Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 8/21/2001 9:19:54 PM EST
To the Paragon List, Friends, I have been working on an article focusing on the National Rifle Association's (NRA) support of CARA (HR-701). If you are not familiar with CARA, this congressional resolution will provide tens of billions of dollars for the federal Government to take private property from unwilling sellers. During the course of this article, I spoke with Fred Kelly Grant, a retired Federal attorney, and lawyer for Stewards of the Range. Mr. Grant said that in doing a legal analysis of CARA that he had identified over one dozen clauses that allow the government to force private property owners to sell their land. I also called Susan Lamson, the NRA Director of Wildlife and Conservation. I asked Ms. Lamson why NRA supported and lobbied for CARA, and she said that their analysts thought it would be good for wildlife. I asked her if she knew that CARA contained clauses to force the sell of private property. She very snidely replied, "That is NOT the opinion of the NRA attorneys." "Ok", I said, which NRA attorneys did the Bill analysis?" Ms. Lamson blasted me saying "That is none of your business." Then I asked, "Mrs. Lamson would you consider having your attorneys meet with property rights lawyers with a differing point of view?" I asked. "No! She replied very bluntly. " It would be a waste of time because, It would not change our position on this bill. I then asked for the name of the department head person responsible having analysis conducted. After many refusals, she gave me the name, James J. Baker, Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. I called his office several times to be thwarted by his assistant, Ted Novin. I asked to speak to anyone in the NRA National Offices who could make a formal statement on their stand on CARA. The reply, "Mr. Walley, there is no one here who can make a statement on this other than Mr. Baker." I reckon Mr. Baker is too good to speak a lowly conservative journalist who disagrees with his dictates from the paper throne, so we never spoke. I will sum this up. NRA is the most powerful lobbying influence in Washington. They have thrown their full machine in support of CARA. They refuse to rationally discuss this with attorneys who do not agree with their viewpoint.
Link Posted: 8/21/2001 9:25:19 PM EST
(continued) I have not written this article because it will give the liberal press a chance to seriously gut the NRA. ' I can see the headlines " NRA Sells Out On Property rights." Or "NRA Supports the 2nd Amendment and throws the 5th Amendment into the Trash." I also have not written it because I remember a youngster how much I loved reading the National Rifleman and remember all the years I have supported what I believed was the most important private freedom organization in America. Frankly, I am sickened by the attitude of the NRA employees I spoke with at their headquarters; but I still love and defend the NRA and will not write this national article until we have tried to persuade them to change their position on CARA. . I ask you loyal folks not just to contact, but rather to besiege the NRA offices with your views of the dubious NRA / CARA pact. When you call the below numbers, your call is entered into a telephone log. Mrs. Lamson denies getting any resistance to NRA support of CARA, so please let Susan Lamson and James J. Baker know how you feel at their direct private office numbers (List below.) CARA/ NRA is crucial today. If you value your private property rights call and NRA the below NRA officials immediately. Please spread this message to your entire list your list. In Liberty, J. Zane Walley
Link Posted: 8/21/2001 9:29:03 PM EST
I think we realy need to show Wayne LaPiere and his fellow compromisers the door. We need the NRA to be the kick-ass take-names organization it should be. I AM THE NRA. just not this particular watered down version.
Link Posted: 8/21/2001 9:36:25 PM EST
Can you tell me, will I be able to look this up - HR701 - and will I be able to find the info concerning the clauses you mention? I really like to see this kind of stuff before I call/write folks so they know I'm am informed. Thanks for the info. WSmac
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:12:59 AM EST
I don't get it. "NRA Supports the 2nd Amendment and throws the 5th Amendment into the Trash." ??? What does this have to do with the 5th amendment (other than that it specifically allows the feds to take your property, irrespective of this bill)?
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:29:45 AM EST
This topic is one of my best friends' pet peeves. I've conjectured there must be a larger picture than most of us are aware of, not wanting to get caught up in a conspiracy theory. I wonder now who is conspiring with whom and to what end? Imbroglio, you've lent credence to his argument. Thanks for taking the time for the alert. Finally, I ask: Why is the NRA taking this position? What specifically would one say to counter the NRA's position?
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:39:07 AM EST
"any more of this shit, and no more money Wayne".
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:42:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 3:38:08 AM EST by WMmitty]
I am doing a little big of research on this, and am wondering what congress was this bill submitted? HR 701 in the 107th congress is to use royalties from the Outer continental shelf oil production to establish a fund for outdoor conservation and recreation needs. Within this bill, section 10 clearly states:
Protection of Private Property Rights Savings-clause: Nothing in the Act shall authorize that private property be taken for public use, without just compensation as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Consitution. Regulation: Federal agencies, using funds appropriated by this act may not apply any regulation on any lands or water until the lands or water, or an interest therein, is acquired, unless authorized by another Act of Congress.
