Posted on 10/31/2001 4:27:39 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
News Max / Comment Max
CARA and the NRA: From Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader
Diane Alden
Oct. 30, 2001
CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act – House bill HR 701 – is a federal mega-bill that will give off-line budget monies to states and communities for their pet projects. It is in the billions of dollars and many states and communities want a hunk of it, without understanding that it is a bill that will be as destructive and pitiless as the other environmental bills have been in their application by federal bureaucracies and the mean green machine.
Like other well-meaning efforts passed by Congress – the Endangered Species and Wilderness Acts, for instance – its provisions will end by destroying basic freedoms along with that which it was meant to save.
Sadly, one of its major supporters is the National Rifle Association under the influence of board member Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. NRA board members need to be aware that the devil is not only in the details but also in how CARA is implemented as time passes. We know that past is prologue and such acts are rarely implemented as they were originally intended.
At one time there were a few congressional warriors who defended the rural way of life and vehemently defended private property, none more so than Rep. Don Young of Alaska.
However, as years passed, so did Young's efforts to stabilize and maintain his position of no net private property loss to federal or green control. Young once believed that states should have control over what happened to their land mass.
But life happens and money talks and reality bites as many idealistic congressmen and senators roll over for the juggernaut of federal land-grabbing at the behest of the new religion of environmentalism. They see it as unstoppable as some "moderate" Muslim nations view radical Islam.
Young went to Congress vowing to end the green tyranny and fight against the idea as the barons of D.C. continued to treat Western and rural states like their personal feudal empires. But over time, both Young and Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski have turned from the "force" of good and gone over to the dark side. Both will bring home pork if CARA is passed in its entirety.
There is $3 billion guaranteed money every year to buy land from "willing sellers." I've seen personally how that works – when the greens or feds want your land, they will make SURE you ARE a "willing" seller, by hook or by crook. Through intimidation and condemnation, eventually they get what they want – usually at rock bottom prices.
The problem is that Title II allows the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to buy up private land in and around existing parks and other federal land areas. Opponents say this will lead to forced sales and possibly condemnation.
Again, I have seen it happen time and time again. In places where federal lands abut private lands, within 10 years or less those private inholders are gone and their cabins or land cleared of any trace that they were ever there.
Unfortunately, it would seem the powers that be in the National Rifle Association operate under the spell of Don Young. They want to please this longtime board member by supporting his pet bill, CARA. But as he seduces them with promises of monies for their sporting pleasure under Title III of CARA, these board members had better recall what happened to the loggers, miners, ranchers and the Klamath farmers.
Fred Grant Kelly is a constitutional scholar who practiced law for several law firms and was also an assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland. He now lives in Idaho and has become an expert on land use issues. He is also consultant to the Owyhee County Natural Resource Committee and to the Board of County Commissioners regarding land use planning for the federally managed lands in the county.
Grant has been a consultant to Stewards of the Range since 1997 and currently serves on Stewards' board of directors. He is also chairman of Stewards Litigation Committee.
Kelly has tried with no success to get a hearing before the NRA board. The NRA is making a final decision about support of CARA this coming weekend at a meeting in Washington, D.C. His take on CARA speaks not only to the devil in the details but to the long-term implications:
CARA supporters do not want the American people to realize that billions of dollars will be made available for condemnation of private property. They do not want the American people to understand that these billions of dollars can be used to initiate condemnation proceedings which are emotionally traumatic and financially costly to the private property owners. They do not want the American people to understand that these billions of dollars can fund regulatory takings which force private property owners to initiate costly legal proceedings to obtain compensation for their lost property.
So, they play the "willing seller" card. And, they play it ... and they play it. They persuade the special interest groups. They hope that the public will not read the Bill and see the light. It should also be a frightening thought for all hunting and fishing enthusiasts whose national organizations have jumped on board the "CARA express." They may look longingly at the millions of dollars which will be made available through this pork barrel. But they should be thinking about the restrictions on all outdoor activities which the Audubon Society or the National Wildlife Association can bring about through their "cooperative planning and implementation" role, shored up by federal dollars. They should be thinking about how conservation organizations have fought open access and about the shut-down of access which can be accomplished through "total protection of a species or population." They should be mindful of the access which is available throughout the nation today because of the availability of private property and the cooperation of owners. When the vise is tightened under this Title, and unwilling sellers decide to "concur" with a sale, private property – private access – will disappear.
