Land Sale bills introduced by Utah Legislators

[-bowfreak-]

You bring up salient points about the Supreme Court which I agree with, but this simply isn't a gun issue. My only hope is that the vast majority of average joe hunters would side with my take, but sadly I fear I am wrong. Which is to say that the NRA fear mongering machine is one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in history by turning millions of rural white men into single issue voters and allowing crap like this to be pushed through against our will. In standing so firmly for one issue you are giving up your right to participate in the democratic process on a multitude of others. Should I go grab my tinfoil hat or am I looking at this reasonably?

Actually....a single issue voter is one who disagrees with pretty much everything a candidate says and then votes for them because they want to preserve public lands.

I am a Conservative Christian, pro-life, anti gay marriage, pro gun, pro limited government voter. What the NRA or any other organization says has no bearing on how I vote. I guess you could categorize me as a singe issue voter in that I vote against liberalism every single time.

 

[5MilesBack]

I guess you could categorize me as a singe issue voter in that I vote against liberalism every single time.

Yes, I too am a single "special interest" voter........that single special interest is protecting and preserving the Constitution at all costs. So I vote for the individual(s) that will best accomplish that. Because if we lose ANY of that, everything else won't really matter at that point. So at this point, this is the most critical election I've seen in my lifetime. Not only do we need to elect a Constitutionalist as President, but we also need to keep the Senate and House majorities in order to continue to preserve the Constitution.

 

[elkyinzer]

Could I make it any clearer that I am not using this as a basis to select who I am going to vote for. I am undecided, and while this is an issue, there a bunch of others of greater importance to me. There are other channels in the democratic process to fight for our interests, and that is what we are primarily advocating here.

 

[mplane72]

No reason a Candidate can't be pro 2A and pro public land. Unless you're just going to let them scare you with the 2A threat while they take money from the Koch brothers and the like to take what belongs to all of us.

 

[Matt Cashell]

No reason a Candidate can't be pro 2A and pro public land.

Exactly.

In fact there are candidates from both parties that have proven themselves supporters of both.

Meanwhile,

There is action on land transfer legislation in AK:

http://www.alaskacommons.com/2016/0...hrough-third-committee-for-no-apparent-reason

It is likely to fail any court test, but the Alaskan taxpayers are wasting their money and placing lands at risk anyway.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

No reason a Candidate can't be pro 2A and pro public land.

+1

There's little reason to draw two dimensional lines in the sand, when you're operating in a three dimensional environment.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

There's little reason to draw two dimensional lines in the sand, when you're operating in a three dimensional environment.

Sometimes I crack myself up. Back to the regularly schedule program...

 

[airlocksniffer]

+1

There's little reason to draw two dimensional lines in the sand, when you're operating in a three dimensional environment.

 

[Trial153]

Nothing like a good scare tactic to try to solidify your base. As soon as you hear the key word constitutionalist at least you know exactly what camp it's coming from. Thankfully I disagree with that person on a hell of a lot more then just his deplorable public land position.

 

[Gobbler36]

I think the majority of the "fed" controlled land hate comes from some of the inefficiencies inherent to such a large organization. The federal government in general is not efficient and many people seem to think the state governments could do a better job at efficiently managing those lands as they are smaller and more nimble.

I'll be the first to admit that the federal government is inefficient, but I still think they are doing a better job managing our public lands for public use than any other entity could. They have to deal with a lot of budget restrictions and red tape but I honestly believe the majority of BLM and forest service employees are trying to do what's best for public lands.

I've personally witnessed some of the inefficiencies I mentioned above. We built a building for the BLM a couple of years ago. It was a 6,000 square foot building that should have cost no more than $600,000 to construct. They put so many requirements into the construction specifications that the building cost closer to $2,000,000 to build. No joke, the HVAC system alone cost $200,000... for a 6,000 sq. ft. building. Our standard commercial lease is 21 pages long. The BLM lease was over 200 pages long. They had a committee of 12 people sit in on weekly meetings to approve everything. Not only were all of those people unnecessary, they caused a lot of delays in getting things approved. Those delays cost money. Anyway, you get the picture. Big government is inefficient, but I don't see a better alternative so I'll fight to keep public lands public as best I can.

spot on, we all have done too good of a job at damning the feds, most of the time warrantied but not on this issue

 

[Gobbler36]

I am in the process of emailing my legislators, this is an American issue, not a local one. This is real stuff. Us backcountry hunters should find ourselves aligned with other conservation orgs with whom we may not agree on all issues in this developing alignment. Strange bedfellows indeed, but we can sort it out in the morning so to speak. Think of what some of the $$ eyed hunting companies have to gain by turning hunting into a rich man's sport. Support the good ones. Represent our sport well. We have such precious little public land where I am that I cherish every square foot of the West.

same here man

 

[Trial153]

It's amazing to me that most of us can agree that in many respects there are management issues. However for the life of me I can't see how transferring the land solves the problem. So when the solution to a problem doesn't solve it, and doesn't make sense. Then I think we better start looking at the real motivation behind the movement.