View Quote
I guess I am wondering if this is the bill that they are talking about.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:45:51 AM EST
They already lost my support.....
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:14:48 AM EST
Well think about it if our guns rights are ever Constutionally upheld the NRA would loose a shit load of money. Why else do you think they don't take some of these stupid laws to court.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:33:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By WMmitty: I am doing a little big of research on this, and am wondering what congress was this bill submitted? HR 701 in the 107th congress is to use royalties from the Outer continental shelf oil production to establish a fund for outdoor conservation and recreation needs. Within this bill, section 10 clearly states:
Protection of Private Property Rights Savings-clause: Nothing in the Act shall authorize that private property be taken for public use, without just compensation as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Consitution. Regulation: Federal agencies, using funds appropriated by this act may not apply any regulation on any lands or water until the lands or water, or an interest therein, is acquired, unless authorized by another Act of Congress.
View Quote
I guess I am wondering if this is the bill that they are talking about.
View Quote
I agree with mitty. Where is this bill that Mr. Walley is talking about? I also doubt that anyone at NRA is responding as he has indicated. Sounds like a withchunt.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:56:15 AM EST
If this man is correct, I am not suprised. I have not read anything from any gun/outdoors magazine that does not support the Federal land grabs.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:58:34 AM EST
Greetings to you all from your newest member. I am Busmaster007's noted best friend and yes this is one of my pet peev's. I am, of course a real gold prospector which ties first place with sex and shooting as my most favorite things to do! I am fluent in the arena of many of our rights and have been involved in the Land Use issues heavily for the past 10 years. in answers to many questions you may have regarding CARA, the "Conservation And Reclamation Act" or as "WE" refer to it as "the Condemnation And Relocation Act" which is in line with the truth. It is also referred to "Roadless Areas" which means that it will expand the "wilderness" areas which you cannot drive into for access further away expanding the wilderness area, so for you that hunt you will have to stop miles away from your favorite spot and hike into it. First of all, YES everything that Imbroglio has stated is truthful, I have several emails from those he mentioned and they are not up to discussions. The NRA is, in my mind, a Judas as they are willing to take a paltry amount of lands, and of course the $ for implementation and maintenance of such refuges, under title 2 of CARA and forsake the rest of the 60 MILLION acres that will be "off limits" to the public. 60 Million acres you ask, yes and to expand on that go to: [url]http://www.sharetrails.org/[/url] which is the Blue Ribbon Online a leader in this fight and they have a great deal of info there for you to investigate. The bottom line as I see it regarding NRA / CARA is very simple, the NRA is supposedly supporting our second amendment rights, yet somehow ignore or at least support and fight for other rights like unlawful search and SEIZURE, as in real property, and yes, if the owners of property within the new boundaries of the "roadless areas" do not choose to sell to the Fed's, it will be "condemned" or otherwise confiscated. I will be glad to answer all the questions I can for all of you. Busmaster007 has been ragging on me to join your membership for a long time and he finally kicked me in the butt to get me going! Thanks for reading, The Wiley ol' Prospector
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 11:16:57 AM EST
[bounce] Welcome, Prospector. Pandora's Box is now [i] OPEN [/i]. 249 more posts and a paltry $60 and you be down wit' da program!!!
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 2:35:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 2:30:33 PM EST by Avtomat]
the NRA is supposedly supporting our second amendment rights, yet somehow ignore or at least support and fight for other rights like unlawful search and SEIZURE, as in real property, and yes, if the owners of property within the new boundaries of the "roadless areas" do not choose to sell to the Fed's, it will be "condemned" or otherwise confiscated.
View Quote
What right is the NRA failing to fight for? "nor shall private property be taken for public use, [b]without just compensation[/b]." 5th amendment Obviously land comdemnation does not violate a "right," as the 5th amendment [b]specically gives the federal government the power to do so[/b]. Should the NRA be the General Complaint Association? (GCA?) I think you argument is more that the NRA should not endorse this sort of policy, not that they "don't fight for other rights" (which, by the way, the NRA probably doesn't bother with, because, as noted above, it's not an association for general whining and moaning).
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 3:23:12 PM EST
Would it be possible to also post the good things the NRA does? I myself am a life member of both the NRA and the GOA and unfortunately don't have the time to dig up the good or bad dirt on these organizations. So, if you guys come across any, how about posting it as well as the bad?
