# Had to do it



## Hoopermat

I know it will probably get removed but....
Wooooooooohooooooooo
TRUMP


----------



## High Desert Elk

Why? It's where it belongs...

Next fight is the whole public lands transfer thing.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Wohoo....? If Trumpsnprojected cabinet comes to reality, with a republican senate, congress, president, and an undermine cabinet.....kiss public lands goodbye because they'll be dismantled in the next 4 years. Several of his projected cabinet hate public lands so yes woohoo, we may have just sold one of the biggest forms of wealth and freedom we enjoy. Obama, get out your pen you have two months to fully protect several monuments in this country and I thank you in advance.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish

High Desert Elk said:


> Why? It's where it belongs...
> 
> Next fight is the whole public lands transfer thing.


This worries me, with the GOP dominating the house and senate races.


----------



## Hoopermat

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Wohoo....? If Trumpsnprojected cabinet comes to reality, with a republican senate, congress, president, and an undermine cabinet.....kiss public lands goodbye because they'll be dismantled in the next 4 years. Several of his projected cabinet hate public lands so yes woohoo, we may have just sold one of the biggest forms of wealth and freedom we enjoy. Obama, get out your pen you have two months to fully protect several monuments in this country and I thank you in advance.


Well as I see it. Now that our 2nd amendment is safe. We can focus on public lands issues. I agree with you the rep are not friendly to our land cause. But how would you defend your freedoms and rights after she would have taken your guns.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Hoopermat said:


> Well as I see it. Now that our 2nd amendment is safe. We can focus on public lands issues. I agree with you the rep are not friendly to our land cause. But how would you defend your freedoms and rights after she would have taken your guns.


Hooper Hillary would have replaced essentially ONE spot on the Supreme Court and if the other two retired, they were already liberal. The court still would have been a 4/5 split. I get so tired of this gun scare BS. Obama didn't take your guns (even when he had democrats in congress and could have pushed measures through). Hillary was not going to get your guns, it wasn't even a fear for me, there are so many reasons why your rights to firearms is simply a scare tactic that just continues to perpetuate itself into people's fears and yet it absolutely NEVER even has come close to happening. The gun argument is crap, period, it is not achievable in America. Your public lands however are not protected by a constitution and can be fast tracked to the auction block by a now republican led congress. I mean really you people honestly think Hillary Clinton as going to bang down your door and take your gun? I'm glad I don't live in such rhetorical fear. There are many reasons to hate her but the true threat of her taking my guns didn't even scare me or shake me in the slightest. Guess what, Utah just voted in all the anti public lands politicians again, the republicans won the house, senate, and presidency with that as part of there platform. They are not going to stop this until they are punished by voting them out. In the net 4 years they are in a position to successful push for and sale public lands and you can bet your ass they are going to try. If you told me my life depended on choosing the likelihood between Trump transferring or selling our public lands and Hillary taking my guns, I'd feel much safer with the latter choice. See one of them is realistic and one of them is entirely rhetoric to play on your fears. Go ahead call the Utah republicans that just won in landslides, they don't care what you say now, they just won 70% to 30% running of the basis of selling our public lands, good luck getting them to change their mind when they've been saying it for years and still win in a landslide. Rob Bishop is a possible choice for Trumps interior cabinet Troop....Rob bishop. Our public lands are no longer protected by Obamas veto pen, and I'm sorry that's isn't a good thing if you love public land. Republicans won, and as our president elect would say, they won "bigly".


----------



## Kwalk3

I voted this election with Public Lands as my primary focus. Most local R-lawmakers did not receive my vote. 

Glad we won't have to worry about losing guns in the immediate future. However, I believe that the threat to our public lands is far more real and imminent than any legislation to take away the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has certain constitutional protections. The right to access public land does not. 

We can't afford to be silent about public lands and what is being proposed. With a Republican mandate, I am very concerned that the ideas that have been proposed over the last few years will become an ugly reality.


----------



## backcountry

The "culture of fear" and FUD plays out again in so many complex ways. Our guns were never at risk of being confiscated. It was never a platform in such a generic way nor a viable outcome with the split in the federal government (before last night's elections) It was a manufactured political narrative that was inaccurate in content but successful in strategy.

But for the first time in many of our lives the federal executive and congress, SCOTUS, state executives and legislatures are all stacked in favor of one party. That does not reflect the checks and balances many conservatives value by any means. It is the definition of lopsided which has a rich history of leaning authoritarian no matter what the party's ideology. And in this case efforts like public lands transfer will largely happen with little resistance. Utah will pass legislation that will likely be further supported by federal legislation. All the players and platforms are in place and the SCOTUS will not block it in the long run given it will have a ideological lean in favor. 

The only benefit is the RNC will own this completely. They own every branch and effectively a Republican government, despite losing the majority vote in the presidential election. Listen to Ryan. Read the RNC platform and Trump's. 

Time will tell but every indicator is this will swing in favor of state control.


