Why Should This Photo Be Illegal?

[Eskimo]

For the record, I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.

[44 AMP]

hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.

A sport it is. A game, it is not!

[Gbro]

For the record, I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting.. as if it's some kind of sport.

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

[stargazer65]

I never understood why people enjoy watching videos of hunting

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.

[Uncle Buck]

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/D...aspx?id=614400

[Microgunner]

No more taxidermy. Museums of natural history will have to store their animal mounts.

[stija]

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.

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[dakotashooter2]

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.

[stija]

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.

[shortwave]

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:.

[langenc]

""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 Roberts]

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 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?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

[Doc Intrepid]

Thank you for that update.

[thallub]

I do not have a problem with hunting videos.

The SCOTUS decision examined:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/fi...t-left-intact/

[hogdogs]

Awesome RULING!!!! Now them pics of me kickin' little cuddly kitties, fish with their face near ripped free from my tuggin' on the hook are safe!!! Not to mention images of hogs with bulldogs hanging from each ear with a curr dog on their rump are protected as they should be!!!
Brent

[EricFi1]

Watching those hunting shows back on TNN years and years ago actually gave me a feeling of what goes on in the hunters mind.
One show I saw, the host brought his 11yr old son out with him. the son got a buck. It took him 2 shots, he didn't hit at "the kill point".
So the Host was up with the buck and his son and explained to the camera as well as his son about respecting the animal's rights. So as yes it was game, and was hunted and killed for food (and display I'm sure), but the respect came that the animal should never EVER suffer and that the body must be respected as well because you don't want to shoot an animal full of holes to watch it suffer as it dies. You want it to be killed in 1 shot and not feel anything as it passes.
I was pretty amazed at that philosophy and have never forgot that. I doubt I'll ever go game hunting, but if I ever did, I'd make sure to respect that animal, for it will be feeding my family as well as possibly providing other means for survival.

[Double Naught Spy]

I have no problem with the banning of pictures showing animal cruelty. The original picture does not show any such thing. For all practical purposes, it shows a guy with a gun and a flying bird. No act of cruelty has occurred in any form.

For that matter, if a picture does show that an animal has been killed, it would be up to those pressing charges that the particular animal was killed in a cruel manner which would involve some onsight forensics, I would believe.

[KyJim]

What if PETA wanted to show the butchering of baby seals with clubs in a documentary? They would likely be breaking the law showing a "cruel" death. And, if you say it's okay for some purposes but not others, you are regulating speech because of it's purpose. Then it would be okay to ban flag burning as a protest but allow it when destroying one out of respect when it becomes worn.

[markj]

baby seals

Used to be a poster of these hanging over a desk here. I mentioned that the pic made me want to grab a club.......

[Buzzcook]

Cruelty to animals is pretty vague and that's probably where this case failed.

The prosecutors should have tried a version of people not being able to profit from illegal acts after the fact. Like Mark Chapman or John Hinckley not being able to profit from books about their deeds.

There are some interesting ramifications to the verdict. What other illegal acts can be legally filmed and marketed?

[publius42]

I was watching a show yesterday on which a guy with a bow shot a deer, which took about two hops and then fell dead. Getting the opportunity to make that shot and actually doing it are not easy, so it's an impressive skill to me. Why was I watching it? I dunno, best thing on and I was eating my lunch in front of a TV.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Last night, I watched Robot Chicken that had a segment on 'weasel stomping day'. It was claymation. Weasels were stomped by folks with big boots.

Thus, the law would have protected us from the evils of satirical claymation.