Sportsmenís Act of 2012 (S.3525)


PDA






Coltdriver
November 14, 2012, 09:22 PM
I got an email from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. I have excerpted pieces from that email and have a link at the bottom of this so you can read the article in full.

Mods the Sportsmans Act takes lead out of the purvue of the EPA among other things. So it seems to me that it is directly related to our rights as gun owners.

The following was in the email which came from NSSF. You can find the NSSF here: http://www.nssfblog.com/

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121

Contact Your Senators We have some great news! By an overwhelming 92-5 vote, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed an important procedural motion that will allow senators to vote on the Sportsmenís Act of 2012 (S.3525) currently scheduled for this Thursday, but that could slip to Friday.

This got my attention:

This historic legislation includes the firearms industryís top legislative priority, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act (S.838) that would clarify that ammunition is excluded from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Anti-hunting groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity are suing the EPA to force a ban on traditional ammunition made with lead components that would devastate hunting and shooting sports participation, drive up ammunition prices by almost 200 percent on average and dry up conservation funding.

And this:

The Sportsmenís Act of 2012 is a package of 19 separate bills ó the majority of sportsmenís legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. (See below for an overview of the components of the bill.) A similar package of billsĖthe Sportsmenís Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R.4089)Ėwas passed by the House in the spring by a bipartisan vote of 276 to 146. Passage of this pro-sportsmenís legislation will promote, protect and preserve our nationís hunting, shooting and conservation heritage for generations to come.

Your voice must be heard! As you read this, anti-hunting forces are working to defeat S.3525. So act now, call your U.S. senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to vote YES for the bipartisan Sportsmenís Act of 2012.

Sportsmenís Priorities in the Sportsmenís Act of 2012

The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act: Specifically excludes ammunition and fishing tackle from the Toxic Substances Control Act, preventing unnecessary regulations that could devastate hunting, shooting, conservation funding and the firearm and ammunition industries.

Making Public Lands Public: Requires that the 1.5 percent of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund funding is made available to secure public access to federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.

Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act: Makes Pittman-Robertson funds available to states for a longer period of time for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges. The bill encourages federal land agencies to cooperate with state and local authorities to maintain shooting ranges and limits liability for these agencies.

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to urge your senators to SUPPORT the Sportsmenís Act of 2012. To send an email or a letter to your U.S. senators click here.

You can link to this article here:

http://www.nssfblog.com/sportsmens-act-will-soon-face-a-vote/

If you enjoyed reading about "Sportsmenís Act of 2012 (S.3525)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fastcast
November 15, 2012, 09:20 AM
I received an email from GunBroker about this and how important it is we contact our Senators and ask them to support this bill and how all the large shooting sports orgs, conservation groups (DU, etc.) and NRA are supporting this bill.

Then, later that day I get an email from GOA saying how important it is we ask to oppose this atrocity of a bill.....lol

So which is it? :rolleyes:

Queen_of_Thunder
November 15, 2012, 11:52 AM
I received an email from GunBroker about this and how important it is we contact our Senators and ask them to support this bill and how all the large shooting sports orgs, conservation groups (DU, etc.) and NRA are supporting this bill.

Then, later that day I get an email from GOA saying how important it is we ask to oppose this atrocity of a bill.....lol

So which is it? :rolleyes:
Well you could read the Bill yourself and make your own decision instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you.

gfanikf
November 15, 2012, 12:32 PM
I received an email from GunBroker about this and how important it is we contact our Senators and ask them to support this bill and how all the large shooting sports orgs, conservation groups (DU, etc.) and NRA are supporting this bill.

Then, later that day I get an email from GOA saying how important it is we ask to oppose this atrocity of a bill.....lol

So which is it? :rolleyes:
Not the GOA.

Fastcast
November 15, 2012, 01:41 PM
Well you could read the Bill yourself and make your own decision instead of letting someone else do your thinking for you.

I've read the talking points & summary and have an opinion based on that.....and you read this bill in its entirety? :eek:....If so, apparently you have a lot of free time on your hands.

Hell, I just heard about this yesterday and there's suppose to be a vote today or tomorrow.....Not enough time now to read the entire bill.

My point was these pro-gun/sportsman groups can't see to agree on this bill and one would assume they have read more than just the summary so you start second guessing what you think to be correct based on the little bit of info you have and the short time frame to contact your reps.....but if it makes you feel big implying I'm a sheep, by all means......

gfanikf
November 15, 2012, 01:53 PM
I've read the talking points & summary and have an opinion based on that.....and you read this bill in its entirety? :eek:....If so, apparently you have a lot of free time on your hands.

Hell, I just heard about this yesterday and there's suppose to be a vote today or tomorrow.....Not enough time now to read the entire bill.

