NRA tying itself to the Eminent Domain problem

[rick_reno]

Hunters seem to believe that it's divorced from shooting sports. That's why you see so many hunters supporting gun control because you don't need a "machinegun" to hunt a deer. Sorry, but I'd much prefer that the largest shooting lobby in the country focus on the civil rights aspect, rather than the much narrower issue of hunting.

It's not just hunters. We've got a local fellow (Tim Jones) here who owns the company that makes MOJO sights - a company in Ponderay, Idaho that makes sights for surplus rifles - who is leading the effort to stop the expansion of the Farragut shooting range. They've been shooting at Farragut since it was a Naval training center in 1942, it's now a state park. Here is a link to a paper Mr. Jones (a self proclaimed 2nd Amendment supporter) wrote about the efforts to stop the expansion of the shooting range.

http://bayviews.blogspot.com/2005/06/new-farragut-shooting-range.html

 

[Zundfolge]

Zundfolge,
Ya missed my /sarcasm mark!

DOH! :banghead:

 

[Camp David]

So, you didn't read anything from the link I posted. Wonderful. It's nice to ingore evidence counter to a pet opinion, isn't it?

Daniel T: Actually I did use the link you provided and I perused the few token hunting efforts the NRA was involved in... I didn't see any which the NRA supported with $ funding... did you?

Let me be more specific: Are you aware of any pro-hunting efforts the NRA is involved in which involve financial outlays by the Association? This could include bulk land purchases on behalf of hunters, lobbying for farmers to make more land available to hunters, or working with State Figh & Game Commissions to get young hunters educated, purchase of training ranges? How many shooting ranges has the NRA opened in 2004? How much money has the NRA given to farmers and general landowners to guarantee hunting areas?

What good is it if the NRA succeeds in guaranteeing the 2nd Amendment freedoms if we can't find a place to shoot a gun? For many in the urban areas of this nation, finding a shooting range is a massive problem. For many, finding areas to hunt is almost impossible. For many who are long-time NRA members, including me, I have lost confidence of the organization as a hunting advocate. I see it now only as a lobbying entity.

 

[Daniel T]

TexasSIGman:

Well I will agree that hunting has been going down, but in part because NRA or whoever has not fought for public land access for hunting.

That isn't true either. You'd know it wasn't true if you'd read the link I posted earlier in the thread.

Texas doesn't have much public hunting land because of the history of the state. What became the state of Texas existed, not as an empty area taken over by a government, but as a collection of private land grants to individuals under a loose government authority.

What is the NRA supposed to do? Buy King Ranch and give it to the state governement in hopes that they allow it for your personal hunting use?

---

Edit to answer Camp David:

Yes, apparently you do want the NRA to buy land and give it to you. Great. How about you buy your own land?

The NRA doesn't exist to cater to your every desire. They are spending lots and lots of money to ensure that there is still land around to hunt on. Try searching for "No-Net-Loss".

You also seem to find little value in Youth hunting programs, hunter safety course, hunting programs for women, etc, etc. Maybe you should also pick up a copy of American Rifleman and read about some of the hunting-oriented programs that the NRA sponsors.

2nd edit: Not to mention that they also sponsor these guys: http://www.freehunters.org/

But that's nothing, right?

 

[countertop]

secure open hunting land, helped at deer checking stations, or helped farmers and private landowners on behalf of hunters?

Uh, here in Virginia they do all that stuff - by working with grops like Ducks Unlimted, by organizing and hosting a variety of events with local chapters, by lobbying for the continuation of things like the conservation reserve program and limiting (or removing) the liability of landowners who allow hunters access to their land.

Oh yeah, I forgot. In Virginia, they were at the forefront of advocating for our Right To Hunt amendment and took the lead in representing the Orion Shooting Sports center in its litigation trying to uphold the amendment.

 

[Camp David]

Yes, apparently you do want the NRA to buy land and give it to you. Great. How about you buy your own land?.