----------



## NVDuckin

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Hillary was not going to get your guns, it wasn't even a fear for me, there are so many reasons why your rights to firearms is simply a scare tactic that just continues to perpetuate itself into people's fears and yet it absolutely NEVER even has come close to happening. The gun argument is crap, period, it is not achievable in America. .


I would almost agree with you except for the fact that the previous Clinton administration was behind 922r, which greatly limited foreign imports and that stupid regulation is still in enforcement today. So the Clintons have a history of 2A infringement whether you feared for it or not, I was not willing to risk it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

NVDuckin said:


> I would almost agree with you except for the fact that the previous Clinton administration was behind 922r, which greatly limited foreign imports and that stupid regulation is still in enforcement today. So the Clintons have a history of 2A infringement whether you feared for it or not, I was not willing to risk it.


So you were willing to risk 640 million acres of freedom, access, and public riches on the bet that a risk that has always been a fear but never been carried out even under ideal circumstances even a little bit would happen? Okay, I guess if an assault rifle equates to 640 million acres we have differences on the value of things.Trumps gets the benefit of the doubt from me, until he doesn't.


----------



## DallanC

NVDuckin said:


> I would almost agree with you except for the fact that the previous Clinton administration was behind 922r, which greatly limited foreign imports and that stupid regulation is still in enforcement today. So the Clintons have a history of 2A infringement whether you feared for it or not, I was not willing to risk it.


Bingo. Go try and buy a Norinco ADT .22 LR. Its still caught up in the "ban" list.

I dont believe there would have been a gun confiscation under Clinton, but I have zero doubt they would put the Assault Weapons ban back in place.

And honestly... a basic 12GA semi auto shotgun is way more dangerous than any AR15 in a crowded room. Load it up with #4 buckshot and each pull of the trigger is putting more lead down range than a 10round AR mag.

Once some of these dumbass kids figure that out and shoot up a school... you will see people pushing for bans on semi-auto shotguns.

-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk

There is still a high enough Dem count to thwart the land transfer thing (I hope). That is the one and only thing I do like about NM. At least we have some Dem Senators and Reps that get it...


----------



## Kwalk3

High Desert Elk said:


> There is still a high enough Dem count to thwart the land transfer thing (I hope). That is the one and only thing I do like about NM. At least we have some Dem Senators and Reps that get it...


You have a really good one in Heinrich, at least as far as sportsmen concerns go.

I also hope you're right about the Dem count being high enough. I know there are a few Republican lawmakers in various states(Zinke in MT I believe) that have voiced opposition to land transfers as well. I'm still very unsure about the composition of the legislative branch and how it would vote on this issue overall.


----------



## Hoopermat

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So you were willing to risk 640 million acres of freedom, access, and public riches on the bet that a risk that has always been a fear but never been carried out even under ideal circumstances even a little bit would happen? Okay, I guess if an assault rifle equates to 640 million acres we have differences on the value of things.Trumps gets the benefit of the doubt from me, until he doesn't.


Open your eyes. The attack on your guns is real. 
Look at the democratic controlled states. What did they do this election GUN control 
Just California alone has show what the dem party wants and will get. I'm sorry public lands are a very important issue to me as well but I can't defend them by throwing rocks. 
Keeping your thought process the way you post on here will leave you standing all alone on public lands because everyone that would help you has already had thier freedom taken. We are all in this together. And I'll say it again
We need a voice a united voice not 50 different voices trying to protect a single issue or species. We need a NRA type for this land. And until we get it we are in trouble. It's the only chance we have to make a stand as a united front


----------



## NVDuckin

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So you were willing to risk 640 million acres of freedom, access, and public riches on the bet that a risk that has always been a fear but never been carried out even under ideal circumstances even a little bit would happen? Okay, I guess if an assault rifle equates to 640 million acres we have differences on the value of things.Trumps gets the benefit of the doubt from me, until he doesn't.


You're missing the point. You can say this is about assault rifles all you want, but will anti-gun people be satisfied if those are banned? I doubt it, "assault pistols" will be next, then high powered bolt rifles, etc. Losing your 2A rights doesn't come in sweeping bans, it comes in bits and pieces. Slowly chipping away at them piece by piece and I won't give another inch if I can help it.

Do I want to risk 640mm acres? Not really, I love public land. But in this beautiful two party system that we have, we don't get everything we want. I think these sweeping generalizations and accusatory posts are what fueled democrats to losing the majority in all three branches. For the record, I'm registered as Independent.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

High Desert Elk said:


> There is still a high enough Dem count to thwart the land transfer thing (I hope). That is the one and only thing I do like about NM. At least we have some Dem Senators and Reps that get it...


