August 4, 2009

Post a Hunting Photo, Go to Jail

A case to be heard by Supreme Court of the United States might result in felony charges and jail time for any person, outlet or entity that shows or sells depictions of hunting activities.

According to the Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA), the case of United States of America v. Robert J. Stevens could expose a private gun owner who is shown online with game taken legally in one state to criminal charges in another jurisdiction where taking the game isn’t legal.

Taking, selling or publishing images of hunting, fishing or trapping could mean felony charges and jail time, for

The Third Circuit struck down a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty."

Courtesy, Robert Stevens

The Third Circuit struck down a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty." The statute does not ban acts of animal cruelty themselves (and so this case is not about such actions). It bans images of animals being hurt, wounded or killed if the depicted conduct is illegal under federal law or illegal under the state law either (i) where the creation of the depiction occurs, or (ii) where the depiction is sold or possessed. That means that a picture taken of the killing of an animal during a hunt (perfectly lawful where it occurred) could be a federal felony crime if that picture is sold or possessed somewhere in the United States where hunting (or the particular type of hunting, ie, crossbow) is prohibited.

journalists

photographers

magazine publishers

television show hosts and producers

Web content publishers

artists

equipment manufacturers

stock photography agencies

outdoor organizations

book authors and sellers

sales representatives

public relations agencies

and hunters and anglers, in general.

 

The government's case against Stevens poses a serious threat to those who produce depictions of hunting and fishing activities, either personally or privately.

Robert J. Stevens of Virginia was convicted of criminal charges for producing and selling films about dogs. Stevens' conviction was overturned as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said the law relied upon to convict Stevens was unconstitutional.

Stevens may still go to prison. The case is now being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, according to POMA.

The Third Circuit struck down a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty." 18 USC 48. The statute does not ban acts of animal cruelty themselves (and so this case is not about such actions). It bans images of animals being hurt, wounded or killed if the depicted conduct is illegal under federal law or illegal under the state law either (i) where the creation of the depiction occurs, or (ii) where the depiction is sold or possessed.

That means that a picture taken of the killing of an animal during a hunt (perfectly lawful where it occurred) could be a federal felony crime if that picture is sold or possessed somewhere in the United States where hunting (or the particular type of hunting, ie, crossbow) is prohibited.

As the court of appeals explained, the law now makes it a federal felony to buy a picture of bullfighting in Spain or an image shot by a journalist of a hunter or angler taking a shot at a legal game animal or catching a fish -- if that action is unlawful anywhere in the U.S.

The law creates an exception if a jury finds that the images have "serious" value. The government defined "serious" as "significant and of great import." The result accordingly is that all depictions of animal killings that might be unlawful somewhere in the U.S. are now presumptively federal felonies, with the only hope of protection being that a jury in San Francisco (or wherever an eager prosecutor wants to go) agrees that the images are "significant and of great import."

The government and Humane Society, which is pushing this issue hard, are trying to paint this as a case about dog fighting, since that incites peoples' emotions. It's about the First Amendment.

Mr. Stevens, is a 69-year-old hunter and Pit Bull dog lover from Southern Virginia. He is a published author. He has no criminal record at all -- other than this conviction. He has been sentenced to more than three years (37 months) in prison for making films. Nothing else.

A prosecutor hauled him to Pittsburgh, perhaps because obtaining a conviction in rural Virginia would be difficult, to prosecute him for: one documentary he made about training catch dogs for hunting (called "Catch Dogs"); and two documentaries he made about Pit Bulls and their fighting history.

For that, Stevens faces spending three years in federal prison.

Of particular concern to the hunting and fishing industry is the fact Stevens' prosecution rested on his film "Catch Dogs", which showed how dogs are trained to help catch prey (wild boar, etc.). The film shows a dog making a mistake in trying to catch a hog, but does so with Stevens talking over the images about the training mistake and explaining what should be done to teach dogs to catch prey properly.

There is no allegation that Stevens engaged in dog fighting or any acts of animal cruelty. Nor is it even alleged that the images depicted in his films were illegal when taken. Furthermore, he did not take the images himself, but edited together films taken by others -- films that were recorded in Japan, where the conduct is perfectly legal, and from historic films from the 60s and 70s in rural America.

To be sure, the latter two films contain extensive images of dog fighting. But Stevens is not a dog fighter, he opposes dog fighting, but loves the traits in Pit Bulls that made them fighters.

Stevens' films were made to document the strength, endurance, and similar features of Pit Bulls to support his argument (made at length in his book) that Pit Bulls make great hunting dogs, protection dogs, and schutzhund (strength contests) dogs.

A brief of the circuit opinion follows below.

An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Comments (63)

Please forgive me bear1. I see now that the poster is noted at the end of the message. I was commenting on the post by Robert J.

Posted by: Nails&dynamite | June 23, 2010 10:15 PM    Report this comment

Regarding comments by bear1 on 6 August 2009:

"Politics is about compromise, if you sit on the sidelines and vote for a third candidate who will not win, that's your right however the worse candidate might win... I would like to see more political parties to support a wider range of views."

