Contact Your U.S. Senators & Urge They Support S. 3525 the ‘Sportsmen’s Act of 2012’

Contact Your U.S. Senators & Urge They Support S. 3525 the ‘Sportsmen's Act of 2012

Charlotte, NC –-(  In the waning days of the 112th Congress, there is an outside chance that the U.S. Senate could vote on a sportsmen's package–S. 3525, “The Sportsmen's Act of 2012.”

S. 3525 is an essential piece of legislation focused on the expansion and enhancement of hunting, recreational fishing and shooting on federal public land.

This bill is a compilation of 19 bipartisan bills important to the sportsmen's community.  In addition to promoting land access, the bill would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to prevent this and future administrations from using the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the right of hunters, shooters and anglers to use traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.  The bill would amend the law to clarify that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate shot, bullets or sport fishing equipment.

The bill also allows for the importation of polar bears legally taken from approved populations in Canada before the 2008 ban.

As we previously reported, H.R. 4089–the “Sportsmen's Act of 2012”–passed the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17, 2012, by a bipartisan vote of 274 to 146.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to support S. 3525 should it come up for a vote. 

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the “Write your Representatives” tool at You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

  • 2 thoughts on “Contact Your U.S. Senators & Urge They Support S. 3525 the ‘Sportsmen’s Act of 2012’

    1. No way! AmmoLand, this is a bad bill! If you own property with a creek running through it, or a pond – beware!

      The NRA is a joke. They talk plenty about 'Sportsmans rights' while compromising away our Second Amendment Rights.

      The NRA's long legacy of chipping away at our 2nd Amendment rights began with their support of the National Firearms Act in 1938, and continues on with this shameful promotion. The GOA is the only 'no-compromise' gun lobby anymore.

    2. GOA has a different take on this bill.
      Thursday, 15 November 2012 11:33

      Written by Jason Weiser

      Senate to vote on the Federal Land Seizure Act on Thursday

      Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) — who is “F” rated by Gun Owners of America — is pushing a “hunting” bill that authorizes the Obama administration almost unlimited power to seize private lands for “environmental” purposes.

      Anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled Tester’s bill for a vote, and it will probably take place on Thursday.

      ACTION: It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and ask them to OPPOSE S. 3525. Click here to tell them that the modest conservation gains allowed in the bill are totally offset by giving unelected bureaucrats the authority to steal land from hunters and private property owners.


      (1) When the “wetlands” provisions of the Clean Water Act were originally enacted, no one could have foreseen that a landowner would go to prison for applying clean dirt to a junkyard adjacent to a sewer, which was determined to be “wetlands.” But environmentalists have been brilliant in taking seemingly innocuous programs and massively expanding them through fraudulent interpretations or tiny loopholes.

      (2) S. 3525 has “sweeteners.” It allows archery bows to be transported through national parks under very limited circumstances, although Obama could do this by administrative fiat. It also allows, but does not mandate, Pittman-Robertson funds to be used for target ranges. But none of these small discretionary provisions offset the potential damage this does to the rights of individual landowners.

      (3) THE ISSUE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY: If this is the Democrats’ sop to gun owners, it may make it a lot more difficult to secure national concealed carry reciprocity or to stop anti-gun measures and treaties.


      The central problem with the bill is that it allows seizure of private lands for “aquatic habitats” [Sections 201(8) and 204 (d) (2)]. The definition of this term is limitless and includes seizure of lands in order to “protec[t] the quality and quantity of water sources” and to “serv[e] as a buffer protecting the aquatic environment.” [Section 201 (2)]

      Thus, a factory that “pollutes” can be seized to protect an “aquatic habitat.” The only real limit on seizure in Section 204 is the requirement that the government manage the seized property “in accordance with the purposes of this subtitle.”


      The National Fish Habitat Board consists of 27 members. The initial members (Obama appointees) select the remaining members. Thus while the “commercial fishing industry” supposedly has a representative, you can bet that that fisherman is an Obama-supporter and will support his agenda.

      The board then enters into “partnerships” with, inter alia, outside groups. And you can bet that every liberal environmental organization in the country will now be feeding at this pig sty. The outside groups recommend fish habitat programs and plans for seizing private lands.

      Bottom line: This will give immense powers to unelected bureaucrats — a clear violation of the Separation of Powers which our Founders implemented as a way of protecting our rights.

      WHAT ABOUT SECTION 211 (e) (2)?

      This supposedly requires the consent of landowners prior to having their lands seized. But, note the sneaky loophole: Section 211 (e) (2) applies only to property that is being seized with federal funds and, under Section 204 (e), half the funds need to come from non-federal sources.

      So while this section is put forward as a “protection,” it actually doesn’t provide total immunity because the government can take a land owner’s property using non-federal funds — and there is no protection in the bill against that.

    Comments are closed.