APOD Firearms

SCOTUS unanimous decision on frogs, gov overreach and Administrative State arrogance

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    wildrider666

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Often, its not the "subject issue" that's important but how Parties address it. He we have a cocky, self important Gov Agency claiming absolute subject authority and implementing power and a rare unanimous SCOTUS that puts Gov in check with a English Lesson.

    Maybe the Justices took note of the political dissension that has split the Court and dominated Judicial decisions for decades? Maybe, the Justices as a whole; will follow the Laws as written without personal political leanings driving their votes and opinions in the future. We can only hope the Court returns to operating as intended.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...n-dusty-gopher-frog-administrative-state/amp/
     
    MarkS

    MarkS

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    3,305
    Points
    113
    Location
    Baker,Fl.
    About time that an overreaching government agency got put in their place
    I hope to see more decisions like this


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Ric-san

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,905
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    This was a win for the little guy. Big Brother tried to set aside private land for “habitat” in a whole other state for the frogs...thank god that SCOTUS didn’t go along based on the word “habitat”.
    You know, it seems to me that the U.S. government can find suitable “habitat” in one of the many national forests or parks. That would solve the issue with these frogs.
     
    Last edited:
    FrommerStop

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,908
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    This apparently was what it was about.
    The frog is, like a well-born Victorian maiden, a frail flower, requiring everything to be just so: The frog needs an “open canopy” forest with suitable ground vegetation and food supplied if the area experiences frequent fires, and the frog only breeds in “ephemeral” ponds that are dry part of the year, thereby protecting the tadpoles from hungry fish. The FWS designated the 1,544 acres a “critical habitat” even though (1) no such frog has inhabited them for half a century and (2) none could live long there unless the land were substantially modified (e.g., trimming the canopy, producing suitable undergrowth, and experiencing fires that the acres’ loblolly pines cannot withstand) and (3) the loss of the acres could cost the owners $34 million in lost timber-farming and development opportunities.
    Click to expand...
    The issue seems to be the government was seizing control of how land could be used without compensating the owners for use of this land for governmental purposes.
    Even if they have eminent domain, they still must compensate. I am not sure exactly on what legal basis they decided on controlling land use. There is likely a federal statue for it I assume.

    A deeper issue is the preservation of unique groups of animals and plants and exactly how much do we want to pay and who should do the paying to preserve them.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Latest posts

    Members online

    Total: 324 (members: 75, guests: 249)
    Bear Creek Arsenal Ad
    Top Bottom