This appears self contradictory.

'You have to vote for a main party even if it is the lesser of two evils or the enemy will win.' (Please forgive my paraphrasing.)

Answer: This is the twisted circular logic of the two party system. No where is it part of the design of our government. It is an ivention of politicians to get the vote of those who were too confused by all the candidates and issues. They could then just vote for the animal symbol and party line that was most emotionally appealing. Really. It is recorded history. You can research it.

It also allows them to combine their resources against lone rational individuals such as Ron Paul. It is sad that it continues to work. It allows them to divide, distract and manipulate the voter with inflamatory wedge issues, while special interests continue to be served. While these issues may be important, solutions are delayed or avoided on issues which an overwhleming majority might otherwise agree upon.

Posted by: Nails&dynamite | June 23, 2010 10:03 PM    Report this comment

Could this be used against the C.M.P.and by default the U.S.Congress who at the turn of the 20th century created the D.C.M.? They want to be creative,lets see how creative normal U.S.citizens can be ! I'm sure there were prints of hunting by the D.C.M/C.M.P.to promote the sale of surplus U.S.rifles.What about the states politicians who constantly promote tourism thru their Hunting+Fishing oppertunities in the state? Just a thought!!! Gary B.

Posted by: gbeams | February 11, 2010 1:56 PM    Report this comment

Gaviota and Col. Novack, As I told another poster , you need to refrain from having a "Battle of Wits with these unarmed assailants". There are few history majors or servicemen that would disagree with your views on the 2nd amendment. Only the media and lefties will enter the battle unarmed. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | September 7, 2009 11:04 AM    Report this comment

Please note that "Humane Society," as mentioned in the original article, refers to the "Humane Society of the United States," or HSUS. This is an animal rights advocacy group, and is NOT related to your local county humane society.

This distinction is important, because most county humane societies are friends of hunters.

Posted by: StanM | August 24, 2009 7:19 PM    Report this comment

I would like to compliment Gaviota and Col. Novack on their eloquent posts. You guys are wise beyond your years and know just what to say and how to say it. Your great Americans!

Posted by: Robert J | August 19, 2009 6:47 AM    Report this comment

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Liberals were those who demanded MORE freedom than the Conservatives wanted to allow them. When the Liberals got the freedoms they demanded, then they demanded power. When they got their power, the Liberals demanded that everyone else surrender their freedom, which is where we are today. In fairness to liberals, it doesn't matter who is in power, they all demand that freedom be curtailed. It's the nature of political power.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 18, 2009 4:58 PM    Report this comment

Our comments are triggered by REAL lawsuits by REAL liberal entities. When do you see the Centrists or Conservative right filing lawsuits that take away the right to bear arms?.David C., take your liberalized education to the streets of downtown Chicago at midnight and see if YOUR approach will get a free coffee. Be careful though, as Canovack has stated:"Be Prepared", and we don't mean with verbage. A 45 might suffice. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | August 15, 2009 11:51 AM    Report this comment

Hey, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get me. My aluminum-foil hat didn't quite have the adequate shielding that I need, so I dumped it and went for a 18/8 stainless steel collander. It looks cooler, too. And it has those neat little holes to hang my beer goggles on, and everything...

Seriously, though, why does the quality of debate always have to get dragged down to the 6th grade level, David? Unless I miss my guess, you're not a doctor or a psychiatrist, so why the schoolyard taunts? Why label and libel your friends here with a pop-psychology pseudodiagnosis of "paranoia?" Why can't you just address the merits of the argument and keep it in the realm of ideas, principles, and philosophy?

You haven't lost the debate until you take your ball and run home. Stay with us, keep up your end, use your God-given wits and wisdom, and we'll all learn something new and better.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 14, 2009 10:19 PM    Report this comment

I have been in this battle over the Second Amendment since 1968, when the infamous Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) became law. It was part of the paranoia that ran rampant after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. GCA 68 was fashioned by Senator Thomas Dodd, the father of current Senator Christopher Dodd.
As many have heard me tell this before, old Tom Dodd got his ideas from the Nazi's Nuremburg Laws that disarmed German civilians and most especially disenfranchised the Jews.
Tom was a minor staffer during the Nuremburg Trials that followed World War II.

Now, as many of these readers have also heard me relate my experience with the Illinois State Police, one officer who ultimately did agree with me concerning the right to keep and bear arms, here's another little tidbit. The younger, inexperienced officer of the two with whom I was dealing, made a comment that I was acting from paranoia, because I insisted on my constitutional rights. My words to that young upstart trooper were these: "Young man, what you may choose to call paranoia, in reality is something completely different. It also starts with the letter P, but the word is PREPARED.....as in the Boy Scout Motto: BE PREPARED!" I then went on to lecture him concerning the US Constitution and his waste of my time and his pursuing an unconstitutional Illinois State Law, when he could likely have done some real police work in the two and a half hours that we screwed around on the side of I-55 South.