The NRA is blind to think promises to them will be kept simply because Don Young says so. Young will not always be around to protect NRA's interests.
CARA will be the tool to divide and conquer hunters and NRA members from ranchers and private property groups. It will be the tool to further the green juggernaut and anti-hunting forces. The big winners will be leftist greens and the big business of the green machine. That machine WILL take control of more and more areas of the U.S. These people are NOT sympathetic to hunters, and to think so is extremely short-sighted and foolish.
IF they tell you otherwise, they are lying to you. Government NEVER keeps its promises – ask the Indians and the farmers of the Klamath and the Hispanic small-family loggers of New Mexico. Ask the Quincy Library Group about how trust in government and the national green groups is like trusting the snake not to bite you as you clasp it to your bosom.
NRA Board Meeting and a Plea for Doing the Right Thing
The National Rifle Association is supporting CARA because of one part of the bill, Title III.
The NRA board of directors will meet from Oct. 31 through Nov. 4. Dr. David Oliver, an NRA board member, has stated that "CARA will be discussed in 2 committees – Hunting and Wildlife Conservation and Legislative Policy. Hopefully, it will be referred to the full Board, which should discuss it on Sat., 3 Nov. and Sun., 4 Nov. For most of the Board, this will be the first time CARA has ever been discussed. A policy to support CARA has never been set by the Board of Directors."
As of this moment there have been hundreds of resignations from the NRA over this issue, and there will be more if CARA is passed.
I have read anguished letters from some of these people who have been NRA members for decades. But the elite board members like spokesman Wayne LaPierre and James Baker, head of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, are not listening to them.
Many members have attempted to get the attention of board members Oliver North and Charlton Heston, to no avail.
The seductive sound of NRA lawyers and Don Young tickle their fancies, making this all about money for wildlife and more areas for hunting.
These are vacant promises. The NRA board members should not listen to this nonsense. It's as meaningful and sincere as a young man looking for a one-night stand.
There are notable exceptions opposing CARA on the NRA board of directors. Joining board members and thousands of regular NRA members condemning CARA is NRA board member Mr. Taxman himself, Grover Norquist.
Norquist's fight against the tax system is legendary. His stand on CARA is courageous and right. He maintains: "For the Record, and if anyone is doing a vote count. ... I am strongly opposed to CARA and have testified against this anti-property rights, anti-taxpayer legislation in the House of Representatives."
Other NRA board members in opposition to CARA are rock star Ted Nugent; Sheriff Printz of Ravalli County, Mont., who successfully challenged the Brady Bill all the way to the Supreme Court; Rep. Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho; and G. Ray Arnett, past president of the NRA and assistant secretary of Fish and Wildlife under Ronald Reagan.
Others not on the board of the NRA against CARA are Henry Lamb, Chuck Cushman, Mike Hardiman, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, journalists John Lankford and Tom Childs, and a host of other folks who see the connection between the unconstitutional land grab that CARA represents and their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
If the NRA wants to honor Young, give him another legacy. Build him a statue in Fairbanks. Honor him with an endowed chair at Harvard, Princeton or Yale, but whatever you do, do not support CARA.
You could honor the Constitution and all our rights by working to rescind some of the wilderness designations under the Antiquities Act that have turned Alaska into a colony of Washington, D.C. Allow the people of the various states to use their own resources to improve their future potential.
The states of the West and Alaska are NOT the property of some guy who lives in Connecticut – they belong to the people who live in the state of Alaska or the other Western states under assault.
By the way, that assault has moved eastward as well.
I make my pitch to the NRA: Please join the fight to keep the entire Constitution intact. Join together with your brothers in the private property movement.
Combine your efforts to protect your Second Amendment rights with the important rights of private property. Without private property, the other rights are moot anyway. Do not betray the right of individuals and the states to hold on to what is left of private land.
CARA is one more stab at the heart and spirit of the principles contained in the Constitution. CARA will do absolutely nothing in the long run to "save" the land, but will further erode the Constitution.
CARA goes against Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Never mind the provisions of CARA – I thought the NRA was about maintaining the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Maybe not.
Hanging on to one small part of the Constitution is not enough anymore. ALL of that document matters or none of it matters.
I ask the NRA to throw its considerable weight for freedom, the Constitution and the thousands of people who will lose it all if CARA passes.
I pray there are still 'Bravehearts' among the NRA.
