Shooters Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Banned
83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I got this from a friend this morning who is on the Gunowners of America email list.

(Wednesday, November 7, 2001) -- CARA stands for Conservation and
Reinvestment Act.  But this bill, H.R. 701, should instead be called
the Confiscation and Redistribution Act.

In the words of former NRA Executive Vice President Ray Arnett,
"CARA is destined to be a disaster for one if its intended
beneficiaries -- the sporting community of hunters and fishermen who
are the true and most able conservationists in America."

Here is how this threat will work. Further quoting Arnett: "The
unprecedented flood of money provided by CARA will enable the
purchase and turning over to federal and state agencies, private
lands historically and currently used for sport hunting, fishing,
and trapping.  This will subject the property's sporting use to the
whim of public opinion, and bureaucracies that are increasingly
hostile to sport hunting, fishing, trapping and firearms ownership."

When rural land disappears, opportunities for recreation, including
plinking, disappear.  The only thing standing in the way of this
outcome is the good faith and good will of environmental
organizations and the bureaucracies they are cozy with.  As Arnett
put it, "Once the land is purchased and under government control,
these lavishly funded anti-sportsmen's groups will lobby Congress
and government agencies for the elimination of any consumptive use
of wildlife resources."

There will be multiple ways to condemn outdoor shooting ranges and
convert the land to non-firearm use, and convert private hunting
land to government-owned wilderness.  CARA will finance land
acquisition with no limits on condemnation, including historic
preservation, urban parks, wildlife 'conservation', and Indian

We are talking some big bucks to power this anti-gun land grab --
&#3645 billion dollars to be spent over 15 years.  The money will be
in a trust fund and out of reach of yearly appropriators.  In other
words, less accountability than most other federal programs.

CARA represents an entitlement for radical environmental extremists
who are very anti-gun.

Claims that CARA protects land owners are, in the words of Senator
Don Nickles of Oklahoma, "just a head fake."

CARA has been reported out of committee and could come to the floor
anytime.  It is imperative that this unconstitutional measure (the
U.S. Constitution prohibits federal land ownership for other than
post offices, forts, and such purposes) be stopped.  A companion
bill has been introduced in the Senate, and the President is
undecided so far.

ACTION:  The House needs to feel the heat from you if they are to
see the light.  Please use the pre-written letter below to help
direct your comments to Capitol Hill.  You can call your
Representative at 202-225-3121.  To identify your Representative, as
well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action
Center at on the GOA website.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative:

I was shocked to learn that such a massive land grab as CARA (H.R.
701) has a real chance of passage.  There is no constitutional
authority for the federal government to own land apart from forts
and post offices.  Rather than adding more land to the federal
government's already bloated and mismanaged holdings, Congress
should be rolling back.

There is no way that CARA will help sportsmen.  The history of
government-controlled land has been one of betrayal to gun owners
and sportsmen.  The trend has been to close off more and more
government-controlled lands to anybody but unarmed hikers.

Please let me know how you plan to vote on CARA.

Thank you.


· Registered
11 Posts
CARA may or may not be a good idea. I tend to think that it is not. However, the logic presented by Gun Owners of America and NRA is somewhat flawed. Consider that somewhat over 400 million acres of Federally owned lands already exists! These are the National Forests and BLM lands (not including National Parks or military bases). Nearly all these lands are open to hunting. In the eastern US, many of the National Forests have established rifle ranges. In the western states, one can shoot just about anywhere he wants to on public lands (there are some reasonable exceptions for public safety: no shooting across roads or near campsites etc). I live where I live (western Colorado) because of the public lands (22 million acres in CO). Yes, private lands are important to hunting. And yes, some of my best hunting has occurred on private lands. And yes, it was very expensive. Without our existing public lands hunting in the USA would be vastly different.  

· Registered
90 Posts
Is this not the reason our forefathers left England?
Laid down their lives for freedom, liberty, and democracy.
Looks to me like some of the bad guys moved in.
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.