Dems have 5 vulnerable seats in the senate up for grabs halfway through his term. The next 4 years could be devastating to public lands, wildlife, and conservation. The more Trump Jr. talked the more it sounded like industry was key. Make no mistake, elections have consequence and I hope Americas full on anger at a political system didn't just create the perfect storm in history to that our consequence is millions of acres of public land. We can look on the bright side or the realistic side, and the realistic side is public lands are now in a very bad spot. Sorry but when Alan Gardner (one of the founders of ALC) expresses he is happy with what's to come, I don't have the same reaction:
http://www.thespectrum.com/story/ne...es-hopes-worries-utahs-public-lands/93561654/

If you voted for republicans, you voted for the for sale sign that goes up, and at this point it very well may. Sorry I don't expect a lifetime wealthy man from New York who is involved heavily on real estate does not have the trust in me to veto something his party has in their platform. Donald Trumps election will feel good for a day, then we get to spend the next 4 years fighting something we could have killed this election cycle, and we have a much less chance of winning now. Yesterday industry won, the American lands council won, Utah transfer republicans won, and don't kid yourself wildlife, wild places, clean air, clean water, and public lands lost "bigly." I get the appeal of Trump, but anger bllinded a country into looking for an answer in someone that isn't there. The truth is 1/4 of the people truly supported Trump, half of America simply voted against Hillary Clinton not for Donald Trump. More than half of America voted for Hillary Clintom because they disliked Trump so much. 1/4 of America believes he is the answer, half are hopeful, and a quarter are scared of him. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic. Was it time for a shake up? Absolutely, but this kind of shake up? No, America should be ashamed of both the candidates that we chose this cycle and needs to do some soul searching by 2020 because neither of the mainstream candidates even had a soul.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

NVDuckin said:


> You're missing the point. You can say this is about assault rifles all you want, but will anti-gun people be satisfied if those are banned? I doubt it, "assault pistols" will be next, then high powered bolt rifles, etc. Losing your 2A rights doesn't come in sweeping bans, it comes in bits and pieces. Slowly chipping away at them piece by piece and I won't give another inch if I can help it.
> 
> Do I want to risk 640mm acres? Not really, I love public land. But in this beautiful two party system that we have, we don't get everything we want. I think these sweeping generalizations and accusatory posts are what fueled democrats to losing the majority in all three branches. For the record, I'm registered as Independent.


There is a realistic pathway for one, and an almost impossible pathway for the other. In 4 years she wouldn't have got a single gun, especially with a republican house and senate. She also would have lost in 2020 to whatever object you ran against her. There is no balance and it could get worse halfway through his term if dems lose even more seats in the senate. There are real fears and then there are fears that play into you. I believe the gun threat is not imminent and the land transfers are a real possibility now where we currently sit.


----------



## Dunkem

:lalala::lalala: Hey Dallan I got one of those ATD 22s. Cool little gun!!


----------



## backcountry

Exit polls have made the reason for this election clear: economics and establishment politics. Everything else was distant in comparison. The DNC failed, that is clear.

But the content being discussed here is gun confiscation? That generalization is not bring pushed by the left. Are folks going to own that gun confiscation is inaccurate? I work hard as a left leaning independent to educate my DNC friends about their misunderstandings, the history and significance of the 2nd, etc. It effective, builds bridges but is time consuming and requires good faith efforts by both sides. It doesnt work when such grossly inaccurate accusations about their real platforms are perpetuated. These gross generalizations dont solve problems in the long run as they force us into party fox holes to lob political grenades at each other.

I can work against the disfunction and ineffective assault weapons ban. I can build bridges there. But the culture of fear surrounding federal gun confiscation works because it distracts us from real, very nuanced issues that will affect us. Such gross caricatures of other citizens undermines governance at any level. We want more moderate citizens who understand and support the Bill of Rights, not less. 

And to be clear...the public lands transfers is a real threat that careers and platforms are built on. The Congress no longer needs a super majority to pass such legislation as they own every branch. And our state just elected the representatives who created this legislation and are actively working to implement it. Our vote for them was our principal way to influence legislation in a representative democracy. Everything else is indirect and less effective. We gave them the mandate and power.

And I wont even touch the notion of an armed resistance to legislation that was a transparent priority of the people we voted in.


----------



## martymcfly73

Hoopermat said:


> Open your eyes. The attack on your guns is real.
> Look at the democratic controlled states. What did they do this election GUN control
> Just California alone has show what the dem party wants and will get. I'm sorry public lands are a very important issue to me as well but I can't defend them by throwing rocks.
> Keeping your thought process the way you post on here will leave you standing all alone on public lands because everyone that would help you has already had thier freedom taken. We are all in this together. And I'll say it again
> We need a voice a united voice not 50 different voices trying to protect a single issue or species. We need a NRA type for this land. And until we get it we are in trouble. It's the only chance we have to make a stand as a united front


Don't try and talk sense into 1 eye. That ship sailed long ago...


----------



## bowgy

Hoopermat said:


> I know it will probably get removed but....
> Wooooooooohooooooooo
> TRUMP


Yes.... top of page.

There were people that threatened to leave the US if this happened so Canada had to take precautions.


----------



## LostLouisianian

I'm continually amazed at the lack of intelligence of Clinton supporters. 1 SCOTUS judge was all the difference in overturning the 2a and it's FACT proven by the last challenge. Also the looney liberals screaming we've lost public lands cannot point to one single campaign speech where president elect Trump said he would sell off public lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

LostLouisianian said:


> I'm continually amazed at the lack of intelligence of Clinton supporters. 1 SCOTUS judge was all the difference in overturning the 2a and it's FACT proven by the last challenge. Also the looney liberals screaming we've lost public lands cannot point to one single campaign speech where president elect Trump said he would sell off public lands.


