NSSF Calls Foul on USFWS Director’s Parting Shot on Traditional Ammo

By Dave Dolbee published on in Hunting, Legal, News

With one-day left of President Obama’s term, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe acted without dialogue or public comment. Was it one more instance of a public official going rogue and imposing a personal agenda, or finishing the business he was appointed to do? The timing certainly seems suspect, but it is the details that really matter. Here is the full analysis and release from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Hornady Lead-free Bullet

Hornady had done an excellent job in producing a lead free bullet in the GMX. It works great for pests and varmints and is quite accurate.

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries, condemned the decision by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe banning the use of traditional ammunition on Service lands in just five years.

The parting shot, Director’s Order 219, was issued on the final full day of President Obama’s administration. The last-minute action revives an effort the administration undertook eight years ago to ban the use of traditional ammunition.

“This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this, and instead create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”

The order requires several initiatives to go into effect immediately. Regional Directors are to work with state agencies to ban the use of traditional ammunition. It also ends the use of traditional ammunition on Federal land, including National Parks, tribal lands and national wildlife refuges in order to mirror policies in states where traditional ammunition is already restricted. The order “expeditiously” bans traditional ammunition “when available information indicates” that lead is harmful to wildlife, without requirement of a scientific threshold on which to base that action.

It also requires creation of a timeline to restrict traditional ammunition for dove and upland bird hunting.

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 12,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (97)

  • Tim S

    |

    It certainly could be interpreted that way. Therefore states like California that have large tracks of Federal land to include; Camp Pendleton and 29 Palms could legally force the Marines and other services from discharging lead core bullets on these installations? Imagine the impact to readiness that would have.

    Reply

  • Doug

    |

    Question: the order states –

    ” iii. Where individual Federal land units administered by other Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, or other agencies, have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same states as those units through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, as appropriate.”

    That sounds to me like – if your state has existing laws regulating the use of lead ammunition then the Federal agencies in that state are to enforce those state laws on the federal lands mentioned above.

    But, if your state has no existing law prohibiting the use of lead ammunition then the Federal agency holding jurisdiction for a given area cannot prohibit the use of lead ammunition in that specific area.

    For example, in the state of Florida, the only time lead ammunition is prohibited is in the hunting of waterfowl. Lead ammunition may be used in Florida for all other hunting and shooting. Given that, there should be no federal prohibition of lead ammunition on federal lands by federal agencies, with the state of Florida – except when hunting waterfowl.

    Would you agree ?

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Doug,

      It’s a bit more complicate. Follow the next two paragraphs closely as it helps set up what I’m explaining about the Rule throughout the remainder of my post (a good read either way).

      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife divides the entire Country into 8 regions. However, within each Fish and Wildlife land Region there are of course other subsets of federal lands that do not belong to Fish and Wildlife.

      For example the Department of Defense (DoD) may own its own land that has no choice but to exist within the broader boundary of the Fish and Wildlife Region it happens to sit in. Nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service has absolutely no jurisdiction over any other federal lands just because they fall within the Fish and Wildlife boundaries.

      So what the Rule is saying is that if even one other federally owned land agency, such as the DoD, has adopted their own lead-free policy within its own land, the entire Fish and Wildlife Region then must also adopt the same lead-free policy on all Fish and Wildlife land throughout the entire broader region.

      The same Rule must also be applied if even one single piece of State owned land has a lead-free policy, then all Fish and Wildlife land must also go lead-free throughout that entire Region. This applies to every single State within that Fish and Wildlife Region even if just one little piece of land in one single State has a lead-free policy of any kind.

      And of course the same Rule must also be applied to all Fish and Wildlife land in the entire Region if a single piece of Indian Tribal land has a lead-free policy as well.

      Oh but wait, there’s more. If any of the above mentioned lands only has a lead-free fishing tackle policy, but nothing against lead ammunition, the entire policy must go into effect for both ammunition and tackle on all Fish and Wildlife land regardless.

      One final kicker is the Rule mandates all Fish and Wildlife Assistant Directors must diligently work with State official and other federal agencies that don’t have lead-ammo bans to go ahead and adopt them so that the Rule will then kick for all Fish and Wildlife Regions making all lands lead-free.

      Reply

  • Jose

    |

    Government owns the land because they did not want to deal with more pioneering.
    The same way that they prevent citizens from working the land just with their mandates.

    The government does not have the means nor care to take care of the land. But it is certain that they would not like to loose control of it.

    Take a look at a map of the country that has land mass owned by the Feds. Most of it is out West.

    Reply

  • fair

    |

    Abraham Lincoln stole your land when he invaded the South in 1861. And you ain’t getting it back!

    Reply

  • Tim S

    |

    Can’t take our guns away so go after the bullets. With lead bullets eliminated that leaves solid copper or other alloys as an alternative. Since a non hollow point solid copper round doesn’t expand as well as a lead core round states like CA, CT, NH, NY and others will then move to classify these bullets as “Armor Piercing”. The manufacture of pistol cartridges that contain mostly brass, copper, steel, tin, zinc etc. by volume is a violation of federal law and the ATF is currently trying to reclassify certain Barnes solid rifle bullets as AP because these rifle bullets could be loaded in a pistol cartridge. The next step is to ban all rifle cartridges using a solid alloy bullet. The ATF quietly tried to ban M855 rounds so there is precedence. But then people will argue that hollow point solids expand and don’t penetrate like an AP. Enter the tired controversy that these hollow point bullets are inhumane because they cause extensive tissue damage. Black Talons were removed from civilian sale under intense negative publicity and are only sold to law enforcement. When hollow points are gone what is left for the law abiding citizen to exercise his 2nd Amendment right? It’s a systematic erosion of the rights that our forefathers established to prevent government tyranny.

    Reply

    • Matt

      |

      When they took lead out of gas, did you think they were trying to take your pickup truck away?