 

[elkguide]

I am a Conservative Christian, pro-life, anti gay marriage, pro gun, pro limited government voter. What the NRA or any other organization says has no bearing on how I vote. I guess you could categorize me as a singe issue voter in that I vote against liberalism every single time.

So tell us how you really feel bf.

 

[airlocksniffer]

It's amazing to me that most of us can agree that in many respects there are management issues. However for the life of me I can't see how transferring the land solves the problem. So when the solution to a problem doesn't solve it, and doesn't make sense. Then I think we better start looking at the real motivation behind the movement.

My foot will not stop itching. I've looked everywhere for something to stop the itching. The only way to stop the itching is to chop off my foot.

Maybe not the best analogy but the best I could come up with after 5 seconds.

 

[Trial153]

Here is what our lovely Constitutionalist thinks about your federal lands.
skip to the 1:20 if you in rush.




[video=youtube;EzjE2OrM5MI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjE2OrM5MI[/video]

 

[-bowfreak-]

Could I make it any clearer that I am not using this as a basis to select who I am going to vote for. I am undecided, and while this is an issue, there a bunch of others of greater importance to me. There are other channels in the democratic process to fight for our interests, and that is what we are primarily advocating here.

Fair enough. I think you are spot on with your position as to how to handle this with elected officials. I guess the whole election cycle had me immediately thinking of votes vs. expressing your disagreement with an issue via phone or email.

 

[5MilesBack]

Exactly.

In fact there are candidates from both parties that have proven themselves supporters of both.

Don't get caught up with the 2nd Amendment, it is just such a small piece of the overall puzzle......and even mentioning "both parties" as supporters tells me that the big picture still alludes many.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's amazing to me that most of us can agree that in many respects there are management issues. However for the life of me I can't see how transferring the land solves the problem. So when the solution to a problem doesn't solve it, and doesn't make sense. Then I think we better start looking at the real motivation behind the movement.

I find it comical yet sad when so many demand "state rights" and independence from the Federal Government, but when this land issue is proposed in support of "state rights".......everyone runs screaming for the Federal Government to save them.

Kind of like when states tried to ban gay marriage and the people ran to the Feds to ensure that can't happen. Then the same people condemn the Feds when they want special "state rights" to legalize marijuana.

Make up your minds folks.........you can't operate like a pin ball with every single issue that comes up. Do you want "state rights", or give the Feds all the power over your state? You can't pick and choose based on whether it benefits you or not.

 

[Matt Cashell]

even mentioning "both parties" as supporters tells me that the big picture still alludes many.

I guess I don't subscribe to black and white thinking. I prefer to look for common ground, and I have yet to meet any particular political party that I agree with wholeheartedly.

Partisanship in general, retards reasonable discussion, IMO.

Make up your minds folks.........you can't operate like a pin ball with every single issue that comes up. Do you want "state rights", or give the Feds all the power over your state? You can't pick and choose based on whether it benefits you or not.

I support the Constitution. The Constitution sets out some powers and authorities to the states and some to nation. Sometimes they overlap. It sets in place a vehicle for making laws for the good of the people. I am not advocating transferring existing state lands to the Feds. I am advocating for retaining the Federal Lands we have now. I do think we can advocate for state rights and national rights when the occasion calls for it.

 

[Trial153]

I find it comical yet sad when so many demand "state rights" and independence from the Federal Government, but when this land issue is proposed in support of "state rights".......everyone runs screaming for the Federal Government to save them.

Kind of like when states tried to ban gay marriage and the people ran to the Feds to ensure that can't happen. Then the same people condemn the Feds when they want special "state rights" to legalize marijuana.

Make up your minds folks.........you can't operate like a pin ball with every single issue that comes up. Do you want "state rights", or give the Feds all the power over your state? You can't pick and choose based on whether it benefits you or not.

The problem with the land Grabbers is that they cant be honest about their true motivations. Its transparent that the motivation behind the transfer is so states can depose of the land for their own profits. Since they wont come right our and say it they have to trump up other arguments. Like the all encompassing states right arguments. However the its already been established that federal ownership and management of land is not an infringement of states rights. The constitution supports the argument in Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2.