PDA

View Full Version : Hunting Photos & Videos to be Illegal?


oldironpants
07-22-2009, 7:08 PM
Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

http://www.nrahunterrights.org/images/cooneypheas.jpg

Imagine getting a great photograph of your hunting partner shooting at a pheasant, then finding out its illegal to possess that photo.

Imagine going to the video store to rent a copy of your favorite hunting show, only to find the shelves bare. When you ask the clerk where they are, he tells you that the films are now illegal and that you cant buy or rent them anymore.

This may sound like something out of 1984, but in United States v. Robert J. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this fall if photos like the one above, or video that shows hunters shooting at game, violate a 1999 federal law (18 USC 48) that bans depictions of animal cruelty.

From: NRAhuntersrights.org Click HERE (http://www.nrahunterrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2170) for link to the complete article.

We're getting attacked from all sides ladies and gents.

B.D.Dubloon
07-22-2009, 7:13 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry.

PatriotnMore
07-22-2009, 7:13 PM
Ridiculous, this is another indicator of the nanny politics of this country. Good post OP.

radioman
07-22-2009, 7:17 PM
I'm not a hunter, but what kind of sick f#@$ would get upset with that photo.

BroncoBob
07-22-2009, 7:37 PM
WTF?

jaymz
07-22-2009, 7:39 PM
I'm not a hunter, but what kind of sick f#@$ would get upset with that photo.

28723

Need I say more?

Eroland7
07-22-2009, 7:43 PM
28723

Need I say more?

LMAO!!!!:rofl2:

Hunter4life1990
07-22-2009, 7:44 PM
^^^^^^^hahahahahahaha :rofl2:

bodger
07-22-2009, 7:44 PM
The same kind of dolts that got in an uproar about Obama swatting and killing a fly. PETA actually had a problem with that.

It's about the only thing he's done that I DON'T have a problem with, but jeez, a fly? Who would care.

oldironpants
07-22-2009, 7:49 PM
Guess I have to throw away all those photos with my Pop, GrandDad, & Uncles from the 60's with the pheasants, ducks and geese lined up in front of us with the dogs that brought'em in.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.:rolleyes:

Hunter4life1990
07-22-2009, 7:50 PM
The same kind of dolts that got in an uproar about Obama swatting and killing a fly. PETA actually had a problem with that.

It's about the only thing he's done that I DON'T have a problem with, but jeez, a fly? Who would care.

those same people wanted to make it illegal to have cow milk because they felt humans should drink human milk. trying to think like these people would make you inelligible to by a firearm cuz you would be deemed legally freakin insane

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 7:53 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry....That's what I said about all of CA's laws 3-4 months before moving there. Then I spent the next 4-5 months screaming "How in the flaming *BLEEP* does this *BLEEP*ing bull*BLEEP* not have thousands of people lining up to hang these *BLEEP*ing sons of *BLEEP* and tattooing this *BLEEP* to their *BLEEP*ing *BLEEP*s?!?!?! What in the *BLEEP* have you people been doing?!?! What kind of sub-human *BLEEP* signs this *BLEEP* into law--and you have *BLEEP*ing judges that put up with this?!?!? You just sit there and take this *BLEEP*??!?"

We used up the "No way this will pass, don't worry" about 40 years ago. It didn't work then, either.

bodger
07-22-2009, 7:54 PM
those same people wanted to make it illegal to have cow milk because they felt humans should drink human milk. trying to think like these people would make you inelligible to by a firearm cuz you would be deemed legally freakin insane

I wonder where they thought all that human milk was going to come from?
Interesting job, harvesting human milk.

Fate
07-22-2009, 7:55 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28723&d=1248320308

Please tell me Mrs. Feinstein isn't wearing a strap on. :eek:

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 7:56 PM
The same kind of dolts that got in an uproar about Obama swatting and killing a fly. PETA actually had a problem with that.

It's about the only thing he's done that I DON'T have a problem with, but jeez, a fly? Who would care. I do. The fly was contributing more to the world's well being than he does--the swatting should have been the other way around.

bboyin4food
07-22-2009, 7:57 PM
So you mean beautiful pics like this?