      Reply

    • Tim S

      |

      Matt – I think you are missing the point. Lead in gasoline was removed because it was a public health concern. The number of lead rounds discharged across the vast expanse of public lands is not concentrated enough to create a public health concern…unless you are hit by one. If you can produce facts that prove otherwise you can have my truck.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Where I come from, people go out in the woods and shoot in just a few different places. This leads to huge amounts of lead being deposited in those few places. This lead WILL eventually seep into the watershed.

      Reply

  • Revrend Crow

    |

    Ok practical question. I’m not clear, having read the directive, is the ban effective immediately on USFS land also? They are my neighbor and I hope everyone understands, they are really not a very good neighbor in several respects.

    Reply

  • Researcher

    |

    Like they have in Oregon and Nevada ??? Where the FED controls 80+% of the land and NOBODY is allowed to use it ??.
    The 10th Amendment LIMITS the authority of the FED to DC and lands seceded to the FED by the states.
    THE BLM has no Constitutional Authority to take or control land !!
    A Supreme Court Decision says “governments may only hold land incidental to their functions” or something to that effect.

    Reply

    • Pete

      |

      As I just posted a reply to another forum user below, Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution GRANTS rights of property management to the Federal Government, the 10th does not over-ride that. The Supreme Court has upheld that as recently as 1976 (Kleppe v. New Mexico).

      Also, not sure what’s going on in Oregon and Nevada but in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado BLM land gets used by lots of people!

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Utah did not give the people of Utah’s property to the federal government when Utah became a state.

      Reply

    • Pete

      |

      I’m not a constitutional scholar and I’m guessing you are not either. However, from my understanding Utah (and I think all western states) did in fact give up all claim to land owned federally through their enabling acts as a part of their actions towards statehood.

      Utah’s enabling act text is available below, where Section 3 indicates:

      “people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof”

      https://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

      Further if this was a problem, don’t you think it should’ve been taken up, ya know…120 years ago?

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      It only became a problem after the great and wonderful Abraham Lincoln invaded the South and murdered several thousand men, women, children and slaves. It was at that point the federal government became ALL powerful and centralized in Washington DC. That was 152 years ago.

      Reply

  • Michael

    |

    Reducing lead in the environment only makes sense. Anyone opposed to such an obviously intelligent goal probably suffers IQ loss from lead exposure. If you’ll volunteer to store Yucca Mtn nuclear waste in your garage, then I’ll believe you’re legitimately for more poison in your environment.

    Reply

    • ShotPutEy

      |

      I am often scared to read the comments in these “articles”. Thank you for adding common sense in yours. Lead harms the environment and the statement by the author saying it is not based on science makes me question everything posted here even more.

      I do think it’s sad how any speak of limiting anything related to guns suddenly angers everyone. I fail to see how requiring projectiles not to be made of lead is in anyway taking away rights. Are lead rounds the only easy ammo to get? No.

      I think it is time more of us who enjoy guns but realize that we need some kinds of regulations on these weapons speak up. No lead ammo allowed on federal land is a second amendment attack!? No it is so our grand children can enjoy the sport as much as we do.

      So Michael, thank you for calling them on this insane piece. It is very refreshing, with all the other insanity right now, to know other gun enthusiasts think these “articles” have been more about promoting a political agenda than keeping us informed.

      Cheaper Than Dirt Blog, shame on you for putting out this piece that is followed by your mission statement of “providing information and not opinions to keep readers informed”

      Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      As a personal reply… you do realize that lead is a naturally occurring element on the periodic table? Therefore, hunters and shooters are not polluting Federal lands for our children or grandchildren. Lead is also the most effective ammunition when hunting resulting in less wounded and more humanely harvested game than alternatives.

      Lead ammo bans were based on junk science that claimed endangered animals were eating the remains after an animal was field dressed and being poisoned by lead left from the hunter’s bullet or shot. Yet, animals born and raised in captivity at the zoo had higher levels of lead in their bodies than those in the wild. The issue is much deeper than you have cited—and yes, that makes it politically motivated to limit access and use by forcing individuals to use less effective ammunition that is more expensive as a backdoor mode of gun control in my opinion, which means it is an attack on the Second Amendment.

      Reply

    • Fred Ascart

      |

      U know Arsenic and uranium are elements on the periodic table also….

      Reply

    • Tommat

      |

      Here at Mousket, we are working with and developing projectiles with depleted plutonium for both handguns and rifle. The rounds have demonstrated extreme tissue damage approximating three times that of conventional ammo and the shock value exceeds anything on the market today.The problem thus far has been accuracy. Current barrel designs aren’t optimized for the new heavy rounds. We expect to have a marketable bullet by spring 2018.

      Reply

    • NotDave

      |

      Dave Dolbee,

      That is a specious argument. You don’t think things on the periodic table can hurt you? Do you know what else are naturally occurring elements on the periodic table? How about taking in a lungful of chlorine? How about some Thallium to shut down your organs? Most of the elements on the periodic table are hazardous. Do you know what works better than lead for bullets? Uranium. It is denser. It is also naturally occurring.

      Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      Of course they can, but I do not shoot chlorine or Thallium out of my gun. And I have yet to see any credible study that has shown hunting with lead on federal lands has hurt the environment for our grandchildren. Actually, for hunting, Uranium does not work better. Lead works better because it is soft and expands (mushrooms). That is why you use a solid (homogeneous bullet) for big game such as giraffe, Cape buffalo, Hippo etc. when maximum penetration is required to reach the vitals is necessary—not too many of those roaming federal lands though… Not many planes, tanks or missiles either, but depleted uranium bullets do a helluva job on them. Just ask the military. Tough on barrels though without a plastic sabot, and some decent evidence those would have long-term health effects, so not recommended.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      So is plutonium, but we don’t want that being dumped in the river either. Your argument is baseless. The new lead-less ammo is NOT less effective or more expensive than other quality hunting ammo. It seems you are blinded by your political ideals.

      Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      For those wishing to use an alternative lead free ammo, I wish them all the best. I have hunted with lead free ammo and done testing for manufacturers, harvested game with experimental ammunition before. I am not against it by any means. I am against regulation that does not take into account the performance of the ammunition, or the true impact (or lack thereof). That is where I feel this 11th hour rule came from, and for me, personally, it is something I feel worthy of opposing. However, I am open to any science or cogent argument to either the performance or impact that I may not have thought of or errored in my reasoning.

      Honest request… Please show me the error of my ways. Change my mind. What do you have?

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      What do I have? I have some facts. Lead is poisonous. Going out and putting a thousand rounds of lead ammo into a berm means you’ve dumped several pounds of a poison into the environment. Those are facts.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Hey Mr. “I have some facts”, you are acting ridiculously over-the-top about this. I have some facts too. Like the fact that every single substance on this planet is poisonous. It’s just a matter of how much you are exposed to, how much you ingest, and if your particular body chemistry can tolerate it.

      Something as simple as drinking too much water will kill any person within an hour. Others die from eating common peanuts.

      Since everything is poisonous, the point you (and a few others) are missing here is that science MUST be applied to EVERYTHING in order to determine our tolerance levels. From the radiation in lifesaving x-rays to the cholesterol in scrambled eggs, every poison we are exposed to will forever require some form of calculated tradeoff.

      But the law demands even more from our government. They bear an even greater obligation to act responsibly on behalf of all the people. It requires they only use sound principles founded in real science by a large consensus of specialists and well established facts rather than hasty directives flung from the half-baked political whims of an anti-gun president.

      Quite simply there was never any real science behind their broad decision which was made at the eleventh hour of Obama’s departure. Were you to take the time to research it you would find mounds of scientific dispute that showed the piss you leave out on the range behind a tree does more harm to contaminate the ground water than 300 years of lead being returned to the earth.

      Get educated before you spout off.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      This rule also applies to fishing tackle. Do you think they’re trying to take your fishing rods away? Show me any evidence that leaving large concentrations of lead in a stream or anywhere else it can leech into the watershed is a good idea.

      Reply

    • Dave Dolbee

      |

      SHow me where fishing and losing a lure or weight has caused harm to the water supply.

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      I looked at your report. The following is my opinion: The report is one of those “fake news” propaganda pieces. The two organizations mentioned in the report have the same address. My guess these two organizations have at least two members, but probably only one. The website is mostly liberal, gun hating universities, masquerading as EPA operatives. This report is good for the Communist News Network (CNN) only.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      You figured it out, these aren’t real people and the whole thing is made up just to deprive you of your guns.

      Barnett A. Rattner
      U.S. Geological Sur vey
      Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
      Beltsville Laborator y
      c/o BARC-East, Building 308
      10300 Baltimore Avenue
      Beltsville, Maryland 20705

      J. Christian Franson
      U.S. Geological Sur vey
      National Wildlife Health Center
      6006 Schroeder Rd.
      Madison, WI 53711-6223

      Steven R. Sheffield
      Department of Natural Sciences
      Bowie State University
      14000 Jericho Rd.
      Bowie, MD 20715
      and
      College of Natural Resources
      Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
      National Capital Region – Northern Virginia Center
      7054 Haycock Rd.
      Falls Church, VA 22043

      Chris I. Goddard
      Great Lakes Fisher y Commission
      2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 100
      Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1563

      Nancy J. Leonard
      Michigan State University
      Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability
      Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
      115 Manly Miles Building
      1405 South Harrison
      East Lansing, MI 48823-5243

      Douglas Stang
      Bureau of Fisheries
      New York State Department of Environmental Conser vation
      625 Broadway
      Albany, NY 12233-4753

      Paul J. Wingate (Retired)
      Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
      500 Lafayette Rd.
      St. Paul, MN 55155-4020

      Reply

    • fair

      |

      Don’t let the name of an Organization fool you. Affiliation with any university automatically makes the organization suspect. Even Ph.D.’s can be fooled into believing junk science. Not many years ago, Ph.D.’s believed bleeding a patient would cure the Patient’s fever. Today Ph.D.’s believe hunting with lead bullets harms the environment. Ph. D’s also believe Nashville and Knoxville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Kansas will soon be under water because of melting icebergs on the other side of the world.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      I see the demonization of education is alive and well. Carry on.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Yeah – yeah, you already used that one up with your pathetic pickup truck version of it two days ago.

      Look, opening your comments to others by acting like a child with ridiculously rhetorical questions intended to insult rather than engage folks like a mature adult – sort of has a tendency to blow any chance you may have had at credibly delivering an effective finishing point. People that are nothing short of trolls.

      Here’s a parting tip to help you stop looking like such a fool: Stop asking people to prove your baseless theories for you. It is instead incumbent upon you as the challenger to produce scientific evidence which documents any detectible detrimental effects caused from lead as a result of discharging firearms on federal lands. You simply will not be able to do it because the parting USFWS Director certainly could not.

      And in case you hadn’t noticed, this forum is entitled “The Shooter’s Log”, not “The Fisherman’s Log”. Go order a subscription to Bassmaster Magazine if you want to troll them, but please leave us alone… at least until your testis drop and you mature a bit.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Call me names and insult me all you want. That doesn’t change anything.

      You are blinded by your fear of the govt taking your guns. You see everything through that prism. The “article” at the top of this page makes no mention of the fact that this order also applies to fishing tackle. Why?

      “Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses, as provided for in policy.”

