Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

A photo or video of legal hunting isn't covered by the law.
Click to expand...

Actually, not exactly. Because of the wording of the law, a photo of a hunt that is perfectly legal could still be a federal felony if it was printed in a hunting magazine and then sold in a state where such a hunt is illegal.

The person in this case had nothing to do with hunting. He was selling dogfighting videos that were taken in countries (or at times) when dogfighting was legal; but because it is illegal now, he is being charged with the crime.
 
I remember reading an irate letter in a gun magazine from one of their subscribers who was disgusted by pictures of hunters posing with their animal after a successful hunt and he even went so far as to call the hunters jerks. that's kinda like intentionally watching a R movie then getting upset when someone drops an f-bomb.
 
I am always amazed at the extent people will go to to protect animals but everyday on the television people are sliced,diced,shot and barbequed on half the shows on tv.

Let them see the pictures of a chicken or beef slaughterhouse and say something.

People need to understand,you can't run from reality.

Hunters and hunting are who were are and what we did to get here.

Thank the hunters ( and a special super Hunting President)for the national parks.

They did'nt get formed from some Peta person.

The law should be very clear on this.

What is being shown is a legal activity and therefore should be protected by the law.

And any image shown of that legal activity should be protected as an appreciation of free speech by those involved in it.

You don't like,understand or get hunting-DON'T LOOK AT IT.

Let me starve you for a week and offer you a well cooked piece of venison.

You will remember who the heck you are.
 
DISCLAIMER I do not support dog fighting or any other illegal activity using animals...
Okay legal stuff out of the way...
One thing we in the hog doggin' world see is ALL the "dogmen" of the nefarious type as they go down. The game-dogs of pitbull breed are sought for pure bred or cross breed programs as catch dogs for hog hunting due to the tenacity of the breed.
We in recent history (under 5 years) had a "dog man" busted and all they had to suggest he was a dog fighter was several VHS tapes that were originally filmed on "reels" before the advent of VHS tapes. At the time of filming, dog fighting was legal where he lived and they tried him using "old material" as evidence. He was found not guilty but basically all of his bloodline which were now mainly hog catch dog stock was put down by the ARA's. I think there is a civil suit he is bringing for the loss of income from the dogs...
Brent
 
Last edited:
For the record, I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.
 
For the record, I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.
Click to expand...

I will have to go on the record with Eskimo on that also.
There is to me way to much emphasis on the kill(killing) in so many of those shows.
Of course maybe I am the delusional one that is only in it for the chase:rolleyes:
 
I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting
Click to expand...

Watching a video can be informative, regardless of whether it's enjoyable or not. It's just like watching a cooking show, which can be a helpful alternative or supplement to reading a cookbook.
 
I would be very worried. The original poster has a point. Our government does a lot of irrational things and we support them. More people are killed by automobiles than guns every year, but they would rather outlaw the guns. Our state governments want to re-introduce predator animals back into the wilds...
Check out this guy, who is being nominated for a very important, but un-elected position in our government.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=614400
 
Selling a picture of poaching however, would apparently be a five-year federal felony. And apparently so would publishing a photo of bear hunting in a state where bear hunting is illegal... as laws go, this one was really poorly drafted.
Click to expand...
Not so. While it is illegal under state laws and while it could be used as evidence of the fact against you, it is not in violation of the federal statutes you mentioned because it is not involved in interstate commerce nor is there intention to involve it in interstate commerce for the purpose of financial gain.

Federal jurisdiction is very limited to specific subject matter - interstate commerce.
 
Uh... If my growing wheat in my own yard for my own consumption is "interstate commerce", I wouldn't be too quick to assume that the mere lack of actual interstate commerce will save you. Wickard is well-established law. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to use the same test here.
 
I wonder if the anti's realize this would bite them in the azz too. No more ads depicting starving dogs or horses. It will put a serious dent in their ability shock the public into thinking their way.
 
That's a very valid point dakotashooter2.


Bartholomew, that is true only if such activity, if left unregulated by Congress, would undercut already existing similar interstate commercial activity. I seriously doubt that there is such a federally regulated activity to compete with though.
 
Last edited:
Just think, no more hunting/fishing shows, mags., artwork(paintings) some old and famous depicting historic buffalo hunts that helped give the white man a reason to put the Indians on the reservations. Seems as though I remember many of those type of pictures in the school history books. Don`t you dare take a pics. of that stringer of crappy/bass you and your favorite loved one just caught so you can remember that special fishing trip years down the road. The older I get, the more this kinda BS makes me sick:barf:.
 
""Nonsense. We have the best senators and congressmen that money can buy. But anyway, what do you expect them to do? Making laws is what they are there for. An appropriations bill is a law, in this sense""

AND way too many members of the US Congress are lawyers. Laws are written with 'hookers' in them-that is to hook lots of people. Not reading bills is another way to hook.
 
Bartholomew, that is true only if such activity, if left unregulated by Congress, would undercut already existing similar interstate commercial activity. I seriously doubt that there is such a federally regulated activity to compete with though.
Click to expand...

Last time, I looked, a commercial activity could be regulated as "interstate commerce" by the Federal Government in the following circumstances:

1. Congress may regulate local matters that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce - J&L, Darby, Wickard
2. Congress has to have a rational basis to do so - Darby
3. Local effects may be aggregated to reach the substantial effects level - Wickard
4. Congress may regulate items that cross state lines – Darby (older cases too)
5. Congress may regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce – Shreveport rates
6. Congress may regulate items that facilitate commerce or are within the channels of commerce –Heart of Atlanta

I don't see any exception for what you describe. What case or law led you to your conclusion?
 
UPDATE: Today the Supreme Court struck down this law in an 8-1 decision titled United States vs. Stevens - which given the partisan divide lately should speak volumes about the problem with this law.

The Volokh Conspiracy has some excellent discussion about the case, as usual. The NRA also played a role in this case as one of the amici briefs.

The lone dissenting vote was Justice Alito, who favored interpreting the term "animal cruelty" very narrowly so as to exclude hunting, fishing and other activites and upholding the statute.

Still reading parts; but this is an interesting opinion touching on everything from hunting & fishing, to First Amendment, to Presidential signing statements. Chief Justice Roberts got in some nice shots about the Justice Department promising to enforce the law narrowly, even though it was written more broadly :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top