by simonov » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:04 pm
squishy wrote:I'm leaning toward this being a good idea...
by simonov » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:06 pm
ksolem wrote:And you can bet that the administrative fee to get the free permit will be $20.00 soon enough.
by sierraman » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:57 am
by ksolem » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:12 am
redneck wrote: ...even access to government-owned lands.[/color]
by Matt Worster » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:45 am
ksolem wrote:Public lands, my friend. Public lands.
Not "government owned."
It is time for the custodians, employees of the public, to learn the difference.
by Bob Burd » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:12 am
Matt Worster wrote:I was interested in who "owned" the NP land, public or the government. That "trust" part takes it beyond what I understand. Is it similar to holding a trust for a minor? The party that holds the asset in trust can essentially act as owner?
Not that I object to this arrangement. I am only trying to understand it.
by Palisades79 » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:01 pm
by Diggler » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:57 pm
by MoapaPk » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:03 pm
Bob Burd wrote:It seems semantics, really. Isn't anything owned by the US government in effect owned by the citizens of the US? Like the national debt? Or the White House? Or BLM lands? But the laws that we've allowed to be enacted give the government agencies the authority to manage and govern these things.
by simonov » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:04 pm
Bob Burd wrote:It seems semantics, really. Isn't anything owned by the US government in effect owned by the citizens of the US? Like the national debt? Or the White House? Or BLM lands?
by MCGusto » Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:56 am
squishy wrote:I had stood at the gate to federal property with a loaded M16, ordered to shoot anyone trying to get through...
by Misha » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:24 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests