Posted on 01/23/2016 6:43:01 AM PST by Oklahoma
Some news to report out of Las Vegas where Donald Trump sat down with Field & Stream magazine for an interview during the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s annual SHOT Show.
First up, the GOP front-runner came out against letting states control public lands now run by the federal government saying, “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do."
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
I am quite sure that the Constitution limits the land the Federal government may own(Article I, Section. 8) within the borders of any state. That said, the Federal government has been able to retain control over huge amounts of the western US for several generations, despite the territories becoming states. The Donald, right or wrong has coupled his “land grab” with keeping land free and useful to all Americans. The land has been grabbed for a long time. Moreover, as a practical matter, we have seen liberal legislatures systematically, lease access to state/federal land and take it from the use of the people. Purity tests aren’t going to cut it with any candidate. I doubt even Cruz would slip his head in this noose.
Cruz has been a conservative all his life. Trump has been an establishment liberal all his life. At this point, the leopard spots are pretty much in place.
—
Reagan was a democrat.
People do change.
Would you like to turn Yellowstone over to the The folks who run Magic Mountain?
They could put up rides and sell trinkets.
Make that “Hollywood Values”—AND Reagan was a B movie actor, starring with a chimp in Bedtime for Bonzo. I remember that election year well.
Here’s the entire interview....(vid of interview, at link)...
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation?src=SOC&dom=tw
Q&A: Donald Trump on Guns, Hunting, and Conservation
January 21, 2016, Las Vegas, Nevada
On the third evening of the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, editorial director of Field & Stream and Outdoor Life, Anthony Licata, interviewed Donald Trump on issues important to sportsmen and women. Trump came to the interview, on the 36th floor of the Venetian hotel in Las Vegas, with his son Donald Trump Jr., who is an avid hunter and shooter.
Here’s the Republican presidential candidate’s take on President Obama’s recent executive orders on firearms, the privatization of federal lands, Hillary Clinton, and hunting with his sons.
Anthony Licata: Thank you very much for agreeing to meet with Field & Stream and Outdoor Life to talk about...
Donald Trump: Great magazine.
AL: Thank you very much. I guess the first thing I’d like to ask is, are you a gun owner, a hunter? The two of you?
DT: I do have a gun, and I have a concealed-carry permit, actually, which is a very hard thing to get in New York. And, of course, the problem is once you get to the border line of New Jersey or anyplace else, you can’t do it, which is ridiculous, because I’m a very big Second Amendment person. But I do have a gun, and my sons are major hunters, and I’m a member of the NRA.
AL: Do you hunt with your sons? How did they get into the sports?
DT: Well, they got in and just loved it. And their grandfather was a hunter, and he would take them hunting as young boys, and they just loved it. They have a tremendous passion for it. And I don’t devote very much time to it because I’m so busy with everything, but Eric and Don absolutely love it, and they’re expert at it. They’re expert shots, and they’re expert at it.
AL: I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?
DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.
AL: If you were elected President, would you reverse the executive orders that President Obama announced on guns recently?
DT: Yes, I would do it. I think it’s ridiculous. I think, number one, if you are going to do anything—and I don’t think you should do anything, because we have enough rules and balances and checks—you have to go through Congress. You can’t just write an executive order and sign it. You’re supposed to talk to the congressmen who represent a lot of your readers, and, you know, they have to sort of say “Let’s do this” or “Let’s do that.” You don’t do an executive order. But I’m for doing nothing. You know, it’s a mental-health problem, right? And the guns aren’t pulling the triggers, okay. It’s the people that are pulling the triggers. We have a big mental-health problem. And they’re closing up all of the hospitals, all of the institutions, and that’s our problem. And so I would absolutely reverse many of his executive orders beyond this, many of his executive orders.
AL: Let me ask you this—back to conservation and access for hunters’ rights to get on public land. One of the things that we’ve found is so much of this campaign—not your campaign, but this election cycle—has talked about cutting budgets and reducing the federal government. And what the budget is for managing public lands right now is at one percent. In 1970, it was two percent. Would you continue to push that number down for wildlife conservation or would you look to invest more?
DT: I don’t think there’s any reason to. And I will say—and I’ve heard this from many of my friends who are really avid hunters and I’ve heard it from my sons who are avid hunters—that the lands are not maintained the way they were by any stretch of the imagination. And we’re going to get that changed; we’re going to reverse that. And the good thing is, I’m in a family where I have—I mean, I’m a member of the NRA, but I have two longtime members of the NRA. They’ve been hunting from the time they were five years old and probably maybe even less than that. And they really understand it. And I like the fact that, you know, I can sort of use them in terms of—they know so much about every single element about every question that you’re asking. And one of the things they’ve complained about for years is how badly the federal lands are maintained, so we’ll get that changed.
Donald Trump Jr.: It’s really all about access. I mean, I feel like the side that’s the anti-hunting crowd, they’re trying to eliminate that access—make it that much more difficult for people to get the next generation in. For me, hunting and fishing kept me out of so much other trouble I would’ve gotten into throughout my life. It’s just so important to be able to maintain that, so that next generation gets into it. And it’s the typical liberal death by a thousand cuts: “We’ll make it a little harder here. Make it a little harder here. We won’t spend the money there.” And it’s not just about hunting—it’s about fishing; it’s about hiking; it’s about access; it’s about being able to get in there and enjoy the outdoors and enjoy those great traditions that are so, you know, so much the foundation of America. And we’d be against anything like that. And frankly, it’d be about refunding those—making sure those lands are maintained properly; making sure they’re not going into private hands to be effectively walled off to the general public. And that’s something really important to us.
AL: Absolutely. How would you balance energy exploration and extraction on public lands? How would you balance that with the need for recreation and multiple use? Right now, gas prices are low, but they might not stay that way.
DT: Well, I’m very much into energy, and I’m very much into fracking and drilling, and we never want to be hostage again to OPEC and go back to where we were. And right now, we’re at a very interesting point because right now there’s so much energy. And I’ve always said it—there’s so much energy. And new technology has found that. And maybe that’s an advantage and maybe—actually, it’s more of an advantage in terms of your question, because we don’t have to do the kind of drilling that we did. But I am for energy exploration, as long as we don’t do anything to damage the land. And right now we don’t need too much; there’s a lot of energy.
AL: Time for one more?
DT: Yeah, go ahead.
AL: If you’re elected, will you go hunting as President with your son?
DT: I would do that. With my both sons, I would do that. And I feel very good with them. And, you know, I’m in New York City, so I have a concealed-carry permit, and I meant to tell you—I just wanted to point that out because it’s so hard to get, and it’s one of the hardest things you can get. And very hard. And as far as going hunting with my boys, that would be something that I’d love to do. I’ve done it before, but I’d love to do it.
AL [to Donald Trump Jr.]: Where would you take him?
DTJ: I would come up with something good. I mean, I think we’d keep it to the upland-type birds. You know, that’s how I’ve introduced anyone that I’ve ever introduced to hunting. And I’ve taken some of these people that are city people, and just take them on a walk-up—go shoot some clays, and then take them on a walk-up. And not one of those people has ever turned to me and [not] said, “You know, that was one the greatest weekends I’ve ever had in my life.” You just need to get people into it. You need to be a mentor. And that’s what we need more of in this industry: mentors. To get rid of, you know, some of the difficulties, the barriers of entry, which are a little bit intimidating at times. So being able to create that, open up those doors, create some new hunters, and bring the next generation of hunters into the game.
AL: Excellent.
DT: You see what I mean.
AL: Yeah, I do see what you mean.
DT: Thank you very much.
AL: Thank you very much.
“If you wanted to know you would. “
If you cant say, then say you dont know.
DONALD TRUMP, AT THE SHOT SHOW, IS SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF LANDS AGAINST THE STATES!!
its a good thing the GOP is backing this conservative!!!
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/federal-seizure-of-private-property
http://twitchy.com/2016/01/22/donald-trump-at-the-shotshow-dont-give-federal-lands-to-the-states-to-manage/
.
Here is a show that explains how the Bureau of Land Management is abusing their powers over land, something TRUMP has now said he agrees with!
.
Jacki speaks with British author Rupert Darwall, international finance specialist and former Advisor to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Global Warming movement, its goals and methods. She also is joined by Rob Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to discuss the suit versus the federal government over their seizure of private property along the Red River.
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/federal-seizure-of-private-property
“Just turning lands over to the states” is a constitutional requirement. There are specific constitutional guidelines for the feds to own land within a state (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17). The feds are way out of bounds here and must relinquish these lands that have not been obtained constitutionally.
Constitutional federal limitations don’t have to make sense to you, me, or anyone else. The Constitution, not personal moral or opinion, is the Supreme Law of the Land and the ONLY legal protector of our political freedom against federal tyranny.
We’ll all be better off and our society a much happier place if we would abandon the rule of the whims and cunning craftiness of man which is tyranny and once again embrace the rule of law, the Constitution, our only legal bulwark against federal tyranny.
Name one candidate running on a pro state ownership of all federal land policy.
Here’s the list of those who are.:
.
.
.
End of list
In good conscience, you won’t be voting in the primaries.
Constitutionally, that is a STATES' issue NOT a federal government issue. Trump has got to get a hold of that fact.
Where do you think the Feds get the money to “manage” the land?
Hint; it comes from the states.
So who do you think could do a better job with that money Fedzilla of the States themselves?
Don’t like the way the state does it? Much easier to vote them out than trying to get your congress critter to change anythings through Fedzilla.
What do you think?
Agree with this....
A Trump/Cruz merger would help bring over the base to ensure a national mandate victory.
Trump has all the political bravado to inspire while Cruz has the detailed knowledge of the levers and processes to make things happen in the Congress...
However, I’m not sure Cruz could accept the VP slot, nor is he likely to be offered the spot now ; I know a VP gig is not possible for Trump....
I was thinking Yosemite Vales and Golf Resort myself. 18th hole called Half Dome. 19th hole a cable car ride to the top.
People have been known to lie.
Because the feds, like the great and wonderful OZ, is all knowing and all caring and should not be questioned. They and they alone are smarter than the rest of the sheeple they control.
You tell me.
You’re setting up a straw man. There is a middle ground between ALL state ownership and what there is now.
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
Does anyone think the Feds should own as much of the western states as they do?
In any case, protections could certainly be built into sales/divesting back to the states to accomplish specific goals around wildlife and usage
Finally, reigning in the BLM should be a primary goal of any Republican candidate. Trump gave a speech about that in another forum, but it doesn’t look to me like he internalized the message of that speech enough to draw the obvious connection to his answer here.
Well it is some sort of conservative fantasy land - well a nighmarish hell that believes that national parks are inconsistent with conservative principles. But instead of making that argument I will just dare conservatives to make a move for de-federalizing Yosemite or Glacier or Yellowstone or the Smokey Mountains or the Grand Canyon.
I double dog dare you. The voters will make mince-meat of you so fast your head won't have time to spin. We won't need to argue the conservative position because the position will have been nuked so hard the cinders will bounce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.