The organization could directly assist farmers and large landowners and be more proactive toward land acquisition for hunters. I'm not asking it to buy me land specifically, but I am expecting it would be responsive to its constituents. Hunters contribute over $21 billion to the American economy each year; it is not too much to ask that as the largest gun advocacy organization in the nation, the NRA should throw us a bone occasionally!

The NRA doesn't exist to cater to your every desire. They are spending lots and lots of money to ensure that there is still land around to hunt on. Try searching for "No-Net-Loss"..

I am familiar with "No Net Loss" program but the legislation is not helping with farmers and landowners at the local level who are faced with increasing landbuys by developers! Actually, the NRA's former support for Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) would help more at the local state level than No-Net Loss! You see, local farmers and large landowners are facing increased demand for their land by developers; the NRA needs to work more at the local level, in my opinion, to help these folks maintain land for generations of farmers and hunters to use. I'm sorry... I just don't see the NRA doing this.

You also seem to find little value in Youth hunting programs, hunter safety course, hunting programs for women, etc, etc. Maybe you should also pick up a copy of American Rifleman and read about some of the hunting-oriented programs that the NRA sponsors.

I receive and read it every month and all of these youth programs are excellent. Bravo. But again... once these youth are schooled in weapons and get their badge, where can they shoot? How many ranges does NRA help with maintaining? How much public land does the NRA actively (financially) support so our youth can hunt?

Maybe I am not explaining myself well here Daniel... let me use an analogy... I belong to a Bowling Organization... they actively and constantly disseminate information about existing Bowling Lanes, new Bowling Lanes, and work with Bowling Leagues to advance and increase Bowling in America. They train new bowlers, disseminate laws, and work to buiding new bowling lanes.

Get the idea? The NRA could take a lesson here...

Protecting gun rights is fine, but that is not the only mission. One I have a gun, it would be nice to have a place to use it. We are not all millionaires that can afford safaris to Africa for hunting season, nor can most of us purchase our own personal hunting reserve.

We look to the NRA to use every penny at its disposal to help with advacing shooting sports, and that includes open ranges for shooting, open hunting areas, and help with landowners to be sure that both are available.

 

[Daniel T]

Maybe I am not explaining myself well here Daniel... let me use an analogy... I belong to a Bowling Organization... they actively and constantly disseminate information about existing Bowling Lanes, new Bowling Lanes, and work with Bowling Leagues to advance and increase Bowling in America. They train new bowlers, disseminate laws, and work to buiding new bowling lanes.

Get the idea? The NRA could take a lesson here...

No, I am actually confused. As I see it, replacing "bowling" above with "hunting" the NRA does do all of that, and more besides.

The NRA exists beyond a monolitic national entity. There are state chapters and child organizations that it funds, like the aforementioned Free Hunters. I think all of your concerns are covered, it just might be transparent to you.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, TexasSIGman, all ya gotta do is get the State of Texas to use eminent domain and buy up a bunch of ranches and farms and make them part of the public domain. Okay?

Texas joined the Union already having owned its own land as a country. It used the sales of that land to private parties to finance state activities. Building the capitol was one; the state traded three million acres of land for the necessary three million dollars of construction cost. (That transaction set the price of state lands for several years.) The acreage became the XIT Ranch.

In recent years the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department has entered into agreements to gain access to many thousands of acres of private lands for hunting. Check it out.

Art

 

[O.F.Fascist]

I strongly agree... The NRA needs to return to its roots in my opinion and be more an advocate for hunters... the 2nd word of their name "Rifle" has been overlooked for too long... The NRA is all about handguns today and legislative matters to that end. NOT THAT SUCH HANDGUN ADVOCACY IS WRONG, because I support it too, BUT WHAT ABOUT HUNTERS?

I own an SKS, it is a rifle, I dont hunt.

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasSIGman:

That isn't true either. You'd know it wasn't true if you'd read the link I posted earlier in the thread.

