From Tom’s post about our Jr. Senator Kelly Ayotte signing up for this bill, Sportsmen’s Act S. 2363, that is being sponsored by known Democrat anti-gunners Senators (some of which are also Democrat illegal alien amnesty Senators), it mentioned:
The Sportsmen’s Act is, substantively, largely a “nothing-burger.” People could hunt on federal lands — unless Obama didn’t want them to. Dedicated funds (from the Pittman-Robertson tax) could be used for ranges — but don’t have to be, and probably wouldn’t be. Moreover, Section 107(b)(4)(B) of the bill says that the BLM or Forest Service can close down federal public lands that can be used for hunting and recreational purposes for a host of reasons, including “public safety.”
Not that I disbelieved them but I decided to read the 59 pages and pull out some of the verbiage to support the claim – turned out to be real easy:
Sec. 103 (d)
It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with applicable laws (including regulations), the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management should cooperate with State and local authorities
SHOULD is not SHALL. SHOULD mean “ok, if you wanna, if you feel like it, and if all political signs and smoke signals seemed to indicate “good to go”. If having a bad hair day, naw. Sorta like when concealed carry used to be “may” here in NH – it all depended upon if the issuer liked the idea or you. If either of those were negative, you were out of luck. However, the change to “shall” was a game changer – a POSITIVE issue instead of a WHIM issue.
Same with this Act. Given the propensity of this Administration (and the Federal Government bureaucracy) to draw all power into itself and away from Individuals (upsetting the traditional power of structure of citizens to their government), near term history has already shown us that any and all loopholes to NOT do what the PR says it will. Mere WEASAL WORDS. And this anti gun Administration (President “Fast & Furious” and his “Operation Choke Point” minions) will be most appreciative of Kelly Ayotte’s exercise in support mere words (for few actions will come of it, as given the option to deny and do nothing, that will be taken).
After each snippet, I’ve pulled out what I believe to be the operative words that signal and give leave for the bureaucracy to do nothing. Think about them.
I am a software engineer and now a political blogger. What is “there” is important – and what is “not there” can oft be even more important. How can conditions be manipulated, how can they be abused? How can people who wish to not follow the intent of the law twirl its words around their fingers 180 degrees so as to have it do the opposite? When it comes to legislation, we are seeing the Legislative give up more and more of its power to the Executive Branch. In this case, think of this as a mini-Obamacare in this respect. Little to no judgement and discretion is kept by the Legislature – all power to make the decisions that the Legislaton should be doing is simply passed over to the Executive bureaucracy. Like with Obamacare and its thousands of “the Secretary SHALL”, here we see the same thing but to local bureaucrats.
Or, as we have seen with Obama and his 20 rejections of power grabbing by the Supreme Court, just simply ignore the words? As you can tell, the trust I have in my government, given the actions of the last five years, is probably in the lowest quartile. They have brought this upon themselves.
And Senator Kelly Ayotte is happy to help out with this dismal trend. No robust action for the US Senate (and nothing to have to defend, so it seems). Now Jeanne Shaheen, being of the Progressive Party for decades, is probably fine with this trend. But Ayotte campaigned as if she were made of sterner stuff. This bill that mean not a thing, bending on illegal immigration Amnesty – it is setting up quite a meme for the 2016 campaign, isn’t it?
Sec. 107 (b) (1) In general
Subject to valid existing rights, and in cooperation with the respective State fish and wildlife agency, a Federal public land management official shall exercise the authority of the official under existing law (including provisions regarding land use planning) to facilitate use of and access to Federal public land for recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting except as limited by—
(A) any Federal law (including regulations) that authorizes action or withholding action for reasons of national security, public safety, or resource conservation; (B) any other Federal law (including regulations) that precludes recreational fishing, hunting, or recreational shooting on specific Federal public land units of Federal public land, or water; or
(C) discretionary limitations on recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting determined to be necessary and reasonable, as supported by the best scientific evidence and advanced through a transparent public process.
EXCEPT, PRECLUDES, DISCRETIONARY, DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY, REASONABLE
Sec. 107 (b)(2)Management
Consistent with paragraph (1), the head of each Federal public land management agency shall exercise the land management discretion of the head—
(A)in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting opportunities;
SUPPORTS
Sec. 107 (4) Bureau of land management and forest service land
(A) Land open
( i ) In general
Land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service (including a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, land designated as a wilderness study area or administratively classified as wilderness eligible or suitable, and primitive or semiprimitive areas, but excluding land on the outer Continental Shelf) shall be open to recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting unless the managing Federal public land agency acts to close the land to the activity.
ACTS TO CLOSE
Sec. 107 (4) Bureau of land management and forest service land
(B) Closure or restriction
Land described in subparagraph (A)(i)may be subject to closures or restrictions if determined by the head of the agency to be necessary and reasonable and supported by facts and evidence for purposes including resource conservation, public safety, energy or mineral production, energy generation or transmission infrastructure, water supply facilities, protection of other permittees, protection of private property rights or interests, national security, or compliance with other law, as determined appropriate by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or the Chief of the Forest Service, as applicable.
MAY BE, SUBJECT TO, CLOSURES, RESTRICTIONS, IF DETERMINED, BE NECESSARY, REASONABLE
(C) Emergency closures
(i) In general Nothing in this section prohibits a Federal public land management agency from establishing or implementing emergency closures or restrictions of the smallest practicable area of Federal public land to provide for public safety, resource conservation, national security, or other purposes authorized by law.
PROHIBITS, EMERGENCY CLOSURES, RESTRICTIONS
Go ahead, review those words in context. In each and every case, it gives the decision making power, not to the legislators, but to the executives. The legislators are handing their power over to the bureaucrats. The former are to make the decisions, make the rules; the executive branch is to merely carry them out.
This is another reason why our Constitutional Republic is in such disrepair; it is not just that President Obama is being too overreaching, it is because Congress is being too supine.
Remember what happened to Rome when the Senators did not covet, treasure, and defend their power and place in the Republic – it fell into Tyranny.