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:31:18 PM EST
[%)]Apologies for getting some of you wound up about the NRA situation as they are not the crux of the situation, only a minor contributor of which I too am also a member. Also the Constitution and Bill of Rights are losers to this and many other American situations as are you and I. I tell you now that there are several land grabs and government takings in progress as we sit here now, and it will continue by any means at their disposal, Constitution and Bill of Rights are put aside and obviously don't mean much these days. The First Amendment has given away to hate speech and politically correct speech. We have seen "Infringements" on our Second Amendment time after time. The Fourth Amendment has been waived if your vengeful neighbor wishes to anonymously call the police and accuse you of dealing drugs, there goes your property and you haven't even seen the judge or jury. So the list goes on, and I am out here focused on the situations regarding the land use issues only to find the NRA is contributing. And no I do not think that the NRA should endorse this policy, which I and others have contacted them several times in regards to CARA. If any organization expects to be truly effective the must have a "general whining and moaning department" or they would never hear the voices of their membership. As far as the great things the NRA has done I will say this for now. They taught me firearms safety and responsibly, and I have passed that on to my 3 sons, in addition they will take. I am proud of the NRA and proud to be a member and I have only one voice and only one vote so if I have a grievance with them or elected officials, school members or the local businesses, I will speak up, I have to as it is my own responsibility to bring out the truth. Wiley ol' Prospector
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 4:45:15 PM EST
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I would assert that I am against any bill that gives the Feds reason or the resources necessary to grab more land. It's logical to assume that given the additional funds made available through this bill that the Feds will make use of that money. Sure, they had reason in the late 1940's and 1950's to grab land in order to build our interstate highway system, which benefits all of us. However, since that time more and more land has been grabbed in order to create "winderness refuges", whether there is a valid reason or not. Perhaps the NRA feels this bill is good for hunters, but to me property rights far outweigh any benefit that results from duck hunting. We should all follow this bill carefully.
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:09:16 PM EST
[url]www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=935[/url] here is the official NRA stance on this issue. i'm surprised no one else got it...or read it yet. very specific about what is supported, namely Title III of this bill. and it is explicitly stated that it does not support or condemn Title II (or any of the others) because of the NRA's single charter issue: meaning, it's only concerned with the 2nd amendment, it only has opinions about 2nd amendment issues. i think some of you need to realize that not condemning something is not the same as actually supporting it. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 5:27:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2001 5:47:00 PM EST by ARlady]
aha! i think i've found the most up-to-date version. i've deleted the previous information as it no longer is pertinent to the discussion. here's what i foundin Title II, Sec. 205 Use of Federal Portion
`(2) WILLING SELLER REQUIREMENT- The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any property unless-- `(A) the owner of the property concurs in the acquisition; or `(B) acquisition of that property is specifically approved by an Act of Congress. `(3) INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS- Each list under paragraph (2)(A) shall include, for each proposed acquisition included in the list-- `(A) citation of the statutory authority for the acquisition, if such authority exists; and `(B) an explanation of why the particular interest proposed to be acquired was selected.
View Quote
no where in this section, unless i missed it which easily could be the case with this legalese, did i find anything about "wilderness" area being off limits. is it in another Title maybe?
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 6:10:13 PM EST
Now you see why I was "urging" Prospector to get in on the action at AR15.com...it's a gold mine of information/opinions/comments and questions. Some of the investigating that a few of you have done ties in with my comments to Prospector about the whole story perhaps not coming to light, hence my comments about the conspiracy theories. Prospector: I don't "[red]RAG[/red]". I "urge". And, that's [b][blue]BusMaster007[/blue][/b] with a capital [i]M[/i] to you, Pal! ;>)
Link Posted: 8/22/2001 11:43:11 PM EST
`(2) WILLING SELLER REQUIREMENT- The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any property unless-- `(A) the owner of the property concurs in the acquisition; Well, from what I have seen happening out here in the West, it is pretty easy to get a land owner to "agree" to sell his or her land. It's called the endangered species act. You find a spotted suck toad, or some other sub species, put it on the endangered list, restrict the land owner from doing anything on that land. If it is a farmer, they go broke and have no option other than selling. If it is a rancher, then he cannot graze animals on that land. If it is a logging company, no more logging. You think I am shitting you? Take a look at Klamath Falls. Welcome Prospector. Me and a few others in the NW are helping fight this stuff. take a peek at [url]www.dredgeearthfirst.com[/url]. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 12:11:22 AM EST
A brief interpretation of legalese... Think of your cars - if you are married, and both of you are on the title, you had to check a little box next to "AND" or "OR" If you checked "AND" - any sale would require BOTH of your signatures to go thru. In the event of the death of one of the parties, proof of decedence would be required, or Probate would have to revert all titles through Rights of Survivorship. If you checked "OR" - anything goes. This once worked to my advantage... You see, if you check "OR" - oonly one party's signature is required to release interest in the property and to maintain perfection of title. Once, I found a mint condition Porsche Targa in the newspaper for $5. When I went to check it out, the ad was correct, as was the sale. You see, a woman had been left by her husband and he told her to sell his car and give him half. When I saw the title for the car, I was that it was his OR hers, and she could legally sell it to whomever and for whatever she wanted. If she had so desired, she could have GIVEN it to me and there would be nothing he could have done! Why is this relevant? I see two options, simply: 1) We will buy your property from you OR 2) Carry out an Act of Congress and take it anyway. This is a bit mre pernicious than eminent domain, unless it has changed in the last 10 years or so. You see, under ED the government COULD buy your property from you at "fair market value" (whatever that is - it's a fiction) in the event that the needs of the public would be better served thereby. Of course, sentimental value is not an issue in the case of ED, but I believe there was recourse in the event you really did not want to sell. Under this plan, what they could not buy could still be TAKEN BY FORCE OF LAW - and then you are ALL THE WAY OUT. In this event, it is not unreasonable to believe that you could be ordered off of your property with what you could pack in the next 15 minutes - an Act of Congress can be a powerful thing. Of course, I oppose this sort of thing on principle. If the government wants land for whatever reason, they can go buy it like anyone else! And, they should do it before anyone else gets a chance to buy it! FFZ
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 2:26:00 AM EST
I remember some guy on here had to sell his service station at fair market value (he took a major loss) to some govt agency because a freeway or something was being put in.
