Sportsmen's Act of 2012: Guest Analysis

We discussed this the other day, or at least I put it out there for discussion. NRA and NSSF are for it, and GOA is against it. 

The current status of the bill: 

Latest Major Action: 11/15/2012 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to commit to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment SA2880 fell when cloture was invoked on the bill in Senate. 

Activist Brian S. Wegner forwarded a detailed email with his analysis, titled "S. 3525 - The Way I See It‏." It has a lot of thoughtful insights, and he agreed to let me share it here on WarOnGuns. What follows are his words:

Senate Bill 3525 is being touted as the Sportsman’s Act of 2012.   However, in my opinion, this is much more than just about sporting activities.  I see it as a way for the Federal government to transfer ownership of land.

I saw two firearms related entities fighting about the language of this bill.  On one side was GOA’s Larry Pratt (a pro-constitutional gun rights organization) saying that it has unconstitutional provisions sweetened a bit with certain provisions favoring sportsmen, and on the other was NSSF’s Larry Keane (basically the gun manufacturer’s lobby) saying that it’s all good - no problems with this bill - it needs to be passed.

I read the entirety of the bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.3525: (time I can never get back) and then looked at GOA’s response http://gunowners.org/a11152012.htm

At first I didn’t see GOA’s objection to the text as it was written.  That was until I read the context with which the bill would allow a bureaucratic entity (a mini-EPA) to expand Federal control over land/water - and not just land/water that is already under Federal control.  Ever see a map of Utah?  More than 70% of the land is not under Utah’s control….. 

So back to the point….

---

Sec 211

(e) Effect on Other Authorities-

(1) ACQUISITION OF LAND AND WATER- Nothing in this subtitle alters or otherwise affects the authorities, responsibilities, obligations, or powers of the Secretary to acquire land, water, or an interest in land or water under any other provision of law.

(2) PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION- Nothing in this subtitle permits the use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle to acquire real property or a real property interest without the written consent of each owner of the real property or real property interest.

(3) MITIGATION- Nothing in this subtitle permits the use of funds made available to carry out this subtitle for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes under--

(A) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);

(B) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.);

(C) the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4082); or

(D) any other Federal law or court settlement.

---

Sounds good right?  Except that it is the same language used in the Clean Water Act which has been used by the EPA to declare areas ‘wetlands’ and screw people like this:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/21/supreme-court-sides-with-idaho-property-owners-over-epa/

However, this is actually worse in that it would now allow an UNELECTED bureaucratic entity the ability to transfer ownership of land through a privately funded organization, in the same way Kelo vs New London eminent domain allowed a government entity the ability to allow the transfer of real property for commercial purposes.  So while some of this bill would be fine for Sportsman, the backdoor trap to subvert the Constitution’s Separation of Powers cannot be ignored.

Instead of keeping people from being able to build on their land, they would now be able to legally take the land in much the same way that eminent domain is used.

---

WHO ARE THE DECISION MAKERS?

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.