Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

If there was any doubt where the Montana Shooting Sports Association stood

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
4,602
Location
Glasgow, MT
Early this week I read an article from MSSA concerning the candidates they were supporting in the upcoming elections. High on the list was our dearest friend, Senator Fielder. Fully aware that I more than likely knew the answer I decided to ask the MSSA their opinion on the Federal Land Transfer issue. Below is their response. It took them 4 days to respond after seeing my question and they provided this fact filled response.

"Hello,

I am curious to know the MSSA's opinion on the federal lands transfer issue that greatly affects hunters. Thank you."


"Before that I should have asked, do you represent the hunting community?"

"Justin - Yes, MSSA represents hunters, although there are also "green decoy" groups that make that claim too. About "federal lands transfer," first I must correct your terminology. I assume you are talking about "public lands" rather than "federal lands" because the Constitution only authorizes the federal government to own a few forts, docks, arsenals, and ten square miles of D.C. And, there is no "transfer" of lands proposed by anyone - no dirt would move. With those corrections, the proper discussion is about what entity or level of government can best manage public lands. MSSA does not have an established position on that, but acknowledges that there are plentiful examples of horrible management of public lands by the federal government, and that the states generally do a pretty good job of managing public lands. Also, hunting on all public lands is currently managed by the states, so assumption of management by the states of public lands now managed by the federal government would not change hunting management. Thus, hunters would be unaffected, except for access and land quality and carrying capacity."





Sure sounds like a position to me. I have yet to respond due to my blood pressure rising. I think it is best I let it cool down a little beforehand.
 
Last edited:
None of that comes as a surprise to me. Anyone see the irony of this? MSSA is a group who wants to expand the protection of gun ownership by asking the USSC to interpret the Constitution to allow for expansion of the 2nd Amendment to be something beyond "a well regulated militia." I'm good with expansion/clarification of that. Yet, when the same court says that the Federal Government can own land and no be in violation of the Constitution, this MSSA group whips out their Cliven Bundy Constitution that ignores the Judiciary powers outlined in Article III and goes on their fairy tale explanation they provided to you.

Some serious ass clowns are running that operation. Go to a legislative session and see for yourself.
 
Thanks for the expose. Was that Marbut?

State lands are managed by a different entity and with different goals than fish and wildlife management.

By the way, Fielder has a pro-public land republican opponent in the primary that I would assume could use our support.
 
Real legal mastermind at work there. By Marbutt's logic, Yellowstone Park and Mt Rushmore are unconstitutional. Dickshine is right.
 
I sent them an email explaining that sportsmen are not with them on such a stance. I think more people need to start emailing groups like this. Let your disgust be gears. Associations like this need public support. Tell them they won't have it and stances like this will spread unless they show actions otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I had a back and forth with Marbut a few years ago with e-mails concerning whether the MSSA was a gun or hunting organization and he beat around the bush never answering the question and eventually told me to kind of like "take and hike", don't remember the exact comment he used. Most worthless little twit from the most worthless organization I've ever come across.
 
Guess I'll make sure my money goes to one of those green decoy organizations rather than the MSSA.
 
Back
Top