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o7/bboylxix/peta.jpg

you think PETA might get mad at this hunting picture?:rolleyes:

note: not my pic, just had it in my "funny pics" folder

oldironpants
07-22-2009, 8:16 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry.Problem: this is going before the SCOTUS where Sotomayor will more than likely be seated, not the senate or house.

Shotgun Man
07-22-2009, 8:19 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry.

This has already passed. A district court upheld the law as not violating the first amendment. The question is whether the law unduly infringes on the first amendment.

I would expect scotus to strike down the law 5-4, with sotamayor in the minority, which is ironic being that cock fighting is legal in puerto rico.

oldironpants
07-22-2009, 8:28 PM
This has already passed. A district court upheld the law as not violating the first amendment. The question is whether the law unduly infringes on the first amendment.

I would expect scotus to strike down the law 5-4, with sotamayor in the minority, which is ironic being that cock fighting is legal in puerto rico.Excellent point. However, this is in regards to firearms, not animal vs animal.

Any opportunity presenting itself with firearms as the evil villian will be granted a second review.

badicedog
07-22-2009, 8:38 PM
28723

Need I say more?
Now that is very funny sir!

:rofl2::hurray:

RomanDad
07-22-2009, 8:39 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28723&d=1248320308

Please tell me Mrs. Feinstein isn't wearing a strap on. :eek:

Now THAT would be animal cruelty....

bohoki
07-22-2009, 8:40 PM
wait if a photo of hunting is depicting animal cruelty then that would mean hunting is animal cruelty

Sheepdog1968
07-22-2009, 8:44 PM
By being able to watch it on TV I get my fill of enjoyment. If I couldn't watch it then I'd likely hunt myself. How would that be more humane by having more animals die?

Shotgun Man
07-22-2009, 8:53 PM
Excellent point. However, this is in regards to firearms, not animal vs animal.

Any opportunity presenting itself with firearms as the evil villian will be granted a second review.

I don't think the facts of the case involve firearms at all, strictly 1A.

Here is a summary the circuit court's opinion reversing the district which convicted this poor slob:


CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which convicted him of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=d9ccc7455683109bb28d92caf7455b19). Defendant challenged the constitutionality of 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=b059d1745167bf96c3e6dbc93a69669f).

OVERVIEW: Defendant sold pit bull related videos and merchandise. Law enforcement officers arranged to buy three videotapes from defendant. The first two tapes showed circa 1960s and 70s footage of organized dog fights that occurred in the United States and involved pit bulls, as well as footage of more recent dog fights, also involving pit bulls, from Japan. The third video showed footage of hunting excursions in which pit bulls were used to catch wild boar, as well as footage of pit bulls being trained to perform the function of catching and subduing hogs or boars. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=98cb24bba870a58cca397c6a754d2686) abridged his First Amendment (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=7&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=a6f0987c08600d351ee6faaf9dd6c77d) right to freedom of speech. In vacating defendant's conviction, the court held that 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=8&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=f1ada14c99c7cf6b2bcaf97ed9f55d6c) regulated protected speech and it was unwilling to create a new category of unprotected speech. The court also held that, subjecting 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=9&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=7b0e414e8c2e1ba36f8cfa1681721431) to strict scrutiny, 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=83936f99408b21a881ecd18a5a72b255) could not withstand that heightened level of scrutiny because it served no compelling government interest, was not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and did not provide the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

OUTCOME: The court struck down 48 (https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=bff0f59e42e9817b6126303f78100c7b&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5b533%20F.3d%20218%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=11&_butInline=1&_butinfo=18%20U.S.C.%2048&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=aee8baa8478f89c727561d1fc8a54e4d) as constitutionally infirm and vacated defendant's conviction.

bodger
07-22-2009, 9:12 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28723&d=1248320308

Please tell me Mrs. Feinstein isn't wearing a strap on. :eek:

That imagery boggles the mind.
If she's wearing one, it seeks the keisters of gun owners.