So.....DAVID C, it isn't paranoia. It's about being prepared and defending a constitutional right! I don't know your age, DAVID, but it matters not, since from what you say, you appear to have sampled few of life's experiences.

Posted by: canovack | August 14, 2009 1:18 PM    Report this comment

Now I get it. Every argument always ends with the liberals wanting to take your guns away. Paranoia.com

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 14, 2009 11:23 AM    Report this comment

We still have to realize that the Feds are going to EXTREME lengths to try and rid us of our rights under the Constitution. We are not powerless to stop the liberalist trend. We are the sleeping DOGS the leftists should leave asleep.Next comes "The United States of America v. NRA et al

Posted by: Sharps | August 14, 2009 12:09 AM    Report this comment

All this quoting of sections of the law and wondering why no hunter has been prosecuted yet...hmmm. Does David C not see that these radicals have to start somewhere. This is the test case. If they can get a favorable outcome, then hunters watch out. This is similar to the new partnership between Mexico and former Arizona Napaliano (spelling). This is simply a way to go around the 2nd Amendment and head into "World Rule" or "World Law" or simply gun control. These things always start off "innocently".

Posted by: dgray64 | August 13, 2009 11:24 PM    Report this comment

David C - But in spite of all those "protections," the man was still put on trial and convicted. The prohibition applies whenever the depicted conduct is “illegal under Federal law” or is illegal under “the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place...“ It wasn't illegal when it was done and filmed, it wasn't illegal when he acquired it, copied it, edited it, or sold it. He still had to spend a great deal of money (presumably) to defend himself and appeal his wrongful conviction. So the "robust exception" was of very little help to him.

Now, ask yourself what would happen if Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS ever succeeded in persuading a prosecutor to work at getting someone equally wrongfully convicted under this law of intentionally killing a deer. Wayne and Co. insist that any killing of any animal for any reason is murder, no different than killing a human being. They've said so many times. This was a bad case, a bad trial, and a bad prosecution by a bad prosecutor of an innocent man. This lawyer badly needs to be Nifonged.

Posted by: Lee W | August 13, 2009 9:50 PM    Report this comment

My earlier post was too long for one submission

As a further safeguard against malicious prosecution the law has a robust exception policy, Section 48 excepts “religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic” material only if it has “serious * * * value.” 18 U.S.C. § 48(b). As the court of appeals explained (Pet. App. 5a-6a), Section 48’s primary target was “crush videos,” which “feature women crushing small animals with their feet” in a manner designed to incite sexual arousal. 145 CONG. REC. E1067-01 (May 24, 1999) (Rep. Gallegly); H.R. Rep. No. 397, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1999); 145 CONG. REC. S15220-03 (Nov. 19, 1999) (Sen. Smith); Pet. 3-4, 13. “[T]o ensure that the Act does not chill protected speech,” President Clinton’s signing statement explained that he would “broadly construe the Act’s exception” and would “interpret * * * the Act

So your depiction of animal cruelty would have to be in violation of federal or state law for this law to apply. No lawful hunting photo or video could be prosecuted under this stature. Further the appeals court sided with the defendant!

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 12, 2009 5:47 PM    Report this comment

Pbs_goat you are joking right? You don’t think the exact wording of the law is the issue? The law is the issue. Is it an example of some extremist group getting their agenda into law? “Overly broad interpretation”? What makes you think the law is being unfairly applied if you do not even know what the law says? Honestly the way some of the people who post online play so fast and loose with the facts is eye-opening. Your example of possibly being guilty of a crime by simply possessing a picture of an illegal activity is incorrect and I would direct you to the actual law so that you can be informed.

The law, “…criminalizes the “knowing[] creat[ion], [sale], or possess[ion] [of] a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce,” but only when done so “for commercial gain.” 18 U.S.C. § 48(a) (2006).” Further the law defines the depiction of animal cruelty as, “…any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” Ibid. The prohibition applies whenever the depicted conduct is “illegal under Federal law” or is illegal under “the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, “

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 12, 2009 5:46 PM    Report this comment

"David C" - I don't think the exact wording of the law is the issue here; it's the overly broad interpretation of it that is of concern.

Under our system, we count on the courts to interpret the laws passed by the legislature. Anytime somebody could go to jail for possessing a picture of a legal activity - that's repression with a capital "R".

It's my guess that hunters haven't been prosecuted under this law, because - up until now - nobody with a functioning brain would have expected any court to convict them.

Posted by: pbs_goat | August 12, 2009 5:06 PM    Report this comment

Just out of curiosity has anyone read the law in question? Sharps do you even know if the law would allow for the prosecution of a law abiding hunter as you describe? Why haven’t hunters been prosecuted under this law? You know of course that the instance we are discussing is not about a hunter.

