the neighbor owned a meat processing plant...which would explain alot.
I see your VN era Vet. You guys hold a special place with me. Thank you so much for your service. Well I’m just about ready to go off shift. Hopefully in an hour I’ll be drinking a few beers. :-) Take care.
2nd Term? We’ll need that ammo for the Restoration. 2nd amendment will be banned so no choice in the matter...
Funny thing is, I grew up in Kentucky, and lived there a total of 20 years, and never once had a bullet "whiz past my head" except at Ft. Knox, on the fire and maneuver course. Are you exaggerating for effect, newbie, or just full of crap?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Tell me you’re joking Sarge.
Well, I need to be more specific.
1. No farming on public lands unless the fees are commensurate with prevailing rates for private land farming. Also, the farmers are responsible for any chemcial cleanups and destruction caused by farming practices of the specific farmer. I grew up on a farm and do not agree that farming should be allowed on public lands for the mere pittences currently charged at great expense to the public who own the land.
2. I agree that hunting should be allowed on public lands for a fee, such as for licenses, permits, etc., and free for concealed carry and other types of lawful protection.
3. I do not agree that people should be allowed to freely walk onto public lands to target practice. Use private land or the available facilities such as target ranges.
Much of this has to do with proper management to prevent the trashing of our public lands.
You must not have seen the part where it reads "the right of urbanites to 'freak out' on public lands shall not be infringed."
If a shot is fired in the forest and there is no alive envirowacko to hear it, is there a noise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.