Shotgun Man
07-22-2009, 9:14 PM
That imagery boggles the mind.
If she's wearing one, it seeks the keisters of gun owners.

That photo could even make a strap-on go limp.

Blackhawk556
07-22-2009, 9:17 PM
28723

Need I say more?

do you really think they are anti gun??





;)

Harrison_Bergeron
07-22-2009, 9:58 PM
I don't think the facts of the case involve firearms at all, strictly 1A.

Here is a summary the circuit court's opinion reversing the district which convicted this poor slob:

How does this have anything to do with making hunting pics illegal? Pit bulls fighting and attacking pigs is different than a hunter shooting a bird.

Shotgun Man
07-22-2009, 10:09 PM
How does this have anything to do with making hunting pics illegal? Pit bulls fighting and attacking pigs is different than a hunter shooting a bird.

You gotta be kidding me. How is it different? It is a different method of hunting but nonetheless legitimate. Are you saying we can shoot a pig, but we can't have a dog kill it?

Plus, even possessing depictions of shooting varmints would likely be held violative of the law because hunting is illegal in the venue which gives rise to the criminal prosecution.

professorhard
07-22-2009, 10:14 PM
LOL at the gov.

anthonyca
07-22-2009, 10:30 PM
That photo could even make a strap-on go limp.

LOL.

phamkl
07-22-2009, 10:41 PM
I don't see how an animal hunting another animal is cruelty worth mentioning... they sort of do that naturally.

nick
07-22-2009, 11:16 PM
28723

Need I say more?

You bastard, you owe me a keyboard! :mad:

nick
07-22-2009, 11:20 PM
So you mean beautiful pics like this?

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o7/bboylxix/peta.jpg

you think PETA might get mad at this hunting picture?:rolleyes:

note: not my pic, just had it in my "funny pics" folder

That's quite a lot of empty shells they got there...

B Strong
07-23-2009, 6:43 AM
Since the government currently issues licenses to engage in the activity depicted, I doubt that it would be found to be a depiction of animal cruelty.

It does warrant watching though.

Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

http://www.nrahunterrights.org/images/cooneypheas.jpg

Imagine getting a great photograph of your hunting partner shooting at a pheasant, then finding out its illegal to possess that photo.

Imagine going to the video store to rent a copy of your favorite hunting show, only to find the shelves bare. When you ask the clerk where they are, he tells you that the films are now illegal and that you cant buy or rent them anymore.

This may sound like something out of 1984, but in United States v. Robert J. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this fall if photos like the one above, or video that shows hunters shooting at game, violate a 1999 federal law (18 USC 48) that bans depictions of animal cruelty.

From: NRAhuntersrights.org Click HERE (http://www.nrahunterrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2170) for link to the complete article.

We're getting attacked from all sides ladies and gents.

oldironpants
07-23-2009, 7:15 AM
I don't think the facts of the case involve firearms at all, strictly 1A.Oh, absolutely. But.... you know that firearms are going to be a "sub-thought," lurking in the background of all other thoughts.

jaymz
07-23-2009, 9:18 AM
You bastard, you owe me a keyboard! :mad:

Sorry! I'll owe you one, better than to cheat you out of it! :eek:

EBR Works
07-23-2009, 9:50 AM
Interesting job, harvesting human milk.

Where can I apply? :rofl:

Vacaville
07-23-2009, 9:57 AM
I guess my grandparents' wallpaper would be illegal too. It shows a bunch of dudes out hunting pheasant. Very cool.

crs1
07-23-2009, 10:50 AM
Then you guys aren't going to like this...its long, so I took out the parts about where to contact our elected employees...you should know that by now...the archived link is still valid, read the whole post if you can.

Radical Animal Rights Attorney Cleared
To Become Obama's Regulatory Czar

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

This report is archived at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=52

UPDATE July 22, 2009: WASHINGTON (Fox News) -- President Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a "hold" by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

Senators are permitted "holds" to prevent a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor. They are often secretive and for very specific reasons.

"Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts," the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.


