Second Amendment supporters around the country are working hard this summer to garner attention for open carry, concealed carry, and hunting protections. An open carry rally was held in Burkburnett, Texas to draw attention to the BLM land fight going on in the state.
The Bureau of Land Management boundary dispute may cause approximately 90,000 acres of privately held land to fall into the hands of the federal government. Supporters from around the country are rallying around cattleman Tommy Henderson, much in the same manner as protesters did for Cliven Bundy and the Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada.
Texas rancher Tommy Henderson, the Texas land owner at the heart of the BLM land grab debate had this to say about the ongoing actions of the federal agency:
“How can BLM come in and say, ‘Hey, this isn’t yours.’ Even though its patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours. Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north.”
Armed BLM agents have not arrived in Texas as they did in Bunkerville, but the issue many are calling yet another land grab by the BLM could ultimately evolve into a similar standoff. Property rights advocates from both the southern region of the state and Arizona ushered support for the Red River area ranchers during the open carry rally.
Texas Republican Representative Mac Thornberry had this to say about the BLM land dispute along the Red River Oklahoma border:
“Most, if not all, of the current landowners, the county governments, and I are opposed to the expansion of control or management from BLM over lands on the Texas side of the border. Although BLM currently manages public and tribal lands in Oklahoma, we believe that BLM has no federal claim to land on the Texas side of the border along the 116 mile stretch of the Red River, especially any that are further south of the river.”
Local county commissioner candidate Lee Harvey said the the open carry rally “put Washington DC on notice” regarding the heated debated over BLM management of federally owned land. According to Harvey, BLM officials told him that the taking of the Red River property is based upon precedent.
Harvey also had this to say about the Texas rally:
“This group of individuals is sending a message to Washington that says, ‘hey we’re still out here and we still have our Constitution, and we’re going to stand by it.”
Fellow county office hopeful Bill Lockwood feels that the very idea of liberty has been lost in America. The county commissioner candidate also maintains that our Founding Fathers looked at life, liberty, and property as a package deal.
Lockwood added this during the Texas open carry rally:
“We paid taxes on that land. Now they tell us it’s not ours. Well we ay we have a deed and we pay taxes. The man told me himself that a Texas deed does not trump the federal government. Because really we’re living in a time in which people have the concept that freedom from the government or that liberty is a grant of the government. But that’s not the case at all. Liberty is a grant of God and government is only there as a protection so that you might enjoy what God has already given you.”
If details about negotiates between Texas officials and BLM administrators are accurate, the land owners will not be paid a single dime for the federal seizure of 30,000 acres of land now being discussed as a compromise and an attempt to “resolve the issue.”
Legislation and state constitution amendments are also springing up around the United States. A Sportsperson’s Bill of Rights amendment to the Alabama State Constitution will be voted upon in November. Lawmakers decided a bill to forever protect the right of citizens to hunt and fish was necessary. Amendment 597 furthers an original piece of legislation passed in 1996.
The Alabama hunting and fishing bill would affirm that both of the popular activities are to be considered the preferred method of wildlife management and conservation efforts.
An excerpt from the Sportsperson’s Bill of Rights reads:
“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of the sports.”
Alabama wildlife biologist Brandon Howell feels that the amendment with emphasize the effectiveness of “traditional management methods” such as hunting. The preservation of hunting and fishing activities movement is not limited to Alabama. The Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development penned a Sportsman’s Bill of Rights to urge lawmakers in all states and the federal level to address the concerns of hunters, anglers, and wildlife managers.
The group is a coalition of more than 500 partner organizations, businesses, and citizens who are focused on conserving habitats around the country so future generations can also hunt and fish on the lands. The organization is led by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, and the National Wildlife Federations.
Excerpts from the Sportsman’s Bill of Rights petition:
- Hunters and anglers shall have a voice in decisions affecting energy development on public lands.
- Public lands shall be managed for many uses, including hunting and fishing.
- Hunters and anglers shall not be forced to pay for the costs associated with poorly planned energy development on public lands.
- State and federal fish and wildlife agencies shall have adequate funding to ensure the long-term health of fish, wildlife, and water resources on public lands.
A Texas law was passed last year to prevent the harassment of hunters and is known as the Sportsman’s Rights Act. Under the law, an individual is not permitted to “intentionally interfere” with another person legally engaged in the catching of wildlife or hunting. The law also prohibits the ability to drive, harass, or disturb wildlife in order to thwart a hunter.
Excerpt from the Texas Sportsman’s Rights Act:
“No person may enter or remain on public land or enter or remain on private land without the landowner’s permission if the person intends to disrupt another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting. The ‘process of hunting or catching’ means any act directed at the lawful hunting or catching of wildlife, including camping or other acts preparatory to hunting or catching wildlife on land or water.”
A pro-hunting bill in Hawaii was recently amended by the Senate Water and Land Committee. House Bill 1902 was reportedly intended to integrate a “no net loss” policy for public hunting lands in the state. But the legislation was ultimately watered down to a significant extend in the state senate and only created a hunting advisory council. The NRA has come out against the amendments to the bill which the Second Amendment group said would have protected hunting for future generations and aided both sportsmen and conservation efforts in Hawaii.
Currently at total of 17 states have a guaranteed right to hunt and fish in their respective constitutions. Sixteen of those states had the measures approved by voters. Vermont approved such legislation in 1777. States which have added hunting and fishing protections into their revised codes in more recent times include: South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Minnesota, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Both Rhode Island and California have “right to fish” laws but nothing pertaining to shooting sports.
The Alaskan State Constitution says, “Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.” While many feel the intent is to protect hunting and fishing, among other common outdoor activities, the constitutional text has not yet been tested in court in hunting or fishing infringement cases.
Do you think the Second Amendment is under attack in America?