The NRA members of the board need to show the courage of free men who are not so immersed in their own causes and issues that they cannot see the bigger picture. It is about freedom.
To find out more about CARA, visit my website at www.aldenchronicles.com. You can reach me through that site or at alden@newsmax.com.
***
Diane Alden is a research analyst with a background in political science and economics. Her work has appeared in the Washington Times as well as NewsMax.com, Enterstageright, American Partisan and many other online publications. She also does radio commentaries for Steve Myers' show on Liberty Works Monday and Friday mornings, and can be heard regularly on Mike Fleming, WREC in Memphis.
THIS Story at News Max / Comment Max
ALL, I would submit that the "meaning" behind this legislation is NOT "well", or EVEN good. As in education, "mistakes" made in coordinated stupidity at this level are NOT POSSIBLE!!! What are the chances of a FREEP??? Peace and love, George.
(BTW - I searched for posts regarding this canned response before posting, so you multiple post Nazis back off)
____Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:36:51 -0700 (PDT) From: XXXXXXXX
Subject: NRA support for CARA
To: SLamson@nrahq.orgMs. Lamson,
I am an attorney and a member of the National Rifle Association. I have serious reservations regarding CARA and oppose the passage of this bill. You now have at least one member of the NRA voicing opposition to this bill.
I intend to forward my concerns and your email to pro-Second Amendment groups that I am a member of or offer advice to. I will offer my opinions on the bill and advise individuals to contact you with their thoughts, pro or con.
I strongly request that the NRA reconsider its position with regard to this bill. If the NRA continues to support this bill I will drop my membership in this organization.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX ______
From: ILA-Contact [mailto:ILA-Contact@nrahq.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:41 AM
To: XXXXXXX
Subject: CARAThank you for contacting NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. As for your concerns regarding NRA’s support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), we appreciate you sharing your opinions, and we are happy to explain our position.
First, our support of CARA is based on a provision within the bill known as Title III—Wildlife Conservation and Restoration. NRA helped to author Title III, which provides additional funds to state fish and wildlife agencies through the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) trust account. Congress established the P-R trust in the 1930s with the strong backing of sportsmen, and the trust account assists states in conserving and restoring wildlife and habitat, which is a benefit to hunters and other sportsmen.
Because NRA has a long history of promoting and defending hunting as a shooting sport and as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation, and wise use of our renewable wildlife resources, it is clearly appropriate for NRA to support Title III. And since Title III is one of 10 different sections of CARA, it is necessary for NRA to support CARA in order to ensure the passage of Title III. In addition, all major hunting and conservation organizations support CARA.
While NRA’s support of CARA is based solely on Title III, we also understand that there are some organizations and individuals that object to CARA because of Title II, which creates a land acquisition trust account for the federal land management agencies. NRA certainly appreciates the views of those opposed to federal land acquisition in general, and as it relates to CARA, and NRA is very sensitive to the fears expressed by some of our members that CARA may pose a threat to their interests that fall outside NRA’s purview of defending our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and hunting.
But it is also important for all concerned to remember that NRA’s strength is based on its narrow focus on protecting the Second Amendment and our hunting heritage. This strength is enhanced by not being involved with other matters—including the issue of federal land acquisition per se—that might distract or divide our supporters. NRA has an obligation to its members to remain focused on defending our firearm freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, and on preserving our hunting heritage. As you can appreciate, the NRA’s constituency is universal. In protecting the right to arms and the future of hunting, our Association draws allies from every point of the political, social, racial, religious, geographic and economic spectra. Since our members are powerfully united on firearm and hunting-related issues, our strength is enhanced by not being involved with other issues that could split our base of support.
Unfortunately, several organizations and individuals that are primarily concerned with federal land acquisition issues have launched a campaign against NRA because of its support of CARA’s Title III. These opponents of CARA appear to have an overall objection to the federal government acquiring any private land—even land that may later be used to expand hunting opportunities or establish ranges for the general public. Because these organizations and individuals have failed to convince lawmakers to remove Title II from CARA or amend it to their satisfaction, they recently resorted to launching attacks on NRA in an attempt to convince NRA members to urge their Association to take up their specific cause. The NRA has openly supported Title III since CARA was introduced in 1998, leaving one to wonder why these organizations and individuals did not raise their concerns earlier.
