Hunting and Gun Reform Bill (H.R. 2406) Passes House 242-161

Gun Watch ^ | 2 March, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On 26 February, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015, also known as H.R. 2406, passed the U.S. House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate.  It was a party line vote; 230 Republicans voted yes, 4 Republicans voted against the act.  161 Democrats voted against H.R. 2406; 12 Democrats voted for it.  30 representatives did not vote; 17 were Democrats, 13 were Republicans.

The bill contains numerous reforms, primarily to clarify and reform previous legislation, much of which is being abused by bureaucratic rules, or state and local governments.

While the bill is not a 2,000 page monstrosity, it has quite a bit of detail in approximately 30 pages of dense wording.  Congress cannot get around that reality; if you are going to undo bureaucratic rules that are disagreeable, you have to specify those disagreeable sections.  To spare you the time of reading the entire act, here are some of the highlights as I understand them:

Removes ammunition and sport fishing equipment from the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Removes the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate lead ammunition components or lead fishing tackle.

States that Congress supports the use of federal land for recreational and target shooting, and allows for Pittman-Robertson funds to maintain and construct ranges; allows for Federal, State and Local cooperation in range construction and maintenance, limits liability for federal personnel that allow recreational shooting, and on target ranges on federal land.

Removes federal bans on the carry of arms for self defense; State law becomes definitive on most federal lands for this purpose; primarily applies to Corps of Engineers managed lands.

Provides for Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational shooting as valid use of areas designated "wilderness" and "national monument",  unless specifically closed for a valid, documented purpose.

No permit required or fee allowed in order to transport bows across federal land.

Protects existing legal ivory as private property; prohibits use of CITES to set restrictions on the possession or sale of legally owned ivory.

Sets up rules for film crews of 5 people or less on public lands.   Prohibits a ban on filming and photograph taking.

Prevents restriction of legal hunting and fishing in specific forest service lands.

Requires notice of the closure of any public roads on Forest System lands, along with a justification for the closure.

Requires a report on court cases and settlements made by agencies, to include the claims and amounts of each case. (This is to shine sunlight on cases of agencies and interests groups effectively conspiring to transfer money from the federal government to the interest groups through the mechanism of legal cases).

Strengthens the protections for the interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition; provides for recovery of costs, including  legal fees if local, state or federal agencies violate this provision.

Provides for the reassertion of the ability of the States to regulate wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming; removes judicial authority in such cases.

Requires withdrawal of the recent National Park Service rules on hunting and trapping in Alaska; revokes the final rule issued on October 23rd, 2015.

Most of the above is fix problems that have been created by recent bureaucratic decision or judicial activism; a considerable amount is there to fix long standing abuses such as the ban on exercise of Second Amendment rights on public land managed by the Corps of Engineers, or the abuse of innocent people who are merely transporting private arms across states that actively infringe on Second Amendment rights, such as New York and New Jersey.

A sister bill has been making its way through the Senate, according to the NRA.

It is difficult to say what the chances for passage are; this is an election year, and Republicans control the Senate.  Much of the provisions of this bill are to undo things done under the current administration.   Given the partly line vote in the House, a veto by President Obama would be a significant possibility.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Rolling many incremental infringements back.

[doorgunner69]

Sounds like something headed for an Obunga veto...............

[dadfly]

bookmark

[Sasparilla]

Zer0 will never sign this in his final 300 days anti gun frenzy.

[Scrambler Bob]

Sets up rules for film crews of 5 people or less on public lands. Prohibits a ban on filming and photograph taking.
= = =

What if the filming is anti-hunter activist? Need to remove the bag limit on them.

[PapaBear3625]

It’s meaningless posturing designed to score points with the conservative base, when there’s no likelihood of it overcoming a veto.

Pass it again next year under a Republican president, and it will have meaning.

[Cyman]

Why not include universal ccw reciprocity?

[WildHighlander57]

Bookmarking

[MeganC]

If the hunter isn’t doing anything wrong then what’s to fear? If anything it’s an opportunity to inform and educate the pantywaists about the realities of hunting and responsible land and wildlife management.

[HarleyLady27]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK72oYplI1g

Second amendment rights....

[21twelve]

“If the hunter isn’t doing anything wrong then what’s to fear?”

IIRC, out East they had protest groups going out to public hunting lands and scaring away the wildife. Nothing like a bunch of yahoos running around screaming and yelling to scare off the deer.

But this is obviously a rule to allow hunting parties to take photos and film their activities. Sounds like while they were trying to prevent Hollywood from filming movies for free, they included Joe Blow from taking a photo of his trophy elk as well.

[TexasGator]

“It’s meaningless posturing designed to score points with the conservative base, when there’s no likelihood of it overcoming a veto.”

Of course if they didn’t do this you would still be complaining.

[MeganC]

Ah, thanks. I think chasing away wildlife is a different thing than just making video of someone hunting. Photographers should have the same right on public land as hunters.

But they might want to wear blaze orange if they’re going shooting pictures where other people are shooting game.

“The More You Know”

[VRWCmember]

It’s meaningless posturing designed to score points with the conservative base, when there’s no likelihood of it overcoming a veto.

Pass it again next year under a Republican president, and it will have meaning.

Force the veto, force the rats to run for reelection after having voted against it. Force the presidential candidates to justify their position on it.

[MarMema]

YES.

[MarMema]

Ha ha some parts of the year we put on orange to walk the dog. If the dog were any larger we would put orange on it.

[Nifster]

Wann bet the DiC will veto?

[beebuster2000]

the girls camo doesn’t really match the terrain does it

[Jagdgewehr]

Sounds like a rolling back of backdoor tyrannical control. The Counterfeit in Chief will veto.

[Scrambler Bob]

The anti- hunters scare the game, get in front of the hunters, broadcast loud noises, and generally interfere with legal hunting.

Many states have right to hunt laws, to try to stop this.

I wonder if they could claim they are a ‘film crew’?