      This is what the order actually says. Many posters here are claiming this is just another attempt at the govt taking your guns away. It is not.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      At no time did I ever call you names; and I challenge you to quote a single line in which I did. You seem to have confused “name calling” for words accurately used to describe your poor behavior.

      These precise words I used describe your lack of character and intentional actions intended to insult others. The words are but a mere reflection of your own behavior. So well you should feel insulted because you are looking into a mirror of your own insulting treatment of others.

      Moving along… you still don’t get it when you continue to ask why the article makes no mention of fishing tackle. I’ve clearly already pointed it out to you that this is not “The Fishermen’s Log”. So continuing to bring that up is pointless here.

      I also challenge you to quote a single post that ever claimed, “this is just another attempt at the govt taking your guns away”. You won’t be able to because no one ever made such a claim.

      It is beyond me as to how your brain ever perceived such a thing was stated. I am paraphrasing, but what has actually been said is that because the government is unable to take our guns away, they’ve used this type of tactic instead as another means to limit our rights.

      That is a big difference compared to what you claimed poster’s had stated, yet most of your insults were largely based around that false premise. So when your wayward responses show you haven’t the ability to comprehend what others have actually stated, don’t expect us not to dismiss you as a kook and a troll.

      None of this even really matters because despite any of your meandering attempts to sidetrack the core issue, the fact still remains that you will never be able to produce a single shred of official source evidence to support anything you’ve said here. It will only ever amount to ad hoc biased political opinion. So to quote you, “That doesn’t change anything.”

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “Can’t take our guns away so go after the bullets.”

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      I will presume you posted this quote as an attempt to respond to my challenge refuting your bogus claim in which you said others had posted comments that this was an Obama action to take our guns. Interestingly you just did more to prove my point than yours.

      I challenged you to back up your claim by showing even a single comment where someone had stated this was to take our guns away. Instead you could only find a quote where someone said, “Can’t take our guns away so go after the bullets.”

      I’m fairly confident most would agree you failed to meet the challenge and that quote instead backs my position and not yours. If there is any mistaking what I said to you in the challenge, I’ve reposted it below…

      “It is beyond me as to how your brain ever perceived such a thing was stated. I am paraphrasing, but what has actually been said is that because the government is unable to take our guns away, they’ve used this type of tactic instead as another means to limit our rights.”

      With that, I think most would also agree that you really need to be done now.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      You can lead a horse to water…

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Only in your case this saying finishes with, “…but you can’t make him think.”

      Reply

    • Tim S

      |

      Matt – If the Obama administration truly cared about the environment then why wait until the 11th hour (19 JAN 2017) to issue Order 219? The point I was trying to make is that this order, intentional or not, will limit our ability to exercise our 2nd Amendment right. By design or not, it’s really a brilliant move that serves two purposes; “save the planet” and limit firearms. Couple that with the ATF classifying solid core alloy bullets as armor piercing and you have yet another limitation. In 2013 DHS attempted to purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. That attempt was shut down when Congress got word of it. DHS said they were buying in bulk to save money. Really, 1.6 billion rounds? That’s enough rounds to supply the Iraq War expenditure for 20+ years. Had they succeeded this would have caused a shortage for the shooting public which would have driven up cost. Sound familiar? Or perhaps they were doing it to keep lead out of our water supply. Produce verifiable data that shows shooters deposit lead on federal lands in high enough concentration to impact human health and I will concede your point. Yes, there are animals that ingest carrion with lead bullets in it but not to the levels that threaten any species. Again, please produce current credible data that proves otherwise. BTW, my truck has lead weights on the rims to balance the tires. Since you are so opposed to lead I will keep my truck.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Right, this is all a plot to limit your 2A rights, or “take your guns away” in effect.

      Reply

    • Tim S

      |

      Matt – In case you didn’t notice, this is “The Shooter’s Log” sponsored by Cheaper Than Dirt – America’s Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter. I gave several examples/facts on efforts by the last administration to limit the availability of ammo to the public. I did not say it was a plot. I said: “intentional, or not”. I also said; “by design or not”. Draw your own conclusion but either way the end result is the same. Still waiting on your incontrovertible facts that lead bullets on public lands is a public health hazard. Leave the emotion and insults out so that there can be a meaningful dialogue here.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      I agreed with you, but you’re so dug in that you can’t accept it. Have a good one.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “Get educated before you spout off.”
      “acting like a child”
      “stop looking like such a fool”
      “at least until your testis drop and you mature a bit.”
      “your lack of character”
      “you haven’t the ability to comprehend what others have actually stated, don’t expect us not to dismiss you as a kook and a troll.”

      These are insults you’ve levied in my direction for the crime of not towing the line and following along with you. Yet I’m the one acting immature? Classic Projection.

      The reason that the fishing tackle portion of this order is important is that you are still claiming this is an anti-gun measure wrapped in something else.

      “I am paraphrasing, but what has actually been said is that because the government is unable to take our guns away, they’ve used this type of tactic instead as another means to limit our rights.”

      Do you also believe they are using this order to limit fishing opportunities as well? It’s a simple question, no need for another insult laden tirade of faux superiority.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      I can’t believe I’m actually about to waste time explaining something you should already understand. You’re either playing dumb out of embarrassment or really not too bright. If the latter be the case, then please do accept my apology. Anyway, here goes…

      “Name calling” would be if I pointedly called you an “a$$hole” or “retard”. Instead, the challenge I put to you was to specifically quote a single line in which I ever called you a name. You failed miserable to meet my challenge because I, in fact, never once called you a name – as you so wrongly claimed I had.

      But rather than honorable choke down the crow you knew I served you, instead you chose to play dumb and attempt to duck the challenge by conflating “name calling” with a list of perceived insults you found through my accurate descriptions of your poor behavior.

      At no time did I ever challenge you to quote lines that you may have found to be insulting. And yet that is what you did in place of the absent “name calling” list you were never able to come up with.