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 12, 2009 4:18 PM    Report this comment

This could perhaps be likened to the McCarthy trials. G men would be seen skulking in the alley ways ,waiting for an avid hunter to show pictures of his 8 point symmetric Elk to his friends in the coffee shop. They would question him as to WHERE he shot it and if his license was current at the time. Without proof ,perhaps he would go to jail for 37 months. LOL. These lawyers are making a mockery out of Constitutional law.Many of us fought to protect these laws and will not stand idly by while these punks out of law school try and bend Constitutional law to the height of idiocy! Millions of illegals are entering the country and the Government does nothing. One man makes a film and they throw out free speech and ALL COMMON SENSE to prosecute him. Methinks the extremists are not in the Republican Party right now.They are boldly displaying their ignorance of "Constitutional Law" with the likes of David C. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | August 12, 2009 3:38 PM    Report this comment

I was hoping that Gaviota was tuned in to this latest upstart comment. I am not familiar with David C, since I haven't seen any of his postings in this forum until now. From what I can gather, David C has some trouble distinguishing LAWS from the supreme LAW OF THE LAND.....THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Many, if not most, of the regular contributors to this forum are veterans and public servants who have sweated and bled in the protection of the Constitution.
For somebody, whom we've never heard from before, to come into this forum and insult us with his lack of understanding of law versus constitution, is totally inappropriate. We await his apology for his upstart comments.

Posted by: canovack | August 10, 2009 6:46 PM    Report this comment

(Cont'd)
"Your disrespect for the constitution is a contemptuous slap to all our forefathers who fought for your freedoms."

When Congressmen and judges enact and uphold laws that violate the principles contained in our Constitution, THAT is the ultimate form of disrespect and contempt for our forefathers, our Constitution, our Republic, and our human rights. It is, IMHO, an act of deep respect, even reverence, for the Constitution and the principles that it enumerates, to not only refuse to obey unconstitutional laws, but to actively fight for their nullification. As someone who has served, and who's father, grandfather, & both sons have served to fight for our freedoms, I certainly do take offense at disrespect for the Constitution, and regard it as a slap to MY face, as well as to those of the founding fathers. That's why I fight against and refuse to obey bad laws. My oath of enlistment contained the phrase "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I still am bound by that oath.

Further more, haven't the lessons of 20th Century history taught us what happens when people abrogate their responsibilities to their fellow man and blindly obey the immoral, illegal dictates of their government? How many more millions have to die before THAT lesson sinks in?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 10, 2009 6:38 PM    Report this comment

DISRESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION???

David C, are you brand new to this board? Was that your first post? If so, I can easily understand your profound confusion and disorientation. If not, all I can say is you haven't been paying even cursory attention to many posts on GunReports.com which deal with this exact problem. So, let's fisk your post for gross conceptual errors.

"...casual disregard for our laws and the convenience many of you disregard the constitution..."

If I understand the sense of your somewhat unusual grammatic construction, there are two separate functions under discussion here: LAWS and THE CONSTITUTION Disregard for law is most emphatically NOT the same as disregard for the Constitution. There are a great many laws on the books at all levels of government that are indisputably unconstitutional. Unlike most Americans today, I have actually read the Constitution, and I understand how it serves to define and limit our government's authority. It is a matter of black-letter law, exemplified in Marbury vs. Madison that all laws and acts of the Government are subordinate to the Constitution, and that any such which contravene the limits of the Constitution are null and void.

Gaviota
(Cont'd)

Posted by: Lee W | August 10, 2009 6:36 PM    Report this comment

I'm surprised at the casual disregard for our laws and the convenience many of you disregard the constitution that has been the bedrock of our great country for over 200 years. Your disrespect for the constitution is a contemptuous slap to all our forefathers who fought for your freedoms.

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 10, 2009 10:56 AM    Report this comment

I'm not sure I get the drift of your comment, Sharps. Can you please clarify so Old Farts like me and Gaviota can understand what you're saying?

Posted by: canovack | August 10, 2009 10:19 AM    Report this comment

How else can these *^&^%^& lawyers JUSTIFY their existence? Gaviota, don't talk about it, just do it.Disobey any law you wish. If there are no witnesses did a felony occur?.LOL
Canovack, Do you have a bottle of tums by your desk?? "Insanity is the act of repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".(Einstein) "Our Congress has gone insane along with the lawyers for the prosecution!" Sharps Semper Fi.

Posted by: Sharps | August 9, 2009 10:54 PM    Report this comment

The gun-rights community can take credit for some of the best debate, logic, and rhetoric of any group in the US, as is exemplified here and on other blogs. I can give you an even better example. Remember when Rosie O'Donnell had her talk show, and when Tom Selleck was her guest, she attacked him for appearing in NRA magazine ads? Her claim was that by appearing in the NRA's ads, he endorsed every single (extremist) thing the NRA ever said, wrote, did, and stood for. Tom did his best to reason with her, but of course he failed, since it's impossible to reason someone out of a position she didn't reason herself into. Anyway, within a day or two, the gun-rights community accurately pointed out her rank hypocrisy by revealing that she was currently appearing in K-Mart ads, so by her own standards, she must approve of and endorse the fact that K-Mart is the single largest retailer of firearms and ammunition in the US. Within a week, she and K-Mart parted ways under less than amicable terms. She done lost her a WHOLE lot of money.

