I really want to vote for Greg but every time I have talked with him he has shown a complete lack of understanding of wildlife management. When Greg spoke at my office he tried to win me over by telling me he would work to reopen the forest service roads that have been closed or gated so that we could have better spring bear hunting. Most of the bills Greg referenced Bullock vetoing in the podcast I didn't agree with significant portions of either and am glad they were vetoed. sportsman's issues will force me to vote D at least in state elections at some point I am afraid. I appreciate Randy's ability to interview without leading the subject.
Episode 23 : Greg Gianforte
- Thread starter Nameless Range
- Start date
First, you make some very good points and observations, I'd just like to expand a bit on some of those and offer my 2 cents.
Why is it when a road is closed it seems the right can't resist howling about how we are blocking and denying access? Have they ever heard of walking? There are more roads in the public land landscape currently open than most of us can drive in a lifetime if all we did was road hunt 24/7. More should be closed in my opinion, do we honestly need a road in every coulee, on every damn ridge top? For those who say yes, check out Google Earth and tell me there are not already enough accessible roads in the forest service and BLM. It's damn near impossible to walk more than a mile in any direction from a road without hitting another road which means you can never get more than 1/2 mile (7.5 minutes of walking) from a road, that to me is sad. If you're that damn lazy, stay home.
I have no problem voting D in state elections either, however it's not something I reluctantly resign myself to. I look all issues but especially in regard to sportsmen and public land issues, from my lens it seems crystal clear it's the right thing to do. I guess we'll just agree to disagree if others don't see it that way.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
All of this. As a former Forest Service employee this guy is really pissing me off so much so that I may have to turn the podcast off at half way through. Nothing he is saying suggests that he is for federal managagement.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Are you only concerned about frat boys exercising their constitutional rights on campus, or would you suppress the right for all students?
Nowhere in the Constitution doesn't doesn't guarantee unlimited access to carry guns around anywhere you please. Not sure why all you Second Amendment Scholars can't understand that
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Shall not be infringed...that's pretty clear right?
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
My apologies I guess I understood the interpretation as not including a unregulated free-for-all of citizens running around with Firearms. Is that what you think "shall not be infringed means?"
From former Supreme Court Justice, Scalia:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… …Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
I guess he wouldn't agree with your interpretation of shall not be infringed
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I'm not going to go back and listen to the whole episode, but IIRC Mr. Gianforte spoke highly of stream access and a fishing access site near his home.
This doesn't necessarily mean he is against those things, but it is evidence you'd expect to see if those things he said about stream access and FAS weren't entirely true.
Gianforte sued the FWP in 2009 seeking to get rid of that fishing access site near his home.
This doesn't necessarily mean he is against those things, but it is evidence you'd expect to see if those things he said about stream access and FAS weren't entirely true.
Gianforte sued the FWP in 2009 seeking to get rid of that fishing access site near his home.
Last edited:
I haven't seen a thread yet regarding Fin's interview with Governor Bullock, but after listening to that interview this weekend it was a pretty stark contrast between him and Gianforte.
Bullock definitely said a lot of cringeworthy things (especially with regards to the elk shoulder seasons that he loves so much), but it's refreshing to hear a politician with some power speak so adamantly in favor of public land.
Bullock definitely said a lot of cringeworthy things (especially with regards to the elk shoulder seasons that he loves so much), but it's refreshing to hear a politician with some power speak so adamantly in favor of public land.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Obviously I don't have a vote, but if I did, that lawsuit would cost him my vote.
I do have a vote and Bullocks got it, not that Gianforte had a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting it. Gianforte and his commercials creep me out.
katqanna
Well-known member
This is the article the Chronicle did on the story back in 2009. At that point, FWP had not been served yet and it had not gone to court.
I tried finding the district court case online, but nothing, so tomorrow morning I will see about getting a copy to see the exact language in it.
I tried finding the district court case online, but nothing, so tomorrow morning I will see about getting a copy to see the exact language in it.
