Doc

It is true that the Constitution trumps international treaties and agreements. But that is only in cases where there is a clear conflict. That issue of "clear conflict" is determined by a federal court that consistently applies some very liberal interpretations regarding issues of the 2nd Amendment. There is always more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. There is nothing wrong with rational vigilance.

Unfortunately, there is no sign other than wishful thinking that indicates that the safe act will ever fall. In fact there is more evidence that indicates it will be added to by further encroachments. What the NYS Safe Act shows is that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution apparently has big gaping holes in its protection whether that be from a domestic threat or whatever. The same people eventually get to determine the constitutionality of any acts against the 2nd Amendment. It is good to have faith in the Constitution, but even better to have some level of understanding, recognition and distrust of its vulnerabilities.

I wish I had a solution. What I have found is that these people do not respond to reason. It's a pretty solid mind-set, so they don't react to logic and reason. They have their minds made up, and there is no changing them. They have no interest in archery, and resent the implication that what bow hunters are doing should force some kind of pressure on them to take up an activity that they have no interest in. The fact is that if they were willing to get into archery, they would have already. So, how do you combat that? I have to admit that I really have no idea. It's almost like talking to an anti-hunter. Generally that is a complete waste of time. But, No one talks much about this problem. I think it is a likely and potential future hurdle to bow hunting. More and more people may begin to ask why bow hunters still need a special season. It certainly is not the sport that it originated as, where special conditions in the woods were necessary to even have a chance at success. We used to be looked at as an oddity with our stick bows, and no one ever looked at bow hunters as being able to have any impacts. Today, guys are openly bragging about 50+ yard shots. Some will readily taunt gunners with the fact that they have not failed to harvest a buck for "X" amount of years. Technology in archery has indeed made big differences in success and continues to do so. I think that as success ratios continue to rise, so will the resentment. I know the tendency is to simply write off such crack-pots, but maybe the time has come to start thinking about possible counter-measures. Maybe it's time to evaluate how we present ourselves to those outside of bowhunting rather than letting the resentment build and some of the mis-representations stand uncorrected. I don't know, but I just thought I would mention my own personal observations of the problem and how it goes much farther than just stubby.

Actually none of the benefits that bow hunters receive have come at the expense of any days or gun hunting. No opportunities for gunners have been lost because of additional bow season days. It has all been additive outside of the existing gun season. Unfortunately not all gun hunters understand that or choose to see it that way. However, I will admit that bow hunters do receive the major press among the hunting community, and also have had the biggest improvements in opportunities and benefits. That is primarily because bow hunters are organized and have worked hard for every gain that they have won. But the point of my response was that a growing attitude of dislike and envy among gun-only deer hunters for bow hunters (such as stubby's outburst) could result in more organization and activism among gun hunters that may someday result in some serious reverses for bow hunting. We are in the minority. Any further significant increases in success ratios among bowhunters might just spark that sort of divisive movement. So, what I am saying is that comments like stubby's never be ignored or passed of as simply ridiculous drivel. While it may actually be exactly that, it could be a symptom of future friction between hunters.

You guys might think this guy is just trying to be ridiculous, but he is not alone. I have heard an increasing number of gun hunters whining about bow hunters for quite some time now. Ever since the success rates started climbing, and the bowhunters lobbied and received longer seasons and other special goodies. There really is a growing envy of bow hunters because it appears that they are getting an awful lot of "bennys" that the gun hunters don't get, from better access to rut, to more pleasant weather, to extra season length, to first access to un-spooked bucks, etc., etc. And there is also this other feeling that bowhunters are thinning the herd of trophy bucks before the gunners get a chance at them. Again, the Saturday morning hunting programs and the bowhunting magazines, and the forums and other internet social media all feed these thoughts of unfairness, until finally guys like stubby start to blurt out their hatred for bow hunters. Yes it's envy, pure and simple, but it seems like a growing attitude that probably should not be quickly dismissed. I am not saying that any of this nonsense is correct thinking, but they are comments that I have heard from far too many of the gun-only hunters. Of course actual facts and figures never seem to enter into this envy-stuff. It's kind of like Stubby's 90% figure that he applies to everything he says about bow hunters. Kind of trying to sound like he has some sort of official survey or study in his hip pocket .... lol. Yes indeed, it is all B.S. But my message is that he is not alone in his generalizations and hatred of bow hunters. I have heard it all before. It's a phony perception that may some day blossom into a full-scale war and we may find ourselves once again fighting for the very existence of bowhunting as we know it today. I really don't know how to stop this nonsense when it shows up. I'm sure Stubby believes all of the crap that he is spewing, and so do others of a similar mentality. And there are constant improvements in equipment used in bow season that will only make it seem to more and more gunners that they are getting the short end of the stick as success rates continue upward. So while his comments seem like pure B.S., understand that his mind-set may be growing in the ranks of the gun-only hunters. It is not something to dismiss lightly.

I have to wonder how much is lost when you start consistently getting successful hunts completely laid out for you. Is it possible that they become dependent on those guides who do the scouting, tree-stand placement, and fenced ranches, and pen-raised, genetically enhanced quarry? Could it happen that they lose all abilities to go back and do some of that stuff for themselves? Even more likely, could it happen that they lose interest in doing all those things for themselves and perhaps even reach a point where they refuse to do that?