This deceptive tactic by CARA’s opponents has led to confusion among some NRA members, leading some to question NRA’s support of CARA. And even though opposition to CARA has been based on issues that fall well outside NRA’s purview, NRA is still a membership-driven organization, and we are always very responsive to the concerns of our members. While we support Title III of CARA, we are keeping close track of the comments from those NRA members who have expressed their opposition. This issue will likely be discussed in several committees during NRA’s Board Meeting in November, and you can rest assured that the voice of those NRA members who have expressed their concern regarding NRA support of CARA will be heard.
Again, we appreciate you sharing your concerns, and we hope that NRA can still count on your support. Even if we cannot see eye-to-eye on this particular issue, it is important for the pro-gun community to continue to work together and present a united front. Of course, the ultimate decision regarding the outcome of CARA will come from Congress, so we encourage any NRA member with strong views regarding this legislation to contact your federal lawmakers.
Sincerely,
Katherine A. Twardon
_______
Dear Ms. Twardon,
Thank you for your response. There is no confusion on the part of this NRA member regarding this legislation. I note that the Board of Directors of the NRA is not confused either. It would appear for the first time in history that the Board will override the ILA.
As I stated, I am not confused. I am disappointed. I would have thought that the NRA was not immune to the dangers of a bureaucracy, but it appears that the ILA and its paid employees has gotten too cozy with the politicians. Seems to me it is time for a shakeup at the ILA and THAT will be a focus of many of the NRA members.
CARA in no way supports our hunting heritage or our Second Amendment rights. Federal Lands are being acquired and closed off from use every day by the EnviroFascists that infest all levels of the Federal bureaucracy. That is the type of individual that is drawn to that work and is the long term plan of the anti-hunting crowd: control the government agencies that administer land programs from within and without. The NRA would be better off creating a non-profit organization that gave out money to private landowners to help them keep their land from being acquired by the Government in exchange for allowing hunting access to NRA members.
What a novel idea – keep government out of the equation.
Think hard about this issue – and don’t you dare accuse this member of being confused again.
Bump for liberty and freedom.
The NRA is a democratic institution. Any Life member can run for the Board. Sure, a noboby like me would have little chance, but I could still try. Anyone out there that belongs to NRA should let them know how you feel about this CARA thing! NOW!!!
Ms. Lamson,
The organizations {NGOs} that benefit from the land grabbing effects of CARA are historically anti-hunting. Many even to what might be considered a rabid effort. The Klamath Basin Farmers are a good example of collusion between godgov and NGOs to drive people off their lands and deprive them of a livelyhood that has been maintained for many years and through many generations by family concerns. Most {if not all} of the environmental concerns that will benefit from CARA desire "wilderness areas" and the like to be set up by government dictate. NO "new" implements {firearms} are allowed.
It would do NRA well to remember that farmers, ranchers, and other folks who live out in the "boonies" have supported the NRA for years. Yet, today, the NRA would support legislation that would drive them off their private property. This is NOT good. A good article concerning NRA's support of CARA can be found at the address below. Along with a discussion on the Free Republic forum. Peace and love, George.
======================
AB, I just sent this to [SLamson@nrahq.org,ILA-Contact@nrahq.org]. I hope these folks that are being snookered wake up. peace and love, George.
Yeah, right. I dare say that not one acre of land that will be acquired under CARA will be made into a shooting range. The environmentalists in govt. will never allow that! They will also close more lands to hunting, not open them up. How can these people be so blind as to not see that they are being used as a weapon against their own objectives!
If not too late, be sure to email your state NRA affiliate. They need to know that the common folk are firmly against this hideous piece of legislation. The NRA has done many things that I disagree with over the years, but never stooped to the level of prostituting themselves to the greens for a few federal pork dollars.
In case you are wondering, Ms. Lamson does read her email. I was shocked when she responded to mine. I doubt she ever will again. I rattled her cage pretty hard.
Abundy -- I received an identically worded letter, signed by 'Catherine A. Haggett, NRA-ILA Grassroots Division'. Her point that the NRA has supported this since 1998 with no opposition is wrong, as I went on record having opposed it as did lots of other folk. I suspect that then the mutterings of us few were not enough for them to respond to.
A question -- if the NRA Board passes on the support of this bill, do the Members have any legal recourse to force a vote be taken of the voting membership outside of the normal procedures for the next Annual Meeting? Thanks in advance.
Be well, FRiends.
PLEASE, Everyone! Contact your representatives on this and the NRA!
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.