Yup, no vote here
Big Foot
Active member
I find it funny Art Wittich was Gianforte's attorney. Birds of a feather.
The Gianforte camp is really working on damage control. What is it with rich out of state people who move here and then want to change things, kind of like Jennifer Fielder, how do we keep electing these people.
I think it has a lot to do with their stance on the 2nd Amendment. Regardless what their stance is on Public lands, hunting access, stream access, habitat, etc. all they have to say is (I'm a lifetime members of the NRA) and in Montana, they're elected, unfortunately.
katqanna
Well-known member
I just got home from work, stopped by the District Clerks Office and bought myself a copy of the filing. I will get this scanned, loaded to the website and posted for y'all this evening.
I first have a call into a county office to clarify some information my spidey senses are wondering about.
edit: it was suggested that I wait to put this online until I have the other documents I am picking up tomorrow morning.
I first have a call into a county office to clarify some information my spidey senses are wondering about.
edit: it was suggested that I wait to put this online until I have the other documents I am picking up tomorrow morning.
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
Well, my suspicions were correct. The Gianfortes owned the land before they created the East Gallatin LLC. They bought it in 2005 under trust names, then in 2006 transferred it to themselves by individual names, created the LLC in 2008, transferred the land to the LLC in Oct. They filed against FWP in May 2009 stating they just found out about the easement in 2008. In the online Lee article, Gianforte is quoted as saying, "his family first learned of the state easement when they received a FWP letter in 2008 and subsequently discovered that the title company had missed it when preparing the deed for his family's purchase of the property."
I personally dont see how that is possible. I went to the courthouse this morning and bought copies of their deeds, the 1993 FWP Recreation Site Easement, the following 1997 Certificate of Survey which has a blow up of the easement. No way they could have missed that, nor the fact the public was accessing that easement for 3 years before they filed against FWP.
The Complaint filed states:
All the Gianforte documents and maps are linked here for you to see for yourselves.
I personally dont see how that is possible. I went to the courthouse this morning and bought copies of their deeds, the 1993 FWP Recreation Site Easement, the following 1997 Certificate of Survey which has a blow up of the easement. No way they could have missed that, nor the fact the public was accessing that easement for 3 years before they filed against FWP.
The Complaint filed states:
and sought to
All the Gianforte documents and maps are linked here for you to see for yourselves.
Last edited:
Well, my suspicions were correct. The Gianfortes owned the land before they created the East Gallatin LLC. They bought it in 2005 under trust names, then in 2006 transferred it to themselves by individual names, created the LLC in 2008, transferred the land to the LLC in Oct. They filed against FWP in May 2009 stating they just found out about the easement in 2008. In the online Lee article, Gianforte is quoted as saying, "his family first learned of the state easement when they received a FWP letter in 2008 and subsequently discovered that the title company had missed it when preparing the deed for his family's purchase of the property."
I personally dont see how that is possible. I went to the courthouse this morning and bought copies of their deeds, the 1993 FWP Recreation Site Easement, the following 1997 Certificate of Survey which has a blow up of the easement. No way they could have missed that, nor the fact the public was accessing that easement for 3 years before they filed against FWP.
and sought to
All the Gianforte documents and maps are linked here for you to see for yourselves.
This is great information Kat. Nice work!
katqanna
Well-known member
Thanks Ben. Hope it helps to show yet another attempt to wrest the public trust from the public. In my opinion, not the kind of person we need as governor of Montana or any public office, for that matter.
Gianforte said, "his 'opponents are not encumbered by the truth.' " Truth? I personally like to free the documents and let them speak for themselves.
Kat,
These documents blow a pretty large hole through the campaign's spin on what happened, what the Gianforte's knew, and what fabrications their lawyer spun up around the issue. It's incredibly damning stuff, especially about the existing easement being listed in the survey, which Gianforte & Wittich claimed didn't exist. I don't think I can understate how much this informaton changes the tone of the conversation.
Similar threads