My point was these pro-gun/sportsman groups can't see to agree on this bill and one would assume they have read more than just the summary so you start second guessing what you think to be correct based on the little bit of info you have and the short time frame to contact your reps.....but if it makes you feel big implying I'm a sheep, by all means......
I'll put it this way the GOA stands now with the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States in opposing the bill. The GOA also lists John Tester the sponsor as an GOA F rating...which is bullcrap to anyone who knows the things Senator Tester has done for the Second Amendment.

The bill has been around for months. I've been following it for a while. It is a lot of really good bills put together as an Omnibus. There are no poison pills like in the FOPA of 86 that have been snuck in and it has wide bipartisan support. It's a net benefits, for Sportsmen, Conservationists, Shooters, and Wildlife. You never have to even touch a firearm to enjoy the benefits of this legislation.


*Note I say of the US, since as many have learned your local and helpful Humane society has no connection to the HSUS and never gets donations made to the national group. They do little to actually help animals and while I might get dogpiled for not disliking the ASPCA (well in non-hunting matters) they at least help with animal cruelty issues and not just weirdo PR campaigns. The best you can say about the HSUS is they don't kill as many animals needlessly as PETA does.

Fastcast
November 15, 2012, 02:13 PM
Thanks for your insight gfanikf....I thought the bill looked good, in the short while I had to decipher.

gfanikf
November 15, 2012, 03:21 PM
Thanks for your insight gfanikf....I thought the bill looked good, in the short while I had to decipher.
Sure thing, happy I could be of help.

Owen Sparks
November 15, 2012, 03:48 PM
Wasnt the 1986 ban on new machine guns hidden in 'gun rights' a bill like this?

gfanikf
November 15, 2012, 04:05 PM
Wasnt the 1986 ban on new machine guns hidden in 'gun rights' a bill like this?

It wasn't hidden in the bill it was snuck in as a poison pill at the last minute through some really underhanded means. Also this bill isn't a guns right like the FOPA was. Either way no one in sneaking any stuff in here. People are watching to ensure nothing happens.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

earlthegoat2
November 15, 2012, 04:50 PM
I find myself more and more hesitant to support anything the NRA supports these days.

Neverwinter
November 16, 2012, 01:43 AM
Does anyone know references to the percentage of wildlife conservation funding provided from fishing? The tradeoff of the 2nd amendment is worth the possible environmental impact, but fishing is unrelated to the 2A.

butwhat
November 16, 2012, 09:28 AM
Something to read thoroughly and consider.
Even what appear to be good bills, become bad with just a few words added.
Fight for only good LEGISLATION at all levels

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2012/11/sportsmens-act-of-2012-guest-analysis.html

gfanikf
November 16, 2012, 10:00 AM
Something to read thoroughly and consider.
Even what appear to be good bills, become bad with just a few words added.
Fight for only good LEGISLATION at all levels

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2012/11/sportsmens-act-of-2012-guest-analysis.html
More regurgitated nonsense from the GOA. It's so nice for them to be helping out the HSUS.

butwhat
November 16, 2012, 10:37 AM
Explain your comment on the GOA in particular to this bill.

I'm assuming you are saying the bill is good

What about the points made by the GOA and the author?

When this bill came out I [posted in several places asking about the opinions and reasons of the possible detractors.

I never received a single response.

It is widely known that our wonderful legislators throw bad stuff in good bills almost without fail

gfanikf
November 16, 2012, 10:48 AM
Explain your comment on the GOA in particular to this bill.

I'm assuming you are saying the bill is good

What about the points made by the GOA and the author?

When this bill came out I [posted in several places asking about the opinions and reasons of the possible detractors.

I never received a single response.

It is widely known that our wonderful legislators throw bad stuff in good bills almost without fail
Because it consist of paranoid delusions that can be summed up as "Obama Goin Grab Your Land" despite the fact the law clearly doesn't say that. It's based on claim that the Clean Water Act allows similar actions and thus it will be the case here...with no proof to support it, and in fact links to an article showing the Supreme Court siding with a person. Hardly definitive evidence of anything to worry about.

The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.
The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.
Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats -- a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.
You make the call.


Yeah, that's some genius reasoning they've got going on there. Seriously the logic they are using is the same type that leads to the stick about the DHS purchasing 450 million rounds.

The GOA is still annoyed that the NRA is the Gun Lobby...not them and it's not even a contest and get spiteful about it.

butwhat
November 16, 2012, 04:02 PM
I've seen several times that I sided with the GOA over the NRA. The NRA has taken positions that I did not think were in the best interests of gun owners.

I've also seen the results of openings for open ended bureaucratic regulation.
And the same claims were deemed paranoid delusions. But they were legitimate concerns.

Especially in the water rights, wet lands and similar stuff. I do not trust our legislators to guard our interests.

If somebody claims there is a problem with a bill, more than likely there is. We've all seen it many times.

It wouldn't take much to properly address this bill and fix the very little that has been claimed to be wrong.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sportsmenís Act of 2012 (S.3525)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!