Sunstein, who has published 15 books, would have broad powers to review, recommend changes and possibly engineer changes in all federal regulations, including those about dog ownership, farming, hunting on federal lands, and enforcement of gun control laws.

In his published writings and speeches, Sunstein has advocated:

Giving animal rights groups the power to file lawsuits on the behalf of animals against their owners.

Very strict regulations about animal ownership, farming and hunting.

The elimination of hunting.

The elimination of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Moving toward a vegan vegetarian society.

Rewriting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And restrictions on free speech.

Each of those assertions will be documented later in this report by direct quotations from Sunstein's published books and speeches.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes Sunstein would have a severely negative impact on dog owners, farmers, hunters, gun owners and civil libertarians Indeed, to all Americans!

This is underscored by Sunstein's status as a close personal friend and advisor to President Obama since they met in 1992, when Sunstein taught law at the University of Chicago. This will give Sunstein unprecedented influence and access to the President.

PEBKAC
07-23-2009, 12:37 PM
Ironic part about this, is if depicting images of animal cruelty is found to be illegal in this context, wouldn't this (http://www.earthlings.com/) movie be highly highly illegal?

Correct me if I'm not reading into this correctly, but would making depictions of animal cruelty illegal as per this case's standard effectively make most movies made by animal rights activists illegal since they typically use footage that is more cruel than hunting footage by a long shot.

:D

Hunter4life1990
07-23-2009, 12:41 PM
:iamwithstupid:. PETA will be :owned: by their own type of legislation

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 12:49 PM
I'm not a hunter, but what kind of sick f#@$ would get upset with that photo.

The same ones that think no animal should become food. Or that circuses should be banned. That no one should wear leather and so on and so forth.

Shotgun Man
07-23-2009, 8:07 PM
Ironic part about this, is if depicting images of animal cruelty is found to be illegal in this context, wouldn't this (http://www.earthlings.com/) movie be highly highly illegal?

Correct me if I'm not reading into this correctly, but would making depictions of animal cruelty illegal as per this case's standard effectively make most movies made by animal rights activists illegal since they typically use footage that is more cruel than hunting footage by a long shot.

:D

You had me going there for a second, but then I remembered that having a serious artistic, social or scientific value (or some such nonsense) exempted one from this statute.

The peta film, despite what you might think of peta (i think they're ridiculous), does have a valid social purpose.

So too do the hunting videos. It may be kinda of interesting. Maybe the hunters and peta will be held in the same holding tank and cause a jail riot.

Kid Stanislaus
07-23-2009, 10:08 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry.


OH! Such confidence!!:rolleyes:

JDay
07-23-2009, 11:16 PM
No way this will pass, don't worry.

The law already exists, this is a court case to decide if hunting pictures are in violation.

FortCourageArmory
07-24-2009, 7:45 AM
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which convicted him of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. 48. Defendant challenged the constitutionality of 48.

OVERVIEW: Defendant sold pit bull related videos and merchandise. Law enforcement officers arranged to buy three videotapes from defendant. The first two tapes showed circa 1960s and 70s footage of organized dog fights that occurred in the United States and involved pit bulls, as well as footage of more recent dog fights, also involving pit bulls, from Japan. The third video showed footage of hunting excursions in which pit bulls were used to catch wild boar, as well as footage of pit bulls being trained to perform the function of catching and subduing hogs or boars. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on his assertion that 48 abridged his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In vacating defendant's conviction, the court held that 48 regulated protected speech and it was unwilling to create a new category of unprotected speech. The court also held that, subjecting 48 to strict scrutiny, 48 could not withstand that heightened level of scrutiny because it served no compelling government interest, was not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and did not provide the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

OUTCOME: The court struck down 48 as constitutionally infirm and vacated defendant's conviction.
It sounds like the Court of Appeals has already struck down the law. An appeal to SCOTUS is VERY likely to have the same outcome as the conservatives on SCOTUS aren't likely to rule against the 1st Amendment. That is unless the COA made some major mistakes......Or am I reading this wrong?