There are several to point to under him and by the party that will control him. Believe as you wish, but Trump will be put in line. The system didn't have a corrupt president, the system itself is corrupt and even his loud and bold self won't even be able to break it. I'm not a liberal, I'm just not scared of what is not feasible. Removing 300+million guns and interpreting the 2nd amendment in a way to gather everyone's firearms is just not feasible. Fast tracking a land sale through congress with a party that's platform is calling for it, is very possible and I don't trust a man who knows little to nothing about those public lands to veto it. Trump Jr. at first has said that it would not be sold. He is on record of saying Utah is one of the states who has done a great job of managing its state lands. My guess is Don Peay and several others have influenced him into the belief that Utah would be best served taking the land and choosing what to do with it. More state involvement is fine, but saying Utah has done great with its state lands is simply misleading. Federal lands must stay federal if we expect to keep them, and I do worry in the next 4 years that we may see a change in that. Also LL, I'm continually amazed at Trump supporters willingness to believe a man who has lied plenty himself, who has donated to Hillary Clinton, the Clinton foundation, Harry Reid, Nancy's Pelosi, and others. I agree anyone who supported either of these candidates was stupid, by don't paint one side stupid without realizing how blindly and stupidly the other is following their candidate. Trump switched on plenty of things himself including guns. The Clintons and Trumps are closer than Trump made it appear. Trump had a great game plan to get elected, but don't be surprised when he flip flops again.


----------



## backcountry

Please show a little more respect to those of us with divergent ideas. We can disagree, passionately, without resorting to insults. 

The 2nd Ammendment cant be overturned, by definition, in the SCOTUS. Its not a law. Its a constitutional ammendment that takes an unfeasible process to repeal. That will not happen given the ideological split that defines this country. If you want to talk the nuances of interpretation then please do so instead of gross generalizations.

A public lands transfer will originate with Congress, not the President. That is actually in the spirit of republicanism and conservatism. Stating otherwise is a red herring in this case. The true question is if he will veto such a proposition. And i find that highly unlikely. History considers a veto of your own party worse than nuclear. The most cumbersome process would be a presidential denouncement but no veto,a compromise in exchange for support of his agenda. That is politics. And its very likely if the RNC can unite in the next few months which seems probable given today's tone. 

It won't and can't be handed over all at once but there are easy test cases they can hit within his first hundred days. My guess is they will start with low quality, low attention and less controversial parcels to get a feel for public sentiment and to test legal challenges. The cost/benefit analysis of those transfers will determine their actions in the years to come.

And this is hardly a liberal concern. Its actually an issue that demolishes traditional ideological boundaries given the diverse stakeholders it affects. Its something that could easily unite historically antagonistic groups.


----------



## Karl

MuscleWhitefish said:


> This worries me, with the GOP dominating the house and senate races.


The GOP is NOT united.

Trump is NOT a Republican and certainly NOT a "conservative".

And today McConnell already gave Trump a to-do list that is only going to piss Trump off.

Remember that Jimmy Carter had a complete DEM government as well and was unable to do anything. This goes to show that Trump with a complete GOP government might not get anything done either.

The GOP is still fractured between T-party, moderates, and RINO's.

Trump is a RINO.

One thing is certain however -- the SCOTUS has now been saved and the 2nd Amendment is safe -- Trump carries his own pistol.

Whether the Gov of Utah will try to sell public lands is a bigger and more relevant local issue.


----------



## DallanC

Dunkem said:


> :lalala::lalala: Hey Dallan I got one of those ATD 22s. Cool little gun!!


Yep they are. I have the Browning it was patterned off of, and 2 ATDs. Found one ATD in a pawn shop for $80 (amazing steal!) that had never been cleaned. Owner probably chalked it up to being a cheap, jamming gun. I cleaned it good and its never jammed since. My wife claimed it now. Found another one years later for my boy... that one cost me $230 and came in the original box. They are around if you can find them... or people bring them into the USA from Canada.

But they are still on the ban list for direct import into the USA.

-DallanC


----------



## High Desert Elk

Karl said:


> Whether the Gov of Utah will try to sell public lands is a bigger and more relevant local issue.


Yeah, too bad for that. Ya'll need to get rid of that guy.


----------



## Catherder

As I considered my vote before this election, there were things I deeply disliked about Trump and an equal number, if not greater number of things I disliked about HRC. Most of these issues were not even related to the outdoors. In the end, I voted for Mcmullin FWIW. 

That said, here is how I would break things down for the expected future on outdoor issues. (my inflation adjusted 2 cents) 


1. Guns; Obviously, with Trump winning and the "R"s holding on to both houses of Congress, there won't be any sweeping gun control laws in the next 2 years. I suppose great news!, as we won't see a stampede on the gun stores this week and we can buy the ammo we need, unlike after the last 2 elections. 
However, don't expect a widespread loosening of gun regs either. The Assault weapons ban still has wide public support nationwide and Trump has pledged to make it tougher for those on terrorist watch lists to arm themselves. If we have more Sandy Hooks or Orlandos, you can also bet that the "D"s will make guns a bigger campaign issue than they were this year. So don't expect things to go back to the "Wild West" on guns either.

