Tim Nunan

http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2097 Anti-hunters have begun using a new tactic to advance their agenda: “astroturfing.†This term is used to describe incidents where an internet user claims to be someone or something they are not for the purpose of posting comments onto online forums, news stories, and blogs. The anti’s often will do this on pro-sportsmen forums and news sites, acting as hunters, trying to create divisions within the community. A recent example appears to have taken place in North Dakota as a commenter to a Bismarck Tribune story was found to be using a computer registered to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest anti hunting group in the U.S. The news story dealt with a petition in North Dakota to ban preserve hunting in the state. In the comments section, a person named “Will†appeared to pose as a hunter and stated, " Any real hunter wouldn't have an issue with this - hunting is supposed to be a sport, what sport or skill is it, to kill an animal that is raised for you to kill? Growing up I remember the thrill of the chase. The chase mind you, that doesn't involve fences. Anyone who thinks this will snowball is an idiot - it's practices like this that give hunters a bad name.†Another commenter noted that they had seen the exact same post by “Will†over at a pro- sportsman blog where he had been exposed by the blog’s administrator after discovering that the IP address used by “Will†was registered to HSUS. These efforts are becoming more frequent as increasing numbers of people communicate online. Sportsmen should be aware that the anti’s are taking advantage of this to attack certain forms of hunting and divide the community. This is particularly detrimental as some media and others look to forums to gauge a particular group’s thoughts on a subject. This in turn will make it more difficult for sportsmen to stand together as the anti’s move forward with its larger agenda to ban all hunting.

Anti’s “CITE†Polar Bears 9/3/09 Three anti-hunting groups are urging the United States to “lead the way†and basically end all hunting of polar bears due to fears over global warming. If the effort is successful a precedent will be established that can be used to ban the hunting of many different species around the world. The International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society International, and Defenders of Wildlife sent a joint press release suggesting that the U.S. submit a proposal banning all trade in polar bear trophies, hides, and rugs at the next meeting of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). That meeting is scheduled for March 13-15 and will take place in Doha, Qatar. The CITES convention is an international agreement between participating governments and is designed to guarantee that any trade in wild animals does not threaten their survival. The Convention was drafted in the 1960s and became effective worldwide on July 1, 1975. The proposal advocated by the anti’s would “uplist†the polar bears under CITES from where a limited and regulated international trade is allowed to where it is completely prohibited. The anti’s argue that the trade should be banned due to projections that global warming will reduce arctic ice in the bears’ habitat. This is the same reason that the U.S. Department of Interior formally listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in May of 2008. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) has long opposed the ESA listing of polar bears for two reasons. First, and foremost, this is an abuse of the ESA as many populations of polar bears are actually thriving and increasing. Also the listing is being based on future forecasting of wildlife populations. Currently, there is no agreement on number projections among professional wildlife managers. “The push by anti’s to “uplist†polar bears under CITES is an overreaction,†stated Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “As with the 'threatened’ designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this move is a pre-emptive designation based on hypothetical assessments of the impact of global warming and would establish a precedent. http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2099

The September meeting of the Tennessee Firearms Association Lakeway Chapter will be held on Tuesday evening, the 15th of September, 2009 Mac Murrel of Murrell Burglar Alarms will speak on home and firearm security. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++ Our meeting place is the Shoneys Family Restaurant at 1933 West Andrew Johnson Highway (Hwy 11E), Morristown TN.This restaurant is located 1/2 block east of the West Andrew Johnson highway (Hwy 11E) and Morris Blvd intersection, more or less across from the Home Depot. There is a large, highly visible sign in front along with plenty of parking space.A pre-meeting social hour is from 6 PM to 7 PM during which you may want to eat dinner. The meeting will begin promptly at 7 PM and end at 8 PM. Opportunity will be given to ask questions related to the topic. Membership is not required - gun owners, 2nd Amendment supporters, and interested public are urged to attend. For more information contact Bill Kaylor 423 586 9121/email w9dsm@charter.net or Tim Nunan 423-586-8459/email bentcreek@outdrs.net.

