Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Jay Dobyns' case goes to trial here | Main | Insight »

House committee reports out major pro-hunting bill

Posted by David Hardy · 14 June 2013 09:41 AM

The House Natural Resources Committee has reported out, by a 2-1 vote the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act, H.R. 1825.

This is indeed a game-changer. Among other things, it opens Forest Service and BLM lands to hunting and fishing, unless closed by the agencies. (Now the statute goes the other way, these are allowed only if the agency allows them). This makes a big difference because it's much easier to sue to challenge an action (the environmental work wasn't done right, the rulemaking didn't answer all objections, the administrative record doesn't fully support it) than it is to challenge inaction (almost any reason, including "we've never had time to get to that" will justify inaction). Now the action is opening lands, so any decision is vulnerable. Under the statute, the action is closing lands, so the closure in vulnerable.

Here's the text of the bill. It also provides that no authorization of hunting or fishing shall be considered a "a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." That means NEPA doesn't apply (NEPA analysis is a major burden and point of legal challenge), and that any closure of more than a square mile must involve conference with State game officials, and notice to the Committee.

Leave a comment