2. The land grab; I don't think there is any question that the prospects of the land grab becoming successful went up markedly with this election, with "R"s controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. So, is it a done deal? Not necessarily. Here's why I have some hope still. 

A) As far as I know, Trump never stated that he was enthusiastic for the land grab. Also, I think it was on here that one of his sons stated that Trump supported keeping public lands public. Ted Cruz campaigned for TPL and it was a big deal to him. If he won, we would have been in big trouble on the issue. I haven't seen evidence that the issue was a high priority for Trump. That may be a good thing. 

B) Even though yesterday was rightfully considered a Republican victory, it is easy to forget that the "D"s actually gained seats in the Senate yesterday and the majority is small (2 or 3 seats). It would only take flipping a few "R"s to defeat any land grab bills in the Senate and right now there is decent public support nationwide for keeping public lands public. Even Utah public opinion is 50-50 on the land grab currently. 

C) Trump's first 100 days and well beyond are going to be filled to the gills with doing whatever he does on Obamacare, his economic package, a Supreme Court vacancy and foreign affairs. I doubt the land grab is an issue high on his legislative radar right now. The longer it gets drawn out, the more likely it gets stretched out to the next congress, and then the legislative composition could change. 

D) Trump was not especially popular with Utah's legislative leaders or Mitt Romney. I don't see him making it a priority to do favors for Utah's "R"s in the near future, like advancing land grab legislation. 

3. The environment. I suspect that the election results will be bad news for environmentalists, and a lot of regulations set forth by the Obama administration will be swept aside. How that affects hunting and fishing remain to be seen, but it could be a negative, especially if deregulation is combined with a varyingly successful land grab. 


Sorry mods, there is some discussion here about non outdoor issues, but I tried to tie it all back to outdoor stuff.


----------



## wyogoob

Catherder said:


> ................................
> 
> Sorry mods, there is some discussion here about non outdoor issues, but I tried to tie it all back to outdoor stuff.


Thank you.

Outdoor and "they're gonna take my guns away" related political posts and threads are fine. If the posts or threads get off tract they'll get locked.

.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Anybody who denies the agenda to compromise our gun rights should look at what went down in California this election cycle. Cali has long been the laboratory where Democrats show their true colors. They'd do the same thing here except they can't win elections. To claim otherwise is either naive or dishonest as far as I'm concerned. 

As far as Constitutional protection goes, there must be a Supreme Court in place that is willing to uphold it or it means nothing. I believe that we are on track to have a much more stable, balanced, and rational SCOTUS as a result of this election. 

With the mandate that Utah Repubs just got, I think it is totally plausible that they will pursue Public Land transfers. My guess is that Trump will always put jobs over the environment so I'd say that 1-I's concerns are well founded.-----SS


----------



## DallanC

Both California and Washington passed new laws last night allowing for gun seizure in some cases.

Just say'n.


-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

DallanC said:


> Both California and Washington passed new laws last night allowing for gun seizure in some cases.
> 
> Just say'n.
> 
> -DallanC


My concern is not that Trump won the presidency, my concern is that the republicans have a clean sweep of everything and can do what they want. The bottom line here is if you aren't ready to fight as hard for public lands as you are guns prepare to lose them in the next 4 years. The election is what it is but this election has consequences and whether it be the compromise of our environement or the disposal of public lands, that consequence could be 600 million acres of public lands to industry and private purchasers. You can hate Obama for much of what he's done and the left, I do as well, but Obama helped wildlife, helped clean air, helped clean water, helped keep public lands safe, and helped try to build a cleaner and brighter future for generations that come. Trump will strip protections ont hear environments and won't veto a transfer bill. That's what you voted for yesterday. Protecting the environment is exactly what Theodore Roosevelt did and he did it not for himself but for those that came after him. While I agree government oversight is complicated and overbearing at times it is also necessary to not allow the public to be abused by industry. Obama was a good president for sportsmen despite what so many people from twittle dink Utah may think, and I have doubt in 4 years I will be able to say Trump was as beneficial to our wildlife, wild places, future generation, and our environment than Obama was. Here's to the next 4 years, start praying and be ready for a fight for public lands because it's coming. I don't care who you are, Trump is a disgrace to America, so was Clinton, and on top of all that it was a no win situation, but you give me my guns or lands I'll chose lands every time.


----------



## Catherder

Tonight, 2 news ran a story about Don Peay's work for Trump and suggested he could be considered for Secretary of the Interior.

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-sportsman-credits-hunters-with-helping-tip-scales-to-trump

How would you folks like them apples? O-|-O


----------



## Karl

High Desert Elk said:


> Yeah, too bad for that. Ya'll need to get rid of that guy.


I did my part but was overruled.