I encourage my friends here to look up the subject of "logical fallacy" on the web, and learn to spot the falsehoods being peddled by the Obammunists and others who suffer the pangs of a poor history education. Or a poor education, period. A good place to start might be www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies. They've got a list of 42 of the most common fallacies, and some excellent explanations and examples.

You might want to look at it as another knife in your belt, or another round in your magazine when you have to deal with grass-eaters or fence-sitters.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 7, 2009 9:22 PM    Report this comment

I think it should be pointed out that there are two organizations often referred to as the "Humane Society": the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is an anti-hunting activist organization; and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which is the original, protective agency. I believe the references earlier are about the HSUS, not the SPCA (which does attempt to avoid euthenasia).

Posted by: flashguy | August 7, 2009 4:32 PM    Report this comment

I think it should be pointed out that there are two organizations often referred to as the "Humane Society": the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is an anti-hunting activist organization; and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which is the original, protective agency. I believe the references earlier are about the HSUS, not the SPCA (which does attempt to avoid euthenasia).

Posted by: flashguy | August 7, 2009 4:31 PM    Report this comment

Amen Col Novack, you have said it like it is, as one time I was A dem, then got smarter and became a Reb, and have been thinking of becomming a Indy, but I want to vote for the person that believes in Our Constitution, and our Rights, and I guess I was alittle too upset to get that agross in my prier post here and just rattled on instead. Thanks Again, God Bless.
God Bless America and Our Troops Past, Present, and Future. Keeping to My Oath, Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry

Posted by: bear1 | August 7, 2009 10:55 AM    Report this comment

The "Humane Society" sure has a lot to complain about. They are the one largest killer of dogs in the United States. If they get a dog in their system, they charge a fee equal to or higher then the price of a pure bred dog to adopt it. If no one wants to pay that much for a mutt or can not pay, they kill the dog.

I contacted the humane society about a person who was starving a herd of horses, and had several studs that had been allowed to run together and fight to the point they were all so badly injured they were in serious danger of dying. Their response was that unless I would pay for the investigation they could do nothing. If I could have paid for the investigation, I would have done something with out getting these idiots involved. And yes, I am one of those terrorist threats that cling to God, the Bible, the Constitution, and have a gun close at all times. This may be the time that the true purpose of the Second Amendment may need to be exercised, and it wasn't to hunt. It was to protect the nation from an oppressive government.

Posted by: olderndirtcop | August 7, 2009 10:20 AM    Report this comment

On party loyalty, I would say if you are running for office, you need to pick the party you are best aligned with. As a voter, I can pick the individual I am most aligned with.

I am going to vote for the guy who knows and respects the Constitution before anything else, after that someone who doesn't let religious belief overrule empirical evidence. aka 'believes' in science. That is why I think Bush Jr was off my reservation. Don't take that to think I believe BHO is more in-line. They are both just as far from center in my eye.

I don't believe in party loyalty because none of these parties represent me. McCain in 2000 could have represented me (well enough) and Ron Paul in 2008 (as far as presidents go.)

"I would like to see more political parties to support a wider range of views." Amen to that.

Posted by: computererds | August 7, 2009 9:43 AM    Report this comment

Damnit-- I wrote out a full reply and it didn't post and I lost it. I guess this one is going to be a hell of a lot shorter.

Whoa--I was not putting Bush Jr in the same group as Tim McVeigh-- I was only saying he was a registered Republican, and separately, that one could say that Bush Jr. was as far right as BHO is left.

From the far right, I am called a leftist (for supporting science and the Constitution,) and from the left called a conservative for the exact same reasons.

I'm going to post this to make sure I don't lose it again.

Posted by: computererds | August 7, 2009 9:29 AM    Report this comment

I have been reading the post on this and I got this to say, when they pass laws that protect the child molesters and the rapist and the scum of the earth, but will not protect the families of one of our fallen Troops, Heros, as they are being buried, an those Veterans that are disabled from the pinko Big Mouths and their garbage mouths and assults and call it freedom of speach, for the pinkos but a crime if the scum is bad mouthed, now we have the white house wanting neighbors and friends turning in anyone that questions the health care bill, now here is a case that is a blatten violation of the 1st amendment of the constatution.
I really don't give a RATS Butt who was In office when this totally violation of the Constitution was passed to be used against this man it is Totally Wrong and violates the !st Amendment of the Constitution.
Our Constitutional rights are under attack like never before,and I don't care what party you be long to as long as you beleave in the Costitution and our rights, because we are in a fight to keep our rights, the rights I took an Oath to protect and went and fought for in the Army in Vietnam and became Disabled for and will fight to keep.Nuff Said.
God Bless America and Our Troops Past, Present, and Future
standing By My Oath, Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry

Posted by: bear1 | August 6, 2009 11:35 PM    Report this comment

Some people here will remember the long and passionate debate between Col. Novack (canovack) and myself (Gaviota) on the subject of party loyalty. Canovack's perfectly valid point was that if you don't support your party, the other party will win and your agenda will suffer, and my point was that if you support the party at any cost, the party can, unimpeded, continue it's wayward path like a freight train taking a dirt road. These arguments apply to all of the wide spectrum of politics, to Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, greens, and anarchists.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The only politics that matter are the politics of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any party, any politician, any political philosophy, any law, statute, ordinance, rule or act that does not conform to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution is null, void, invalid, invidious, and anaethma to truth, honor, dignity, and the rights of Man.