      This renders your list utterly pointless because I never claimed you wouldn’t find my words to be insulting. As a matter of fact – I even stated you should find them insulting because they are mirrored reflections describing your own offensive actions towards others you’ve tried to insult throughout this forum.

      After the fact it is rather weak of you to come back and claim to be a victim of “Classic Projection” when that is precisely what I called you out for doing to others in the first place. The difference between you and I is that you did it naturally to be intentionally demeaning and abrasively sarcastic, whereas I did it in response to point out to you how you are making others feel.

      Obviously my tactics worked because you don’t appear to like being treated the same way you’ve been treating others very much. As the old saying goes, “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.”

      So after all your condescending dust settles, you now act as if you’ve taken the high road by posing a seemingly earnest question while pretending you were never a party to any insults or sarcasm. Well frankly you are undeserving of an answer. But I will leave you with this…

      You are quite gullible if you actually believe the anti-gun agenda isn’t cunning enough to slip in fishing tackle to make this look legitimate. No anti-gun legislation has ever been written that doesn’t have some arbitrary fluff tossed in to make their efforts look like a legitimate public safety issue. The Supreme Court regularly overturns such legislation by pointing out these false public safety elements.

      While you cling to your fishing tackle theory, the bad timing along with the absence of any real environmental evidence leaves the rest of us to logically conclude this as nothing short of another 11th hour parting Obama attack on our gun rights. This was done no differently than most anti-gun legislation which is usually slipped in under the radar at midnight inside unrelated bills.

      The bottom line will forever be that there is simply no scientific evidence to justify this order. We have more evidence to prove this is an anti-gun action than you do to prove it is all about saving birds and fish.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      So this IS about taking your guns away, just like I said all along.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      I’m convinced you are in a psychiatric ward somewhere and sneaking access to the night nurses PC while she’s making her rounds. Otherwise no one would willingly want to publicly continue to embarrass themselves by acting as dense as you are.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “logically conclude this as nothing short of another 11th hour parting Obama attack on our gun rights.”

      YOU SAID THIS. What am I missing here? Why is it ok for you to claim Obama wants to take away your 2A rights, but when I say it, I’m insulting you? You’re the crazy one.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Your games are getting old, so if you really want to continue pretending your new line of questioning is suddenly sincere, rather than the sarcasm you’ve been doling out, then you’ll also have no choice but to accept that everything you’ve posted up to this point shows you’re just not very bright.

      So assuming you are truly being sincere, I will go ahead and answer your question. But again, I will only do so under the pretense that you’ve gone ahead and accepted your limited ability to grasp simple concepts and probably had no business prowling around this type of forum to begin with.

      That being said, I will now indulge your question…

      You asked, “What am I missing here? Why is it ok for you to claim Obama wants to take away your 2A rights, but when I say it, I’m insulting you?”

      To demystify your ignorance and release you from your stupor you’d first have to stop pretending you didn’t write, “So this IS about taking your guns away, just like I said all along.”

      A logical person could not possibly draw your conclusion leading to such a statement; especially when I, as well as others, have repeatedly stated in one form or another that because Obama was never able to take our guns away, that they instead instituted other schemes in which to limit our Second Amendment Rights.

      In the absence of real science, unnecessary government restrictions placed on the type of ammunition we may use effectively limits the full use of our guns, and thereafter is a form of infringement which is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Thusly, and without dispute, this order amounts to a direct attack upon our full right to bear arms; but in no way could anyone (other than you) view the order as a means for taking our guns away.

      Physically “taking guns away” versus liberal government schemes designed to “limit their use” are both forms of infringement per the Second Amendment, but the two are distinctly separate methods which you insist on confusing (or playing dumb about).

      With that said, you now have no other choices but to either come back and say, “Oh I get it now and sorry I was being such an idiot” or “Never mind, I really did got it all along, but instead opted to be an antagonist troll.”

      Take your pick…

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      It seems you’ve taken to arguing the semantics of physically taking guns away versus taking them away in effect by limiting usage in some form. Not really interested.

      For someone so concerned with personal liberty, every one of your posts is filled with you telling me what I am or am not allowed to say and do.

      Just let it go. Obama isn’t taking your guns away.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      “Taken to arguing the semantics”, you say? Well that explains quite a lot if you actually thought this was an argument.

      An argument requires the exchange of logical ideas in which opposing views, supported by facts – not personal opinions, are used to explain and convince others that they are wrong. Such disputes are only worthy of pursuit if each party is capable of articulating truly valid points. For you, that was most definitely not the case.

      Here’s what really happened to you… while you mistakenly thought you had an argument, myself and others were simply attempting to educate you on a government process that you simply refuse to understand. That in no way constitutes an argument on our part since we were merely attempting to inform you with inarguable facts, and then move along.

      You offer even greater insight into your inadequacies now that you’ve revealed your misguided perception that my attempts to educate you of the facts are somehow the equivalent of “telling you what you are, or are not allowed to say and do.”

      It is an exceptionally sad state of affairs for you to go through life feeling your freedoms have been encroached upon whenever someone informs you your personal opinions don’t coincide with actual facts. I couldn’t imagine what it must be like for you to go through life constantly feeling triggered by facts.

      By far, the most telling of all your socially dysfunctional issues is your sudden revelation showing you are finally beginning to comprehend that – actually taking guns away is manifestly different than the ammo schemes designed to limit their use.

      I cannot help that it took several of my posts to get that concept to finally click in your head. But had you the ability to hop on the intellect train a bit sooner, you might have spared yourself posting such frivolous twaddle in the first place.

      But rather than bask in your new found glory of brainpower, you instead decide you’re just going to dismiss the distinctly important differences as some trivial “semantic”. That right there just showed everyone, whether pro-gun or anti-gun, that your brain could be replaced with a bag of rocks and no one would notice the difference.