----------



## Karl

I learned in my CCW LTC class that Calif, Ore, and NM are the western states that do not give reciprocity to Utah's permits. There are more states back East that do not either but these 3 are the local western states.

I have not yet learned how to get an Oregon or NM permit from out of state.

It is not possible to get an out of state permit from Calif.

Those issues are relevant in case anyone travels to one of those 3 states.

This just means I will avoid those 3 states in the future. They won't miss me of course and I won't miss them.

That is a relevant consideration for anyone living in the western states that DO give each other reciprocity, which includes Utah.

Otherwise even if Calif, NM and Ore make guns completely illegal it does not affect me.

Trump did not win because DEM's hate guns however.

Trump won because BHO's promises were pipe dreams and after 8 years of it the blue collar workers just got smarter and did not elect Hillary.

The blue collar workers who elected Trump want jobs. Trump will need to try harder than BHO's B/S to give them jobs or Trump will not be re-elected in 4 more years.

It is of more concern to me that the current Gov of Utah got re-elected. He has said he wants to generate prosperity by "developing" (means selling to developers) public lands. Whenever that happens hunters suffer.

Not too many hunters can afford to buy lands to hunt on.


----------



## 3arabians

I hate to make light of this very serious thread but "I just had to do it"


----------



## Packfish

Are we worried that our guns would have been taken or that laws would have been removed protecting gun manufacturers thus skinning and strangling the cat in another way ?


----------



## DallanC

Packfish said:


> Are we worried that our guns would have been taken or that laws would have been removed protecting gun manufacturers thus skinning and strangling the cat in another way ?


That is a loaded question that I think each individual might have a different answer.

My "worry" was 1 or even 2 liberal appointees to the supreme court, then gun law cases going before the court would get a distinctly different, anti-gun ruling & interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Remember, most of the recent gun law rulings went 5-4 in our favor. Imagine new rulings going 3-6 the other way.

Am I worried men in black might show up at my door demanding my guns in the middle of the night? Nah, not at all (and for any govt people reading this public post, I lost all my guns in a boating accident 8)). Am I worried my boy, or heck grandchildren might not be able to buy a semi-auto 22lr? Yes, I think there is a chance that can happen eventually.

I can't imagine any new major ban, such as the assault weapons ban, going into effect without first allowing for existing guns to be grandfathered in (as happened with the Clinton era ban). I bought several AR15 lowers with that in mind, to gift to grandchildren down the road if a sales ban ever went back into effect.

-DallanC


----------



## backcountry

I appreciate that thoughtful response, Dallan. I think the balance of SCOTUS and lower level gun laws are real issues. I have spent years confronting and educating my liberal friends on semi-automatic and assault weapons. Sadly, most still conflate AW with the long-ago restricted Assault Rifles and semi-automatic with burst fire in some form. Its disheartening that so many voters are uneducated in those differences.

But here is my thing. That reality will not change under status quo political alignment and strategies. I am a gun owner and hunter in a house with a Cali-raised liberal wife. I became both after marriage which meant bridging our divides through meaningful talks. This election exposed that one of our principle divides is regional and geographic residence. Specifically, urban versus rural. Those upbringings and environments expose us to different ideas, realities and therefore educations.

But its not a hopeless divide. We just need a cease fire on establishment politics and its narrative. Luckily, a candidate was just elected because of populist narrative through a mandate against politics as normal. Will he use that to move the dialog forward in a new direction?

I personally never hold my breathe on presidents. And I have good reason to believe he had more narrative than substance given his opportunitist nature and radical ideological shifts through the last decade. So i think we need to be the change. We need to find a way to apply functional outreach so more citizens understand the nuances of firearms, gun laws and the foundational underpinnings that differentiate our Constitution from those in countries like Australia, Canada, and broadly in Europe. I think those efforts need to be distantly removed from the lobbying of groups like the NRA as they are deeply rooted in establishment politics. 

I think that is possible and functional but it means we have to get out of our fox holes.


----------



## utahgolf

My shotgun, ML, and rifle don't do me any good if I don't have public land to use them on.


----------



## Springville Shooter

utahgolf said:


> My shotgun, ML, and rifle don't do me any good if I don't have public land to use them on.


Funny, my shotgun, ML, and rifle work just as good on private property as they do on public land.-------SS


----------



## middlefork

Nearly 70% of the voters in the state of Utah gave their approval to proceed with the transfer of Federal lands and the party in control of the federal government has made it a written policy of their platform.
If anybody believes this is not a valid threat to public lands and hunting you are fooling yourself.
Good luck changing their minds after they have just been given a mandate by the people to do just that.


----------



## Hoopermat

Funny thing is the only rep I voted for was trump


----------



## utahgolf

Springville Shooter said:


> Funny, my shotgun, ML, and rifle work just as good on private property as they do on public land.-------SS


May we all be as fortunate as you :-?


----------



## backcountry

utahgolf said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, my shotgun, ML, and rifle work just as good on private property as they do on public land.-------SS
> 
> 
> 
> May we all be as fortunate as you
Click to expand...