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 5:44:07 AM EST
Thanks to ARLady for the NRA link, I admit I haven't been to their site for a while but when I was there about a month ago, and it was not posted until only yesterday. I will attempt to address your posts: About the "Willing Seller Agreement" I have several links at the bottom or within the text here you might wish to view. The definition of a "Wilderness Area" is also below, however my point was this. It is a primitive area that we may travel into, and camp , hike etc, however we may NOT use ANY mechanical device, bicycle to truck, I once read where a couple were in a wilderness area and were found to be using a battery operated coffee grinder for the morning cup of coffee, and a USFS Ranger became overzealous and ticked them for operating such a device (mechanical) within the area. Don't know about the outcome though, just wanted to show an example. Now with that aside, a "roadless area", which is the basic idea of CARA, will be an area surrounding the core areas of "wilderness" in which you cannot use any motorized vehicle specifically, yet increases the effective range of designated wilderness areas without the full restrictions of use. Which was the point in my previous post. Or you can drive to the store 20 blocks way, but you must walk the last 13 blocks, OK? Regarding our rights to USFS lands, simple they were set up for "public use" and were designated as multiple use, hunting, hiking, timber cutting, mining, etc. On to the acquisitions...Has anyone ever seen the government not get it's way? More than nine tenths of everything that comes from national, state and local governments is put upon you despite grievances, in this particular motion we have had several comment periods. I have participated in the USFS meetings locally and have sent letters to the highest officials in both administrations and will continue to do so in the future. The government CAN and WILL take what it wishes. In the agreement I will attempt to give examples:*my comments* (2) WILLING SELLER REQUIREMENT- The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any property unless-- (A) the owner of the property concurs in the acquisition; *this means owner agrees to sell at price offered...* or (B) acquisition of that property is specifically approved by an Act of Congress. *There are several acts already in which they can "acquire" what they wish...* 3) INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS- Each list under paragraph (2)(A) shall include, for each proposed acquisition included in the list-- A) citation of the statutory authority for the acquisition, if such authority exists; * telling you that they have the authority and show you in the register where it is, U.S.Code...* and (B) an explanation of why the particular interest proposed to be acquired was selected. *This only tells you why the property was selected, "it is inside the newly designated boundaries" for example* Wiley ol'Prospector
Link Posted: 8/23/2001 5:47:30 AM EST
-continuation of original post- Aviator - Good point, take that Asian immigrant farmer's land was "taken" from him for running over an endangered Kangaroo Rat for quite some time, it was in the national news no doubt because it seemed humorous at first, even FOX mentioned it in their special "Whose Land Is It Anyway?" I believe he finally got his land back but winning in such a case is rare and he still paid fines and penalties I believe. FireFreeZone - More good examples Here is a great example I urge all of you to read about as I don't wish to take space. Don't ever think they can't TAKE your property! [url]http://www.ashevilletribune.com/hage1.htm[/url] Case History: Hage v. United States (Rep. Helen Chenowith of Idaho has since married Wayne Hage)Has a great speech at the Klamath [url]http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/22/arhc082201.htm[/url] For those of you who wish to glimpse the really big picture, check out article on "AGENDA 21" of the United Nations, no this is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality! [url]http://www.off-road.com/green/agenda21.html[/url] or you can go to the UN site and search out the entire text, LOT'S of Legaleze there! US Forest Service Map-National [url]http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map.shtml[/url] Definition: Wilderness (Wilderness Area). Undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character, without permanent human habitation or improvements; It is protected and managed to preserve its natural condition. Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress. I hope you all read through the links and pursue this topic, and I am extremely pleased to have found a group of people that really research and pose substantial questions, not only regarding firearms but other topics as I have read in all the forums! Wiley ol' Prospector
Top Top