I hope that my intensity of feelings about this can come through without my screaming curses and imprecations down upon the heads of my readers. I hold that BOTH parties, Rep & Dem, and BOTH political philosophies, Lib & Con, have gone off the airport and are now barrelling at uncontrolled high speed across the countryside like an airliner trying to crash land with it's wheels up. None of them understand what I've been trying to say for years:

1. Loyalty to party is WRONG.

2. Loyalty to politician is WRONG.

3. Loyalty to political philosophy is WRONG.

4. Loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America is RIGHT, JUST, AND FAIR TO EVERYONE.


Thank you all for your patience.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 6, 2009 5:47 PM    Report this comment

I did miss your point because I was typing when you made your point. I didn't read it until I had hit submit. I wasn't only making referance you your comment though. It was on everyone who makes things that shouldn't be partisan.

As one of those who did vote for the 'too liberal' McCain, (and I mean that in 2000 too) I would have said extremists had taken over the Republican Party under Bush Jr. It's all a matter of perspective; we just don't need to bring up things to divide us when we are working to a common goal.

Posted by: computererds | August 6, 2009 3:05 PM    Report this comment

You missed my point, there is a difference between having crazies in your party and supporting the crazies in your party. The radicals are in charge of the Democratic Party right now. Democrats who disagree with them need to stand up to them instead of distancing themselves from them. If you care about your political party, you don't want to see it torn up by radicals. I have found Democrats would rather vote for a bad Democrat than a good Republican. Please don't miss the point this time, I'm tired of repeating it.

Posted by: Robert J | August 6, 2009 2:36 PM    Report this comment

No one said "it's them, not me" and no one said they "voted for BHO". In fact I specified that I did not, thinking that maybe you could see what I was saying for what it is. These straw man arguments don't make sense. You don't have any enemies here. No one 'against you' (so you think apparently) has said anything except this is not a partisan issue. Some peoples willingness to demonize the people on your own side is amazing.

This is exactly what I was talking in the first place. Your demonizing people on your side.

What are you going to tell me next? That since I employ people who could Democrats that I am guilty of supporting left-wing fanaticism via the possibility that the money I paid them might end up being donated to a Democratic candidate, and someone else who supported that candidate supports the "humane society?"

If that does make sense to you and you think that I should weed the Democrats out of my staff-- remember that Timothy McVeigh was a registered Republican. You get crazies on ANY side.

Posted by: computererds | August 6, 2009 1:52 PM    Report this comment

David C, the extremists are not running the Republican Party. There is a difference between people disagreeing on issues in a party and letting extremists take over the party. As you remember last election, many conservatives did not vote for McCain because he was too liberal. You can belong to a political party and disagree on issues, my point is if extremists take over your party you don't continue to support/vote for them and then go hide behind a tree whinning that you do not want to be grouped with them. I'm here all day for political lessons if you have anymore questions. I love your alibi comment Col. Novack!

Posted by: Robert J | August 6, 2009 1:45 PM    Report this comment

I agree with Lee W. of Aug.4-09.(top of page) Unconstitutional laws shouldn't be followed since they are unconstitutional they AREN'T laws. The whole country won't do this but if a large enough group did it might make a difference. People are very hard to organize and makes this scenario practically impossible. This is ALL insanity. Has anyone noticed? Ray P.

Posted by: dont know | August 6, 2009 1:31 PM    Report this comment

Amen.....Robert J! I am not surprised to find there are a lot of people who voted for BHO, who are now assuming a low profile out of shame or guilt. To them, I say: Well, you got the change that you voted for, now either live
with it or make up for your mistake in the next election. It is not wise, however, to post comments that attempt to alibi out of one's responsibility for having been a part of the current problem.

Posted by: canovack | August 6, 2009 12:59 PM    Report this comment

Robert J does that mean since you are a Republican you support all positions espoused by the extremists in your party?

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 6, 2009 12:53 PM    Report this comment

It makes me laugh when liberals pronounce that they don't feel that way so don't lump them in with the crazies. Well, unfortunately if you voted Democrat and supported Democrats in the election it doesn't matter how YOU feel, you supported a party who supports these crazies. Don't try and hide behind the premises that you are not all that way and shouldn't be stereotyped. The hard left are in control of the Democratic Party and if you support the Democratic Party you are just as guilty of this rubish as they are. If you backed the wrong horse during the last election man up and admit that you did your part to destroy our second amendment rights. If you don't agree on these issues with your party, leave the party but please don't make excuses saying its them and not me. If you support them your just as guilty.

Posted by: Robert J | August 6, 2009 12:48 PM    Report this comment

Sam from Houston does it bother you at all when the facts get in the way of your beliefs? The prosecution was done in 2004 under the Bush Administration and a Bush Attorney General. I understand that you want to blame the “liberals” and you will suspend rational thought to arrive at that conclusion. This prosecution is much more nuanced and complex than your normal blue vs. red argument. Google the case and you will see that this law was well meaning (to outlaw puppy snuff films I hope you would be against their promulgation) and that the government’s case is concerned with depiction of animal cruelty and not hunting.

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 6, 2009 12:39 PM    Report this comment

Sam, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he is a good guy. I'm just saying stereotyping is going to drive away supporters. This case originated while Bush was still in office. He didn't put that DA there any more this this president did. (Who-- I did not vote for, but I have and will vote for certain 2a supporting democrats if they are the best candidate.) By the time you get to national elections though, primaries have weeded out any non-hard-left Democrats though (and generally the inverse for Republicans.)

If I had guilt to man up to I would. I am the first to admit my mistakes. "Hollywood" there-- is not one of them.

Posted by: computererds | August 6, 2009 12:21 PM    Report this comment

Out of all the comments posted only one (by Michael S) is cogent and to the point. Most of you want to make this some liberal vs. conservative diatribe. You miss the point, this is a law passed by congress and enforced by some Federal Prosecutor. The law is obviously the result of a lobbying group (the Humane Society among others) trying to implement their agenda. I’m sure that those who support PETA and the Humane Society are pleased with this case. So you don’t like it and neither do I. It looks like the Circuit Court has ruled correctly (on the side of freedom of speech). More to the point what congress passed this law? Who appointed this Federal Prosecutor that is enforcing it?

Posted by: broadswordsman | August 6, 2009 12:17 PM    Report this comment

I agree not all lawyers are bad.There are just to many of them and some are not good enuf to make a living at it so Daddy/brother or $$$ gets a job as pubic defender or D.A.

Posted by: knucklehead | August 6, 2009 12:14 PM    Report this comment

RackEmPunk-- lol, yes-- your right. That is how I should have worded that. :) (I was thinking minority but typed majority)

I would still guess it is like 15-20% though. That's more by numbers than other labeled minorities (1.3% Jewish, 14.6% Black) The problem is that if they (pro-2a Dems) talk about being pro-gun, they never get further than their own district or POSSIBLY state. I mean, Bill Richardson, 2008 Democratic Party candidate, had a far superior NRA rating than any Republicans running (and an even further lead on his fellow Democrats, but some did rank right with those treasonous Republicans...) When it came to debates though, the 'moderators' brought up his great rating by the NRA like it was a bad thing. I was pissed-- but not surprised. They mocked Ron Paul the same way for supporting the rest of the Constitution...

Posted by: computererds | August 6, 2009 12:11 PM    Report this comment

Sorry computererds, it is blatently obvious that this federal prosecution is encouraged by the climate in the current administration. From the president on down, they are prodominately anti-gun, anti-hunting, etc. I am sorry, when you support a bunch of crazies, you cannot be blameless, you are a cause of the problems created by the out of control crazies. Man up and admit your guilt.

Posted by: sam from houston | August 6, 2009 12:07 PM    Report this comment

So it's OK for the news media to distribute the picture of a murder victim nationwide (where murder is illegal in all 50 states) but they can't show a guy in a bass boat holding a fish he just pulled in! This is insane.

Posted by: Dulrug | August 6, 2009 11:53 AM    Report this comment

QUOTE: "A good majority of the Democrats that get lumped in with the crazy liberals are pro-2a..."

I understand the false right/left paradigm, but you probably should have written "a small minority" of the Democrats..."

Posted by: RackEmPunk | August 6, 2009 11:49 AM    Report this comment

Another classic example of ninety-nine percent of lawyers making the rest look bad.

I am appalled that this case has gotten this far. It should have been dismissed outright, with the judge banging his gavel down - hard - on the plantiff's (and plaintiff's attorney's) head.

While I'm confident that the Supreme Court will declare the law unconstitutional as well, it will be very interesting to see the "point spread" - i.e. how many justices can still read
the Constitution. It will be especially interesting how Ms. Sotomayor votes on this one, as, at this writing, she's almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate in the next day or two.

Posted by: pbs_goat | August 6, 2009 11:49 AM    Report this comment

"Porn is protected by liberals, but we can't have pictures of hunting or fishing. What is wrong with this picture? I sure hope that you hunters that voted for this administration are really proud of the change going on."