^This. I can barely afford the costs associated with hunting with free access to public land. Private land is not an option financially for most Americans; nor is hunting out of state.


----------



## Springville Shooter

utahgolf said:


> May we all be as fortunate as you :-?


Maybe a little dramatic? I get it though. I was just as distraught and irrational when Obama got elected. Like he said, elections have consequences. Unfortunately, losing some public lands will likely be a consequence of this one.------SS


----------



## martymcfly73

Springville Shooter said:


> Maybe a little dramatic? I get it though. I was just as distraught and irrational when Obama got elected. Like he said, elections have consequences. Unfortunately, losing some public lands will likely be a consequence of this one.------SS


As long as it's on Monroe or Southern Utah I'm ok with that.


----------



## ceedub

^^^ ha ha 

Or sell AF canyon to Snowbird.


----------



## Loke

ceedub said:


> ^^^ ha ha
> 
> Or sell AF canyon to Snowbird.


The areas you are referring to were already privately owned. Just because they were not posted, doesn't make them public. Many of them were already behind locked gates, with limited access.


----------



## DallanC

Loke said:


> The areas you are referring to were already privately owned. Just because they were not posted, doesn't make them public. Many of them were already behind locked gates, with limited access.


Thats true, but what Snowbird has recently done, is buy up mining claims for the area, then went to the Utah County commission and got them reappropriated for general use (ie: development). Thats what has people in a tizzy. If they want to own the subsurface rights have at it, but that doesnt mean they should get to build hundred million dollar ski lodges and luxury cabins on them.

-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Maybe a little dramatic? I get it though. I was just as distraught and irrational when Obama got elected. Like he said, elections have consequences. Unfortunately, losing some public lands will likely be a consequence of this one.------SS


It's laughable, Trumps already backing off on Obamacare. There will be no wall, Hillary will not be going to jail, and much of what Trump has promised all the people he got so fired up aren't going to happen. Half the country is pissed he's in office, the other half is going to be pissed when they see he is not going to do a lot of what he promised. The consequences of this election you speak of,are not worth what is going to be gained. Trump deserves a chance for sure and he could be a great president, but he's got a lot on his shoulders now. Everyone took their wants and needs and projected them onto him. Some voted for him because they thought he was toughest on immigration, some for economy, and everyone felt their position was most important to him. I wish Trump the best and hope to see beneficial changes in our country, the selling of our public land will never be a bright or beneficial future for our country or the people that come after. Trump Jr. is on his transition team to choose cabinet members, once they are chosen we will begin to see what the next 4 years looks like. Trump and his sons have said they will not transfer or sell our federal lands, I fear that's another basis of which he will not hold true, but it's time to give him a chance until he shows me things I cannot support him on.


----------



## backcountry

I am not holding my breathe but I am hopeful he is more moderate as a president and was playing a character during the election. There is support for that hope: his previous statements and policies (which he flip-flipped on somwhere around his first campaign); his reality television background that was about brand and persona not substance; etc. The fact that he is surrounding himself with establishment politicians for his transition doesnt bode well for that hope though (or his populist supporters that were led to believe he was an outsider focused on change). 

Either way hunters need to be watching him and Congress like a hawk. And his current and past treatment of the press core is a likely harbinger of his respect for transparency, criticism and press freedom. Given the reality that lands transfer is popular with state and federal legislatures but not the majority of the public, any deal is likely to be rather secretive at first. Think riders and massive bills that disguise controversial legislation.

Many Americans are now watching with bated breath. His backtracking and moderation of the ACA rhetoric could reveal a different course. But I will not forgot that politics is about strategy and gaming. He very well could be playing the ACA rhetoric as a negotiating tool against a Congress that largely dislikes him. 

The public lands transfer issue is so broad reaching for many of us.I hunt on public lands. I need public lands to access rivers and lakes for fishing. I heat my house with firewood cut on federal lands. I largely vacation on public lands via dispersed camping. The notion that will be sold off to the highest bidder is disconcerting to a citizen barely clinging to the middle class who lifestyle is so immersed in public lands ownership.

Time will tell.


----------



## ceedub

If It walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck. 

Some of you guys wouldn't recognize a liberal if he was staring back at you in a mirror.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Karl said:


> I learned in my CCW LTC class that Calif, Ore, and NM are the western states that do not give reciprocity to Utah's permits. There are more states back East that do not either but these 3 are the local western states.
> 
> Those issues are relevant in case anyone travels to one of those 3 states.
> 
> This just means I will avoid those 3 states in the future. They won't miss me of course and I won't miss them.
> 
> That is a relevant consideration for anyone living in the western states that DO give each other reciprocity, which includes Utah.
> 
> Otherwise even if Calif, NM and Ore make guns completely illegal it does not affect me.
> 
> Trump did not win because DEM's hate guns however.


Karl

NM does not accept UT's CCP because UT does not require a live fire qualification. They used, to but not anymore. When that happened, NM DPS felt that people with CCP's without qualification aren't "trained enough" to handle a threatening situation. It is not because NM is anti-gun. Dang close though, almost too close...there are times I question why I even reside here.