      Reply

    • Matthew

      |

      You were on the losing side from the beginning of the argument. That’s why you made it personal right away. No need to respond, just let it go.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matthew or Matt (or whatever you’re calling yourself today),

      I don’t personally own the facts I shared with you. These facts were universally available to everyone, so it is impossible for it to have ever been “personal” for me. However, your wayward opinions are personally owned by none other than you, which is all you ever had to offer. Therefore you were the only one to make this “personal”.

      As for being on the “losing side” – when passing along facts, there is no such thing as a risk of loss because facts are perfect and indisputable. However, there can still be a loser; but that would be the ignorant fool that attempted to refute the facts with their “personal” opinions. Pathetically that would be you.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Nothing you wrote there is accurate or rooted in reality. Just stop.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Matthew,

      At this point it is obvious you’ve given up and been reduced to just typing nonsensical crap. Regardless, I’ll still go ahead and reply to your immature and illogical responses just in case you still actually believe your own BS.

      You stated, “Nothing you wrote there is accurate or rooted in reality”. Yet it is you that chose to base your entire platform on a severely disconnected belief rooted in the disinformation of fairytales completely devoid of a single provable fact. No psychological projecting going on there I suppose.

      But worse is that even after having this irrefutably pointed out, you persist towards wanting to look like an idiot out of anger and stubbornness – rather than man-up and honorably admit that in the absence of facts, there is more than meets the eye to this devious order.

      So it is you that needs to “Just stop”, because I have facts to hold my ground with, while you have nothing and never did.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Nothing but projection, just let it go.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Matthew,

      Whoa! I have to admit I was pretty shocked that you actually finally admitted to your posts being “Nothing but projection”. You may not realize it at the moment, but that was a rather large step you just took in the direction of reality. There may be hope for you after all. Take care.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Nothing but projection, just let it go.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Yeah, we know. Everyone already read the post in which you’ve admitted to issues of projection. There’s no point in being redundant. That is, unless it’s how you work through guilt. If so, go ahead and knock yourself out there buddy. I wouldn’t want to hinder your therapy if it could make you a better human being.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Fine then. I’ll admit it. Obama IS going to steal your guns.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      Dude, are okay? Obama can’t steal our guns anymore. Should I call in an intervention or something for you? If you hadn’t realized it yet, your messiah Obama is out of the White House and done gone para-surfing. Obviously he never really cared about you. Do you need a hug? Seriously I feel for you bru. Anything I can do to help to get you through your liberal withdrawals, just let me know. I’m there for you.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      So much for you writing that I was, “on the losing side from the beginning of the argument”.

      I felt I’d personally take the time to update you that the first act by the new Interior Secretary appointed by President Trump was to sign an order that completely revokes Obama’s ban on lead ammo and fishing tackle.

      Most telling is the Secretary’s refusal to use other lighter options and instead went straight for the strongest immediate and complete revocation. By law he could instead have amended the order or superseded it. But the fact the Secretary straight up revoked it entirely indicates what we’ve been saying all along – and that is that Obama’s order was illicitly carried out of spite rather than facts based on science. Case closed.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Congratulations. You’ve won the right to throw lead sinkers into creeks everywhere. Right on.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Matthew,

      Quite the contrary – nothing even needed to be won. This so-called “Right” as you put it has always already existed in natural perpetuity; that is – until it was disturbed by Obama for malicious reasons. This revocation order merely restored everything back to its original state.

      In this Country we have a standard process which allows months of public input by citizens and subject-matter-experts before orders such as this are decided upon. Anytime a president skips this process it is a strong indicator that something is amiss, and it draws much warranted attention. Obama knew this and didn’t care.

      Obama disregarded the consultation by the “Will of the People” and instead chose to overstep this process because his goal was one of spite rather than any genuine concern for the habitat.

      Obama himself publicly admitted frustration over his many failed attempts at gun control and even stated his numerous new anti-gun executive orders were born from the same frustrations. Yet despite all that, you somehow expect us to believe this particular order was any different and somehow legitimately unrelated to gun control.

      A little common sense should tell you that when Obama’s goal is to smite the pro-gun supporters on the way out the door, there really is no point in him properly holding public feedback forums or assembling panels of scientific experts to conduct any real research.

      But the most disappointing aspect in all this is there are people like you that don’t care about a corrupt administration that would ignore the processes put in place by “We the People”. All you really care about is that the unlawful result fell in-line with your personal anti-lead views on the matter… and that is quite repugnant and as un-American as they come.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Cool story bro.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      Matt or Matthew,

      Pathetically at a loss for any substantive comeback, you are forced to resort to juvenile tactics by dusting off outdated sayings. Please do at least try to act more mature when you can’t get your way.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Outdated sayings like “G-Man” you mean?? There is no substantive comeback to the ramblings of an out of touch old man pretending to be former law enforcement. It’s sad really.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      Matt or Matthew,

      Wrong again. You just tried to compare your outdated and immature “saying” to my very relevant “nickname”. Not surprisingly, you should have already known the two are completely incompatible for such comparative usage.

      Aside from you, everyone knows that nicknames replace proper nouns for identity purposes, last a lifetime, and can never become outdated. Whereas that “saying” you opted to use is undoubtedly old, outdate, and no longer used by anyone once they’ve grown up and moved out of their mommy’s basement.

      You also implied I was “former law enforcement”. While I may be considering a possible retirement this year, until I decide that I will remain an active federal agent. There is nothing “former” about my career as of yet.

      So for such “an out of touch old man” as you claim me to be, I sure am running circles around you – and quite enjoy watching while you pathetically attempt to keep up. You are doing everything you can to detract from the real issue, even if it means degrading yourself with childish antics that have nothing to do with the actual topic.