Texas doesn't have much public hunting land because of the history of the state. What became the state of Texas existed, not as an empty area taken over by a government, but as a collection of private land grants to individuals under a loose government authority.

There is lots of public land in Texas it's just that most of it is off limits for hunting. Lots of it state public land, lots of it Federal. The fact that it's off limits to shooting sports has nothing to do with how Texas came into existence.

I'm glad that everything you know came from that one link, but look outside your single repository of information. You might be surprised what is out there.

Why can't you hunt in State Parks? You telling me it's because of how Texas came into existence? Why isn't something done to lobby for that?
That also has nothing to do with how Texas came into existence.

You need to turn your "high and mighty" knob down a little, this is still the High Road.


Art,

In recent years the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department has entered into agreements to gain access to many thousands of acres of private lands for hunting. Check it out.

Is this the same TP&WD that doesn't allow any firearms into state parks? Once again, this has nothing to do with how Texas land ownership came about. There just isn't any interest in allowing hunting on property the state already owns. Why not?

Have you used this system? You have to apply for a hunting permit, pay the fee, then and only then will TP&WD tell you where this mystical public hunting land is. Do you know why? They advertise over 1 million acres available for hunting, fishing, and camping. Guess how much of that includes any shooting sports? Guess how many public land shooting ranges? That's not a very good system. This is a way off tangent to the original thread, but part of the same in some ways, ie how the NRA prioritizes its battles. And certainly not all of that is NRA's fault, and I'm not saying it is.

All I am asking is what is used to set the priorities for what battles NRA chooses?

 

[Daniel T]

There is lots of public land in Texas it's just that most of it is off limits for hunting. Lots of it state public land, lots of it Federal. The fact that it's off limits to shooting sports has nothing to do with how Texas came into existence.

Wrong. The percentage of Texas that is legally off-limits to hunting is tiny. The percentage of it that is off-limits for you to hunt on might be a bit bigger. Buy your own land and it won't be a problem. More than 94% of Texas is in private hands, so it should be easy to find some.

I'm glad that everything you know came from that one link, but look outside your single repository of information. You might be surprised what is out there.

Huh. Yeah, well fortunately, it only takes that one link to disprove your theory that the "NRA or whoever" isn't fighting for access to public land for hunting. That "whoever" could be you, by the way. Have you done anthing to fight for hunting access?

Why can't you hunt in State Parks?

Don't know, ask your State Rep.

You telling me it's because of how Texas came into existence?

Um, no, try reading my post again. I was explaining why there wasn't much public land in Texas, not why you couldn't hunt in what little there is.

Why isn't something done to lobby for that?

Yeah! Someone else should do something about it!

That also has nothing to do with how Texas came into existence.

Well, you're right about something.

You need to turn your "high and mighty" knob down a little, this is still the High Road.

You should take your own advice.

 

[X Who]

Concerning Eminent Domain, couldn't a city throw out a gunshop to put in a Starbucks? Or a McDonalds or something?

The Kelo decision would allow this.

 

[shermacman]

Yes, X Who,

That is exactly the problem, or seize a rifle and pistol club to put in a strip mall.

And thank you for trying to rescue this thread which started off as an important discussion about the NRA, the Untied States Supreme Court, The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights; but headed off into how some Texas counties may or may not allow hunting.

 

[Waitone]

The real damage to be caused by Kelo has yet to be seen. Wait until Kelo-style ED is linked to environmental initiatives. You will see huge chunks of land put off limits to hunters. In my opinion there is no difference in the danger faced by handgunners and hunters. We are all in this together and we will both lose by the same mechanism. Kelo has got to be overturned and pronto. The longer it goes the more difficulty we'll have.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Kelo has got to be overturned and pronto. The longer it goes the more difficulty we'll have.

But that's what started my question in the first place. Does Kelo need to be overturned at all? Many states, and some fed legislators are preparing to introduce bills to stop this.