TENNESSEE FIREARMS ASSOCIATION KNOXVILLE CHAPTER THE SEPTEMBER MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY EVENING SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 Our guest speaker will be: State Representative Stacey Campfield +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Monthly meetings are held at The IHOP restaurant in front of Lowes, on Chapman Highway at the intersection of John Sevier Highway in South Knoxville. A pre-meeting social hour is from 6 PM to 7 pm during which you may wish to eat dinner either from the menu or from the buffet. The meeting will begin at 7 PM and end at 8 PM. Participation by those in attendance is always encouraged. Gun owners, persons involved in the shooting sports, Second Amendment supporters and interested public are urged to attend, YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A MEMBER TO ATTEND. For more information contact: Bill Noll; wsnoll@comcast.net 865-688-0321 or Charlie Thoms; Cthoms43@aol.com 865-233-4561

http://www.examiner.com/x-2320-Baltimor ... video-case On October the sixth the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the United States vs. Stevens case. The outcome of this case has the potential to affect every form of hunting video sold or broadcasted in the United States. Depending on how the court rules, hunting television shows, DVD’s and even personal pictures of hunting trips on the Internet could fall under a federal statute that was intended to prevent the trafficking of media depicting animal cruelty. A portion of the video content in this case involves catch dogs trained to hold a wild boar while hunting. The court will have to decide if this is a form of animal cruelty and if this law is constitutional. What is disturbing is how the language of the original law could create a precedent that includes hunting as a form of animal cruelty and therefore interstate commerce of media depicting hunting would be illegal. Further than that, the long term implications of a Supreme Court ruling that hunting falls into this category could open a floodgate of state and local lawsuits from animal rights groups attempting to ban hunting. Though it is far outside the realm of this case and the original law, it is a safe bet that the groups dedicated to ending hunting and all animal use are salivating at the thought of using a Supreme Court ruling to file injunctions against hunting seasons. Robert Steven’s videos do include dog fighting scenes and other unsavory images. He also advertised his video wares in “Sporting Dog Journalâ€, a magazine devoted to illegal dog fighting. That some of the content depicts scenes that do fall under the statute of animal cruelty is not in dispute. This is not a court case about animal cruelty or hunting but rather is about what constitutes speech protected under the First Amendment. There are limits to the Bill of Rights; unprotected speech is something like child pornography. Everyone can agree that that kind of media is undoubtedly harmful to individuals and society. The original intent of this particular law was to outlaw distribution of pornography that involved cruelty to animals, a noble purpose. However, the first application of this law happened to be this case and unfortunately it has ramifications that go well beyond the intent of the original law. Interpretation of the law is subjective and depends on the thought processes of individuals. What the outdoor sporting community must pay attention to in this case is the ramifications of how a ruling in this case may be interpreted by Federal Agencies in the future such as the FCC. Most rulings in court are a split decision and the Judges that cannot agree are the experts in this field. If the experts are rarely unanimous, we cannot reasonably expect an educated but non-expert person to always reach the conclusion that was the original intent of the law. We cannot as society even come to an agreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment, even though it is very clear what rights were intended to be protected. This case itself is an example of a law that was interpreted differently from the original intent; to prevent people from profiting from scenes depicting unspeakable acts of animal cruelty. Although it is morally correct to include dog fighting in this realm and most people would agree with the prosecution of such people, it was not what the law was meant to prevent. The scenes that include hunting in the scope of the media content can bring some unintended consequences in the future for all hunters. Many groups on both sides have filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs with the court. Hunting groups have filed briefs explaining how a ruling could negatively impact our sport and how a ruling on the original, vaguely worded law will affect the hunting media industry. Animal welfare groups have filed briefs in favor of allowing continued prosecution of people that distribute images of animal cruelty. Of course the animal rights groups have filed in favor of having any distribution of any form of media depicting animals being harvested as a crime. They may not word it that way but it is their intent; just as it is their intent to end all hunting. This is an issue that all hunters need to watch carefully as it will affect the future of hunting and free speech.

http://ed-noleftturn.blogspot.com/ "Harrogate, Claiborne County City Recorder stated that Board of Mayor and Aldermen have discussed the opt out for city park and decided to do nothing at this time."

Originally Posted by Tim Nunan Our chapter has had sitting legislators mistate the law as speakers as well as several LEO's, e.g., most don't think we can carry in a bank (they believe federal law precludes it). Having opposing views presented at a meeting can serve as a teaching opportunity for the attendees as well as the speaker. Certainly one of the goals of the meetings is certainly to educate the attendees (not a requirement to be a TFA member to attend the meetings). When a speaker is in error they get corrected just as TN_Mike did. As for prescreening how's that working out here on TGO when some posters get it wrong? They get corrected with a resource. And yes... if a speaker turns "out to be tools" they don't invited back. Surely posters here aren't kicked out just for having an opposing view?

Our chapter has had sitting legislators mistate the law as speakers as well as several LEO's, e.g., most don't think we can carry in a bank (they believe federal law precludes it). Having opposing views presented at a meeting can serve as a teaching opportunity for the attendees as well as the speaker.