      So rather than allow you to continue your juvenile attempts to side-track this issue, let’s review the actual substantive points:

      Without any science or facts to back you up, you pathetically set out – and lost – what you thought was an argument for banning lead ammo and sinkers.

      Like an excited puppy that wets all over itself, your elations over Obama’s corrupt order allowed you to stoop beneath the embarrassment and shame that any ordinary person should have felt. And though it was a very short lived moment, you didn’t care as long as it fell in line with your personal views.

      But even that moment of bliss was yanked out from under you when it was “Trumped” (pun intended), by a real administration that knows what it means to serve the public with actual laws, science, and logic.

      Yet even though I’ve repeatedly pointed all this out to you, you still refuse to act in a manner that may reclaim at least a small amount of integrity for you.

      Instead the best you can think of is to continue responding with the utmost immaturity that does nothing but embarrass you further and shows how truly butt-hurt you are over this entire matter simply because you didn’t get your way. Now that is what is truly sad.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Nothing but sad projection, give it a rest.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      You obviously do not understand the definition of “projection” because there is absolutely nothing to project on my end; as I am quite satisfied and therefore would have no need to commit an act of projection.

      Given the impossible applicability of your statement, one must conclude it to be just another of your immature antics you hastily churned out just to get the last word in. It is truly pitiful that given your losses, you somehow consider getting “the last word in” as some form of victory. And as always, you continue to attempt this at your own embarrassing expense.

      Along the same vein, there is nothing for me to “give a rest” to either – given I am quite pleased with the outcome of this topic. Instead I submit it is actually you that can’t seem to “rest” as you remain painfully active throwing a temper tantrum while you grapple with being on the losing end of this issue.

      Were this not the case, then you wouldn’t keep responding after every one of my meaningful comments with nothing but childish twaddle. Therefore anyone can see it is really you that needs to “give it a rest” and go lick your wounds for a while.

      Another response from you is absolute positive proof that you don’t have the maturity to “just let it go”.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Is it a crime to impersonate a Federal Agent?

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Only if it can be proven the impersonator acquired something of tangible monetary value for doing it. Otherwise no, it is not a crime.

      However, I highly encourage you to contact your local FBI and inform them that you suspect me of being a fraud. I would then be authorized to personally pursue my accuser and open an investigation as to your personal motives for slander and seek damages. By all mean please do so…

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “I would then be authorized to personally pursue my accuser”

      Blatantly false, and the best proof yet that you are not who you say you are. You should stop. Or keep it up, seems like you’re having fun with it. Have a good weekend!

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      Matt,

      Well that was a random bit of garbage that made absolutely no sense at all. I am thoroughly convinced now that you just regurgitate up whatever random thoughts happen to pop in your head at any given moment.

      First and foremost you need to understand there is no anonymity for you when making a specific impersonation claim against an agent. You will be informed of this at the time you lodge your complaint. There are some types of misconduct you can report that will allow anonymity up to a point, but not when it involves reporting the impersonation of an agent.

      The reason the accused agent must be informed as to who you are is to allow for accurate recall of the specific encounter in which the supposed impersonation occurred. Otherwise, there is no possible way to cross-interview the agent during the complaint investigation if he isn’t allowed to recall the specific encounter in which the supposed impersonation occurred.

      Therefore, the agent will always know exactly who their accuser is and are very much a part of that active investigation. In addition, such complaints are not one-sided because agents have every right to defend themselves and rebut such allegations.

      Here is where things get real fun for you – once it has been established your complaint is unfounded, an investigation is thereafter launched against you for making false allegations against a federal agent. The accused agent then becomes directly involved in the counter-investigation as the new complainant of the false allegations – and to do this, that agent must know who you are.

      You need to know that the federal government takes this type of crime against its own agents very serious because it has a duty to maintain the utmost integrity of the office. They must make examples of those who commit these types of crimes as a deterrent to prevent constant abuse by other citizens, especially because it is such an easy complaint to make.

      Here is where it is not so fun for you – it is standard procedure to profile these types of people after making such false allegations because they are considered to be abnormal or suffer from mental illness which led them to make such false claims in the first place. You see, normal healthy people just don’t make such false allegations

      A person under this type of investigation will never know it either. Without their knowledge, their entire life will be covertly investigated before initial interview contact is even made. This includes pre-investigative look into any criminal history, employers (past and present), personal relationships, and a host of other factors that could be useful in identifying abnormal stress or a mental condition which may have triggered making a false complaint.

      On top of all this, if a false allegation defames the agent in any way, they would have standing to bring suit against you in a court of law as well. Hopefully you see now that what I stated in my last post is in no way “blatantly false”. You try to have a good weekend as well.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      So you’re a DOT inspector?

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Mathew,

      Your cowardice is dumbfounding. Every time I obliterate your stupidity with facts, rather than man-up and concede to being wrong, instead you barf up another childish retort.

      With every one of your comments no one ever thought it possible a man could shrink their balls any smaller, but somehow you manage to do it with every post.

      To answer your question – one sure-fire way for you to discover which agency I work for is to go ahead and lodge your false complaint.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Hang it up.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Mathew,

      How adorable – that you’ve been forced to exercise your teeny-tiny brain just to find different ways to repeat yourself without the system rejecting your posts. No doubt that was quite an adventure for you.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Just let it go. You’ll gain nothing with personal attacks and juvenile insults, “federal agent”.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      How creative of you to add some meaningless words after your repetitive motto of – “just let it go”; in order to sneak past the duplicate-post spam filter. You probably giggled in triumph like a little school girl once you finally figured that one out.

      I will admit that I have now stooped to your level of immature rhetoric because such childish activities appear to be the only form of communication you can relate to. Well that, and even “federal agents” like to anonymously join forums and poke fun at idiots every now and then. It can be a fantastic stress reliever.