Wouldn't it be better to stop it with a law than just with some courts opinion?
You get a court to overturn it, it can be overturned again and again.
This should be legislated, not ruled on by courts.

And, since Kelo seems to be on the forefront of most states minds, and from the press it appears most states want to stop it. So if we see that there is progress being made both at the federal and state levels, I ask again, where does this rate on NRA's list of priorities and do you think it trumps all of a sudden a lot of other things.

NRA is most certainly not the only group fighting this. They ARE however one of a very small group fighting for 2A freedoms. Is it pulling resources away from the direct 2A fight, which we fight alone, to go after this ED thing along with many other groups, when it is already building momentum towards being dealt with.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Camp David, I think you are just completely wrong about your erroneous BELIEF as to what the NRA is, or is supposed to be all about. It is most certainly NOT primarily about hunting; never has been; never will be. Hunters are *somewhat* of a natural ally, which is why you see the NRA embrace them. I say somewhat, because hunters are the reason why there's 80 million gun owners and only 4 or 5 million NRA members - they just don't get it. The don't see the connection between preserving 'evil' gun rights and their gun rights - they don't see that the antis are coming for them - their hunting rifles and shotguns. The NRA, the National Rifle Association, despite the inference that YOU came up with from their name, is about preserving the right to keep and bear arms - all small arms - that is their focus and mission - everything else is peripheral. If they can pick up a few hunters who are bright enough to see the connection, then so much the better, and they try to do that through various efforts. But preserving/expanding hunting lands, etc. - that's what DU, NWTF, RMEF, etc., all are for, not NRA. You misunderstand their mission. If anything, they need to do much more lobbying, because it's in congress and in the scotus where the metal meets the meat, for yours and my gun rights, and for hunters everywhere. If we don't stop the incremental bans, it's just a matter of a couple of decades before those powerful, evil, scary 'SNIPER RIFLES' are banned (you know, the turnbolt '06).

 

[Art Eatman]

TexasSIGman, this summer's special session of the lege dealt with Kelo. Perry got it ramrodded through, with little opposition. Basically, can't use eminent domain for end-use private purpose in Texas.

Art

 

[shermacman]

What is the point of the Constitution if the SCOTUS can gut any part it wants any time it wants? What is the point of the Constitution if we then have to rely on the state governments to protect our God given rights? My state has elected Mike Dukakis (D-Idiot), Teddy The K (D-Murderer) and Jean Fraud Kerry (D-War Criminal). I need a little help from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and God.

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasSIGman, this summer's special session of the lege dealt with Kelo. Perry got it ramrodded through, with little opposition. Basically, can't use eminent domain for end-use private purpose in Texas.

Art

Exactly, and other states will follow most certainly. So, that gets me back to my question. Is this something NRA should have at the top of their priority list since it seems to be on the road to being fixed any way? With all the other more direct attacks on the Second A, is this where they should be focusing their efforts?

If a municipality wants to do away with a shooting range, they will ALWAYS be able to use Eminent Domain to do so, they just have to put up a city park instead of a mall. That part of ED was not addressed at all by Kelo, only end private use as you mention. That piece of ED will likely never go away, it's been here over 200 years already. Challenges to that have always failed.

The funding request letter I received specifically stated they wanted the money to fight this battle in the 50 state legislatures, not to overturn SCOTUS or do any Federal lobbying.

We can guess the typical holdout states, the same ones that always holdout on 2A. We know not to spend inordinate amounts of money there, because the majority keep re-electing these weasels, so it's almost "lost cause".

I just don't want to see my donations to NRA off to fight more things that
A) Are pretty much going to happen anyway and
B) Won't be able to be changed in the usual places anyway.

My opinion at least. I still continue to send money to ILA monthly, and probably always will. I just see this is a diversion from what should be going on; fighting DIRECT attacks on the 2A. When those are more under control, then sure, go fight the sideways attacks.