As far as the qualification thing goes, it is meaningless. I know people who are just shy of being scared of shooting a handgun, yet sit through class and qualify. Those are the scary ones, the ones who are all but shaking when they shoot the once every two years qualification is due. They clearly are not comfortable with it.

I hope you reconsider not coming to NM. Oryx hunting is a hoot!


----------



## ridgetop

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's laughable, Trumps already backing off on Obamacare. There will be no wall, Hillary will not be going to jail, and much of what Trump has promised all the people he got so fired up aren't going to happen. Half the country is pissed he's in office, the other half is going to be pissed when they see he is not going to do a lot of what he promised. The consequences of this election you speak of,are not worth what is going to be gained. Trump deserves a chance for sure and he could be a great president, but he's got a lot on his shoulders now. Everyone took their wants and needs and projected them onto him. Some voted for him because they thought he was toughest on immigration, some for economy, and everyone felt their position was most important to him. I wish Trump the best and hope to see beneficial changes in our country, the selling of our public land will never be a bright or beneficial future for our country or the people that come after. Trump Jr. is on his transition team to choose cabinet members, once they are chosen we will begin to see what the next 4 years looks like. Trump and his sons have said they will not transfer or sell our federal lands, I fear that's another basis of which he will not hold true, but it's time to give him a chance until he shows me things I cannot support him on.


So you say most of what trump says will not happen but then I'm supposed to believe that all our public lands will be sold just because you say it will happen?
Really, are you that psychic?


----------



## wyogoob

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's laughable, Trumps already backing off on Obamacare. There will be no wall, Hillary will not be going to jail, and much of what Trump has promised all the people he got so fired up aren't going to happen. Half the country is pissed he's in office, the other half is going to be pissed when they see he is not going to do a lot of what he promised. The consequences of this election you speak of,are not worth what is going to be gained. Trump deserves a chance for sure and he could be a great president, but he's got a lot on his shoulders now. Everyone took their wants and needs and projected them onto him. Some voted for him because they thought he was toughest on immigration, some for economy, and everyone felt their position was most important to him. I wish Trump the best and hope to see beneficial changes in our country, the selling of our public land will never be a bright or beneficial future for our country or the people that come after. Trump Jr. is on his transition team to choose cabinet members, once they are chosen we will begin to see what the next 4 years looks like. Trump and his sons have said they will not transfer or sell our federal lands, I fear that's another basis of which he will not hold true, but it's time to give him a chance until he shows me things I cannot support him on.


Keep your political posts outdoor related please. The red is not outdoor related.

.


----------



## wyogoob

ceedub said:


> If It walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck.
> 
> Some of you guys wouldn't recognize a liberal if he was staring back at you in a mirror.


OK, the duck thing is outdoor related. The Liberal thing is not. :smile:

.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

ridgetop said:


> So you say most of what trump says will not happen but then I'm supposed to believe that all our public lands will be sold just because you say it will happen?
> Really, are you that psychic?


I simply can see what views Trump has held in the past. He has taken a position on all the other issues I listed and his stance has always been left of where he is now. Public lands have never been on his real estate, billionaire mind and I simply don't know that it really means anything to him or he understands the issue enough for it to be important to him. If the Republican Party wants this I just don't see it as an issue he'll deeply defend. Going forward he will have to choose his battles, and it just doesn't seem like a battle he'll wage. With almost no background on the issue, I think party politics will be much easier to sway him on on issues he doesn't understand from issues he's actually thought about in the past.


----------



## ridgetop

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I simply can see what views Trump has held in the past. He has taken a position on all the other issues I listed and his stance has always been left of where he is now. Public lands have never been on his real estate, billionaire mind and I simply don't know that it really means anything to him or he understands the issue enough for it to be important to him. If the Republican Party wants this I just don't see it as an issue he'll deeply defend. Going forward he will have to choose his battles, and it just doesn't seem like a battle he'll wage. With almost no background on the issue, I think party politics will be much easier to sway him on on issues he doesn't understand from issues he's actually thought about in the past.


 #1Deer, do you really understand this whole 'land grab" thingy?
I mean, do you really, really understand what's on the agenda of all these reps. that you are so against?
I would put my money on Trump knowing just a little bit more than yourself on those issues.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

ridgetop said:


> #1Deer, do you really understand this whole 'land grab" thingy?
> I mean, do you really, really understand what's on the agenda of all these reps. that you are so against?
> I would put my money on Trump knowing just a little bit more than yourself on those issues.


I could take this far down the tubes here with what Trump has shown he actually understands about the complicated politics that go into running the most powerful country in the world, but instead I'll just say, yes I understand the transfer scheme. It does not benefit me, it does not benefit you, and I simply hope Trump who I know doesn't understand public lands in the way I do he will be more influenced by his sons than by the Republican Party, but in the game of politics we always end up getting screwed so we shall see. There are parts of Trump I really like, parts I hate, and parts that make me uneasy, but the biggest part is simply not really knowing what to expect so we'll see as we go.


----------