The TFA like the TGO consists of members with a varity of opinions on gun related issues. Those opposed to open carry at the Shelby county meeting sound like some who have stated the same position on the TGO forum yet those promoting open carry stay here. :: shrugs::

My current pet peeve is newspeople attributing actions and words to "the White House".

Seven of the 11 committee members made a quorum and the meeting started at 5:43 PM, 13 August 2009. Commissioner Sempkowski seemed perturbed that the city council had put this issue in the Parks & Recreation Committee and proposed a motion that stated the importance of the Second Amendment and moved that the issue be returned to the city council for a decision by "elected officials". This motion was approved. Dr. William Rooney, a city council member and member of the P & R committee, opined several times that the city council would not even address the park carry bill thus allowing carry in Morristown parks effective 1 September 2009. Dr. Rooney noted that city council agenda items had to be submitted by 12 PM 13 August 2009 to be considered in next Tuesday's council meeting (4 PM, 18 August 2009). Since the city council meets the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month the park carry issue could not be addressed by the council until after the law's effective date unless this issue had been submitted by noon today.. Of course it should be remembered that a community may opted out at any time, i.e., they are not restricted to action prior to the effective date of 1 Sept., 2009.

On the farm all day so the Tarus Judge w/.410 000; in town tonight so Colt Defender.

Interestingly when asked what his response to the ATF would be on ignoring this Tennessee law Zack Wamp said he'd meet them at the state line. Now whether that was to stop them or escort them he never said.

No problem, thanks. Seems the code changed with the cut and paste.

Post a Hunting Photo, Go to Jail 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 journalistsphotographersmagazine publisherstelevision show hosts and producersWeb content publishersartistsequipment manufacturersstock photography agenciesoutdoor organizationsbook authors and sellerssales representativespublic relations agenciesand 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.

The August meeting of the Tennessee Firearms Association Lakeway Chapter will be held on Tuesday evening, the 18th of August, 2009 Stancil Ford, chairman of the Hamblen County Commission and former state representative, will speak on the park carry bill for those with a handgun carry permit. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Our meeting place is the Shoneys Family Restaurant at 1933 West Andrew Johnson Highway (Hwy 11E), Morristown TN.This restaurant is located 1/2 block east of the West Andrew Johnson highway (Hwy 11E) and Morris Blvd intersection, more or less across from the Home Depot. There is a large, highly visible sign in front along with plenty of parking space. A pre-meeting social hour is from 6 PM to 7 PM during which you may want to eat dinner. The meeting will begin promptly at 7 PM and end at 8 PM. Opportunity will be given to ask questions related to the topic. Membership is not required - gun owners, 2nd Amendment supporters, and interested public are urged to attend. For more information contact Bill Kaylor 423 586 9121/email w9dsm@charter.net or Tim Nunan 423-586-8459/email bentcreek@outdrs.net.

Correct. A HCP is not an exception to the law but a valid excuse for violating the law. Note, I'm not a lawyer but have had one explain this to me.

I recently bought some .45 LC, both lead and hollow point, at M & M Firearms in Whitesburg.

I believe having a HCP is an "affirmative defense" for the violation of carrying with the intent to go armed, i.e., you are in violation of that law but having a HCP permits you to violate this law.

NRA has responded to this question: From: NRA Auto Responder [mailto:nra.auto-responder@nrahq.org] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:36 PM To: ILA-Contact Subject: Contact from NRAHQ web site: Legislative and Legal Action Information Message: I would like to know if you are going to cut off support of any Republicans, especially Sen. Lindsey Grahm, if they vote for Sotomayor. From: ILA-Contact <ILA-Contact@nrahq.org> Subject: RE: Contact from NRAHQ web site: Legislative and Legal Action Information Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:30:37 -0400 We have made it clear to all Senators that we will be scoring their vote and it will effect their NRA rating. Best Regards, Miranda Bond NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

Name of Park: All City Parks City or County: Hawkins County Results of vote: Voted to allow park carry Entity taking vote: County Commission Source: Citizen Tribune, Morristown

Name of Park: All City Parks City or County: Tazewell Results of vote: No vote; discussed and decided no actiion required, ergo legal to carry in Tazewell parks Entity taking vote: Town board of Mayor and Aldermen Source: Citizen Tribune, Morristown

+1 Can see her doing the speaking tour for a while reassuring the conservative base and tweaking the liberals. Maybe even run for Alaska Senate spot. Could be a good future choice for VP if a true Conservative were nominated for President.

Stick a fork in him... he's done.

I'm shocked... shocked I say. Who'd have thought a Democrat of any color would support his party over the concerns of his constituents? <sacasm mode off>