The case protecting porn under the 1st amendment was BROUGHT by liberals and defended by a conservative court. This DA and the "humane society" (it is such a ridiculous name I can't just type it without quotes) are not some kind of byproduct of Obama or Democrats. All this crap that people try to make a partisan thing just divides everyone more and pushes people not to a hard-line out. Lets try to keep the blame on the individual crazy liberals and not all as a group. A good majority of the Democrats that get lumped in with the crazy liberals are pro-2a-- the more you demonize them all as a group the more you push those good people to the crazies.

Posted by: computererds | August 6, 2009 11:35 AM    Report this comment

As I am in the last year and a half of my seventh decade of life, I am no longer surprised by almost any and all of the ludicrous nonsensical phenomena that keep cropping up around me. This, however, takes a top position on my list of dumb-ass legal shennanigans! Go figure.....

Posted by: canovack | August 6, 2009 10:52 AM    Report this comment

Great, no more surveilance cameras in public areas or police cars since all of these are intended to capture images of illegal acts. The manufacturers are probably aiding and abetting since that is what the cameras are designed to do and marketed for.

Posted by: Djohn | August 6, 2009 10:28 AM    Report this comment

Great, no more surveilance cameras in public areas or police cars since all of these are intended to capture images of illegal acts. The manufacturers are probably aiding and abetting since that is what the cameras are designed to do and marketed for.

Posted by: Djohn | August 6, 2009 10:28 AM    Report this comment

michael s, you sound like your a lawyer. sam from houston, maybe the answer is having a picture of a naked woman holding up a fish.

Posted by: Robert J | August 6, 2009 10:27 AM    Report this comment

Porn is protected by liberals, but we can't have pictures of hunting or fishing. What is wrong with this picture? I sure hope that you hunters that voted for this administration are really proud of the change going on.

Posted by: sam from houston | August 6, 2009 9:26 AM    Report this comment

They want to sentence this guy to 37 months for a film and Michael Vick gets 23 months for participating/operating a dog fighting ring? It is this kind of pervertion that is taking our legal system to new heights. If this guy gets convicted, you can bet that The Outdoor Channel, The Sportsman's Channel and all the print media is history. Tell me there is no political agenda behind all this.
Because the HSUS doesn't like hunting (now it looks like the fishermen are included), then no one else should be allowed to enjoy these activities. Sooner or later, all that will be on TV or in print will be vegetarian cooking programs.
Its all related, hammer on banning guns, creating shortages and/or prohibition of ammunition and now a full blown assault on hunting and fishing via the depection of those activities on film or in print. Not the humane dispatch of a game animal or fish for sport and for food, but the cruel and unusual punishment in the treatment of that animal by a hunter or fisherman.
Do they really think that the source of all meat and fish is the local grocery store? What's next, protesting Safeway for cruel and unusual treatment of cattle and fish? Now all we need is some Hollywood types to get on board with all their expertise to really make this a three ring circus.
Or maybe the outdoor media should give there materials away for free and we who enjoy and support them should make donations just like the way the politicans get donations.

Posted by: MasterGuide | August 6, 2009 9:13 AM    Report this comment

YOU KNOW, WE GOING TO DESTROY OURSELVES WITHIN.
WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO BASIC COMMON SENSE.

Posted by: ZIG K | August 6, 2009 9:00 AM    Report this comment

Now there are lawyers pushing for laws that allow animals (steers destined to be hamburger) to sue the processor and more. Yup, big brother has spoken.

Posted by: dgray64 | August 6, 2009 8:54 AM    Report this comment

Although I agree with the absurdity of the law, demonizing all lawyers is not the answer. Congress enacts these laws without evaluating the unintended consequences. We should appreciate that when some moron in public office decides to arrest & try someone in a case like this that there are other responsible lawyers intelligent enough to test the case and hopefully get it overturned and the law invalidated.

Posted by: michael s | August 6, 2009 8:54 AM    Report this comment

I agree, lawyers tend to be scum of the earth. That is why 9 out 10 politicians are lawyers. Coincidence?

Posted by: Robert J | August 6, 2009 6:38 AM    Report this comment

It's not illegal to DO IT. It's just illegal to TAKE PICTURES of it.

See, this is why people hate lawyers. Some jackass lawyer in Pittsburg drags an elderly dog lover out of rural Virginia into an urban court at the behest of the dog-and-cat-killing Nazis at the oxymoronically-named "Humane" Society of the United States, and tries to get a jury of below-average, urban-Pittsburgh, high-school dropouts to decide that splicing together legally-recorded, legally-obtained film is a crime.

Shall we take bets on how soon, if this man is convicted, that the HSUS Nazis will instantly file a blizzard of lawsuits to put every single hunting, fishing, and shooting magazine and TV program out of business?

What would happen if the entire population of the United States suddenly decided to tell the jackass lawyers that enough is enough, and refused to obey unconstitutional laws? Excessive-tax law, anti-gun law, property confiscation law, anti-free-speech law, all of it. What if we all just said NO? Could they kill all of us? Would they even try?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | August 4, 2009 12:53 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In