PDA

View Full Version : BLM Temporarily Restricts Shooting at Kanaka Valley


reese
09-30-2010, 10:21 AM
Please see the anouncement here: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsroom/2010/september/CC10_103_kanakavalley.html

akjunkie
09-30-2010, 10:42 AM
trying posting here in the proper forum.

Range/Meets etc.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=115

dieselpower
09-30-2010, 10:48 AM
Not sure if this is legal, but with so little information in the notice...who knows.

Wherryj
09-30-2010, 11:16 AM
“We have been holding a series of public meetings to develop a long-range plan for Kanaka Valley,” said Bill Haigh, BLM Mother Lode Field Office manager. “During those meetings, residents expressed safety concerns about shooting on the public lands. The temporary closure will give us time to address those concerns in the long-range plan.”


I have concerns about how these area residents use their right to free speech. Any chance that I can get a temporary injuction against their 1A rights?

Boltz
09-30-2010, 11:24 AM
“We have been holding a series of public meetings to develop a long-range plan for Kanaka Valley,” said Bill Haigh, BLM Mother Lode Field Office manager. “During those meetings, residents expressed safety concerns about shooting on the public lands. The temporary closure will give us time to address those concerns in the long-range plan.”


I have concerns about how these area residents use their right to free speech. Any chance that I can get a temporary injuction against their 1A rights?

I see no problem with people expressing safety concerns if they are legit. Any of you who've been to Kanaka Valley, do you see shooting there as a potential hazard? With the reputation of BLM shooting in mind, I wonder if it's some idiots who are ruining it for the majority of responsible shooters.

Wherryj
09-30-2010, 11:29 AM
It just doesn't seem like the automatic revokation of a constitutionally protected right should hinge on "someone expressing a concern".

I obviously exaggerated the statement by putting the one amendment about which restritcion gets people riled, but it is a similar issue. Shouldn't this have had a bit more evaluation, or at least a better reason behind the closure, temporary or not?