      To be sure, you obviously live by a double standard; you think it’s acceptable when it is you tossing out the sarcasm, but suddenly when you have the same immature tactics thrown back in your face you pretend to take the high road and claim there is nothing to be “gained” when it is done to you. Not surprisingly, we can now add “hypocrite” to your list of personality disorders.

      You’ve made it abundantly clear you never had any intentions of acting decently to others that disagree with you. When I initially engaged you, I presented you with straight talk and facts (as did others), but instead you increasingly responded with childish sarcasm and rhetoric.

      Obviously when you don’t get your way, you could care less about maintaining any type of civil dialogue. But here’s a newsflash – that makes you the bad guy for disrespecting others and acting like an immature brat throwing temper tantrums, not us.

      I fully understand that losing an issue is painful for you, but a smart person knows to maintain a healthy dialogue with their winning opposition in hopes of learning more about why they lost. Sadly you can’t even take your own advice in which you stated a person will, “gain nothing with personal attacks and juvenile insults”.

      But at least our exchanges haven’t been a total loss, as I see you’ve adopted a bit of my writing style in your comebacks for a lack of your own. Keep up the good work; you just may “gain” something from this experience yet.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      “But here’s a newsflash – that makes you the bad guy for disrespecting others and acting like an immature brat throwing temper tantrums, not us.”

      Find a mirror, look in that mirror, see above.

      Just let it go, drop it, hang it up, whatever.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt or Mathew,

      How silly that you would actually expect for me to see you in a mirror. That was rather coo-coo of you to suggest such an odd thing. Obviously you’ve lost your grip on sanity, and yet insist that I join you in your madness by demanding I too “Just let it go”. No thanks.

      Reply

    • Gautier Van Cleave

      |

      G-Men, Matts, Matthews, Hatfields, McCoys, Montagues, Capulets,
      For the sake of those of us who are still recipients of the original Shooters Log discussion, can you not cease hostilities? Surely you have more productive activities with which to engage yourselves than this seemingly interminable assault on each other’s (and everyone else’s) sensibilities. Clean your weapons, stock up on ammo, review the deplorable state of national politics, or prepare yourselves against an onslaught from the assorted international maniacs. But please, enough of this arguing with each other in this public forum. Thank you for your attention and best regards.

      Reply

    • Matt or Matthew

      |

      Duly noted.

      Reply

    • Michael D. Lindley, MD

      |

      Troll alert!!

      This guy obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Everyone knows that the solid copper or similar our bullets are much more expensive than plain lead or copper jacketed lead.

      It is quite obvious there are a lot of anti gunners commenting on this particular article.

      I particularly loathe this comment:

      “I think it is time more of us who enjoy guns but realize that we need some kinds of regulations on these weapons speak up.”

      Have you ever read such delusional thoughts? Can you think of an item more regulated?

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Your reading comprehension is lacking for someone who claims to be a medical doctor. Of course full copper bullets are more expensive than plain lead or fmj. They are NOT more expensive than quality hunting ammo, which is what I said.

      Reply

  • abelhorn

    |

    Simple answer use the Constitution to take the land from the government which they own unlawfully to start with.

    Reply

    • Kevin

      |

      Which to give it back to, the Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans, French, Dutch, or English?

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Kevin,

      If you are not a U.S. citizen then please forgive the following – as you may have an excuse, otherwise I find it exceptionally disgraceful when Americans such as you embarrassingly show their complete lack of even a fundamental Constitutional understanding and historical continuity of federal lands acquisition, possession, and mandated disposition.

      Reply

    • abelhorn

      |

      Try reading the Constitution We The People Own that land it is not
      legal for the government to own all that land.

      Reply

    • Pete

      |

      The operative word is “We”, not you or any individual, or company. It’s use is for everyone and that means the best way to maintain that use for all of “We” is for the Fed to continue managing it.

      Reply

    • Enzo

      |

      And “OUR” land is glorious! I spent the entire summer riding across the northern states, down into California then back up through Nevada, Utah, Colorado…

      I camped the entire time on the land WE own. National parks, the Pacific Coast.. You should get out, and enjoy your birthright. It’s freagin AMAZING!

      Reply

    • Gautier Van Cleave

      |

      Ever hear of Federalism? The Constitution for the United States of America (that’s individual States with their own land, now usurped by a bloated land-grabbing Washington D.C.) recognizes the authority of the several states to run THEIR OWN affairs.
      It’s long past time for the national government to return the bulk of their micro-managed usurpations back to the states. Or sell what is not needed for express national priorities (defense bases, national parks, and the like) to private citizens and corporations. The best way to protect land is for someone to pay for it and own it. Owners generally manage their property much better than bureaucracies. Reread the 10th Amendment (Bill of Rights) “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

      Reply

    • Vam Jron

      |

      Gautier,
      Why don’t we give it back to the people who owned it before? We have a record of the government STEALING it from them. They can manage it as they want. And the constitution is a piece of paper, that people wrote. We can change the paper, we can ignore the paper, the paper is only as good as the power the government gives it.

      Reply

    • Pete

      |

      I guess I’m not sure how you believe the Federal government has usurped all this land from the States when the majority (all?) of that land was acquired before those states were even admitted to the Union?

      *Lousiana Purchase 1803
      *Mexican American War 1848

      None of the western states were even admitted before 1850 (California).

      Please do reread the 10th Amendment, especially the “powers not delegated” part. The Constitution does delegate that power in Article 4, Section 3, the “Property Clause”:

      (The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.)

      We have very different ideas of how to best protect the land, private or corporate ownership would only serve to remove access for the vast majority of users and reserve it for the privileged few.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Stop Pete, just stop. Your facts and common knowledge of the Constitution are not welcome here. All we are interested in is complaining about the EVIL federal govt. Over and over and over and over. Regardless of the ACTUAL FACTS of the situation.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: