Post by: wolfbait on July 07, 2014, 09:05:01 PM
July 7, 2014 by Sam Rolley
A handful of Senate Democrats on Monday voted against a sportsmen’s bill that is intended to preserve Federal lands for hunting and fishing because the legislation didn’t include gun control language. Despite the objections, the bill moved forward on a vote of 82-12.
Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, vocally opposed the bill and voted against cloture on the motion because the sportsmen legislation didn’t include language calling for tighter gun control in the U.S.
“I won’t be voting for cloture today because we are long overdue to make a statement in the United States Senate about the tens of thousands of deaths happening due to guns all across the country,” Murphy said. “Everyone has a role to play in trying to stem this epidemic of violence.”
Blumenthal, who told reporters he plans to amend the legislation to include gun control measures, also weighed in, saying, “I can’t vote for a measure that makes owning or possessing or using guns more readily or easily usable when we have failed to act and we have failed to act on commonsense, sensible measures that will stop gun violence.”
The two were joined by fellow Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Ben Cardin (Md.) in opposition.
The bill is a bipartisan piece of legislation sponsored by North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The pro-sportsman language in the legislation was seen as many red-State Democrats facing tough reelections as a way to curry favor with conservatives voters.
http://personalliberty.com/democratic-senators-whine-pro-huntingfishing-bill-isnt-full-gun-control-language/ (http://personalliberty.com/democratic-senators-whine-pro-huntingfishing-bill-isnt-full-gun-control-language/)
Post by: MarkyMark on July 07, 2014, 09:18:06 PM
Post by: Bordercop on July 10, 2014, 08:20:26 AM
Post by: rim_runner on July 10, 2014, 02:51:46 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 03:02:53 PM
What I wonder is why Ted Cruz is trying to kill this bill. His proposed amendment to S 2363 9sa 345) would limit the amount of federal land in each state and require that federal land above his limit would have to be sold or given to the state this land is in. This is a classic poison pill and is an attempt to make this bill fail. http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1502 (http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1502)
I like Cruz's amendments. The states and the people should own more land than the feds. Several states are working on claiming back land from the feds.
Post by: rim_runner on July 10, 2014, 03:31:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 03:54:55 PM
If you like the situation in Texas where most hunting is done on leases and what little public land that’s available is overrun with the hunters that can’t afford a lease and if you like paying for access rights to timber companies, I can see why you might like this idea. Any public land sold will be sold in large tracts that very few individuals can afford. It may go for rock bottom prices to the large buyers but by time it trickles down to individuals it will be at market price. How do you think the timber companies got hold of so much land? As far as turning it over to the states, in some states this might work. What I’ve seen in Washington state the state might do an acceptable job but there are some states that this would be a complete disaster.
That's not what I said at all. I said: "The states and the people should own more land than the feds. Several states are working on claiming back land from the feds."
The states can take back land from the feds if they will do it. The State of Washington has been buying private land and adding more land to public lands, they obviously are not going to sell it off. I like the way state lands are managed much better than federal lands, I would welcome more state forests, we would have more jobs and the state will manage it to be a financial resource rather than a financial burden on taxpayers as the USFS has evolved.
Post by: rim_runner on July 10, 2014, 04:04:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 04:10:56 PM
and like I said, Washington State might do ok with this but there are other states where it would be a bad move. Regardless adding an amendment like this to a sportsman's rights bill is a poison pill. There's nothing about this amendment that will help the main bill pass so why is Ted Cruz doing this?
Simple, he is a libertarian! He believes the states and the people should have more control over their lands than the federal government. I didn't see anything indicating a selloff of public land, more I would expect a transition to state owned public lands. The states will manage as the people in each state see fit.
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 04:17:15 PM
Post by: rim_runner on July 10, 2014, 04:23:12 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 10, 2014, 04:27:23 PM
So he’s willing to risk the defeat of a bill benefiting hunters and fishers to make a political point? Why not propose this as a separate bill and let it be voted on for its own merit instead of adding it to a bill concerning sportsmen’s rights. Do you really think that the sportsmen’s bill would pass with this amendment?
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but perhaps it's political maneuvering, perhaps at the last minute he will remove the fed land issue to get the rest. I will say that I agree with him about federal lands. It's likely that the POTUS will probably veto anyway, one way or the other.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2014, 07:00:49 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html)