Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since state governments always know best, should California -- once the evil, no-good Feds have been banished forever from public lands in the West -- have the right to ban firearms in Yosemite State Park?
Since state governments always know best, should California -- once the evil, no-good Feds have been banished forever from public lands in the West -- have the right to ban firearms in Yosemite State Park?
Banning firearms on public lands is prohibited by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is binding against the states. Short of explicit constitutional prohibitions, the states can run them however they see fit per the Tenth Amendment. If California wanted to ban people in Yosemite from drinking sods or eating turkey and dumplings they could do so as far as the federal government is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
We should understand these complaints for what they are; a deceptive strategy to transfer ownership to the very interests that support and donate to the Republican Party.
So...if the federal government was opening up national parks in New York and California to private development, logging, and drilling for oil, and New York and California decided federal control over that land wasn't a good idea since the state government is more representative of the public in the said state than Washington is, would then be a (presumably illegitimate) deceptive strategy to transfer ownership to the very radical environmentalist interests that support and donate to the Democratic party?
The state governments should be the stewards of it, since controlling most of a state's lands from Washington makes a mockery of federalism and their own statehood; they will make better stewards to boot, since since the state governments are closer to and more accountable to the public of the states these respective lands are in than distant Washington is. There is also the great advantage of immunizing parks and other public lands from the effects (intentional and otherwise) of a federal government shutdown; that's appealing to anyone regardless of one's views on the latest shutdown.
A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.
History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state — and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.
You can bet if the Tea Party types have any say they will just give our property away to guys like Clive Bundy. Why are people still listening to these Tea Partiers? They want to sell America out to the highest bidder or maybe a fellow Tea Partier. When you find a Tea Partier you find someone who wants to sell out the country. If Tea Partiers had their way Clive Bundy would now own 96,000 acres of government property.
In a state like Nevada, conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of the land is in theory owned by all, but owned by no one, in practice. Those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land usage rules are set by politicians and bureaucrat agencies at will. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit powerful special interests in the federal government.
Since state governments always know best, should California -- once the evil, no-good Feds have been banished forever from public lands in the West -- have the right to ban firearms in Yosemite State Park?
Ah...they already have that "right", such as it is. All the NP gun law did was to ensure that applicable state gun laws extended onto lands of the state managed by the National Park Service. So in free states like Montana, Idaho or Wyoming, the feds couldn't restrict your state gun rights just because you were on land they managed.
Well, I wasn't going to post the following, but this thread seems to make it appropriate.
The REAL Reason for the Bundy Siege.
The internet is rife with stories about this and each site seems to have its own take on the matter. So, when I saw this post on Doug Ross @ Journal blog, I shrugged and almost passed it by. But, this blogger usually comes up with some pretty good stuff to include links to sources, official and unofficial. Here's something that caught my eye:
However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects Renewable Energy Active Projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.
He was at the work site on March 21 to help break ground on the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project. A close inspection of the project reveals why there is so much interest in the area and why the BLM, presumably at Reid’s urging through his former aide, Kornze, is so intent on getting Bundy off the land.
The leaseholder for the project is K Road Power, LLC, a New York City-based energy company. An examination of its website finds the business development manager to be none other than Jonathan Magaziner.
Magaziner was formerly an associate at the Clinton Climate Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation. He is also the son of Ira Magaziner, former senior policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. The elder Magaziner now works for the Clinton Foundation on health and environment issues. There are likely other connections to Democratic insiders.
But that is not all. A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.
First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