I am really hoping that Astorino and his new running mate start to get a whole lot more face-time with the public. November is rapidly coming, and he is still the "Who?" candidate. Actually, other than his stance on the Safe Act, I have not seen a whole lot on his platform. He's going to need a lot of supporters besides just gun owners.

I hate to mention this, and you may very well know this better than I do, but be sure to research all the extra screwball laws that NYC has regarding gun possession and ownership. They seem to be their own little country down there when it comes to guns. So check that out carefully to avoid inadvertently running afoul of the law. Especially if you buy from a private party or outside city or state lines.

And then there is the NYS Safe Act that kind of puts our 2nd Amendment constitutional guarantees in the perspective of reality.

Safe ratings are often openly given, but the numbers really are hard to relate to. For example, what are the actual temperatures that house fires can produce, and how long are those temperatures sustained in the worst of the house fires. Then comes the question of the effects on the materials inside. When they claim protection against damage, are they talking paper documents, plastics, wood stocks, metallurgical properties of steel, stability of ammunition, etc., etc. I have never been able to find these numbers or fire conditions anywhere to verify if the ratings are sufficient. Has anyone ever run across that kind of data anywhere? It would help make some of the decisions.

Had an article in Sunday's paper about the ban on hunting and trapping wild hogs with full protection being afforded to these invaders. Apparently the DEC has been fairly active in their pursuit of the piggies, claiming to have caught and killed more than 150 pig so far. Apparently the method of choice is trapping so that they can catch entire sounders of these critters at a time. That is why they don't want hunters and trappers dispersing these sounders before they have a crack at doing their thing. I am surprised that there are so many out there that they could so quickly get 150 of them. I didn't even know that 150 0f those things were loose in the whole state ..... lol. The only thing I was thinking as I was reading this was that perhaps they are cherry picking the high density areas to show some impressive early results and success may be rapidly slowing down after they have captured the easy ones. It seems to me that there will soon come a time when they will have to undo their "full protection" decree and open them back up for full-on public hunting and trapping. I don't know, the jury is still out regarding the way the DEC is handling the situation. Time will tell.

So, it's a financial decision, with a little healthy eating aspect thrown in. That's fair enough. We all have our own different reasons. I would still suggest that if there is any way possible to team up with an experienced hunting friend, that is the absolute best way to get started.

How many of our hunter-heroes do you really think abide by all the proper laws, and ethical decisions and rules of fair chase? How do you think all of our hunting entertainers come up with week after week of successful hunts? These guys harvest trophy animals for our entertainment. That's their livelihood. No trophies, no paycheck. Can anyone really be surprised that everything isn't always on the up-and-up? Personally, these guys to me are truly meaningless. I do not look up to them in awe. And as far as I am concerned they are the result of some misplaced notion of hero-worship that has absolutely no business in my version of the world of hunting.

What was it that made you decide that you wanted to hunt? Is there someone that already hunts that interested you in trying it out? My recommendation would be to find someone that hunts and go along with them on a trip or two. It's hard for me to imagine, but there is a possibility that there may be things about hunting that don't turn out the way you imagine them. The very worst thing would be to buy a whole lot of equipment and then discover that there is something about hunting that is not for you. So, I go back to my first question, "What was it that made you decide that you wanted to hunt?"

No question .... Cuomo is target number one. But unfortunately as long as the rest of them feel they can freely thumb their noses at gun owners, they will always be able to find another leader. But you are right, as long as we are into sending messages, the most powerful message will come from the removal of Cuomo.

I have laid out a plan that has the best chance of working in terms of putting legislators back in their proper place relative to gun issues. The message being sent to them when they see a significant percentage of those that voted for the safe act missing from their ranks would restore the respect for gun owners into their daily thoughts. It can work. Do I have faith that a significant percentage of gun owners are going to study voting records, and policy statements? .... Not on your life. But I do know that I can hand people a list of those who voted for that safe act and persuade them to vote for the opponent of any one of those names that they see on the ballot. I have been doing that ever since I obtained the list. Voters are an apathetic bunch (gun owners are no exception), and anyone planning on leading an activity to unite them had better keep things simple.

I think the easiest way to think about it all is to think of which way is the most likely to succeed ..... have gun owners go down a single "yea or nay" voting list of one piece of legislation and vote accordingly or .... ask them to spend hours studying the voting records and post-Safe Act comments and activities of each candidate. Which do you think has the best chance of actually happening and coming out with a unified result? One direction sends a message that an anti-gun vote will be punished. The other guarantees that a large percentage of the gun owners will simply opt-out, or reach different conclusions based on their attempted research, both resulting in a diffused vote. Don't over-think the possibilities and don't over estimate the amount of time that gun owners are willing to put into this. Again, the K.I.S.S. principle is the most appropriate way to go. Go for a clear message being sent, and there will be no need to worry about where they stand on the gun issue. With politicians, votes trump principle. Threaten their re-election, and their views on guns go right out the window. Conversely, dissolve our unity with "over-thinking", and the whole election is lost and the message that gets sent for the future is that the gun lobby is dead.

You are not understanding the intent. I know it is impossible to only elect pro gun rights people. Hell, we all know that. But I do know how to send a message that we are a mighty political force to be reckoned with. A message that will last for decades to those that would consider voting for gun control legislation. And it is not by each gun owner picking and choosing what issues to base their vote on. Read what I said about the K.I.S.S. principle above. We have to stay united around a single issue, and the Safe Act has caused the gun owning community to rally and unite on that one single issue. Not follow up issues, not even previous or guessed at future voting records and positions. If a good percentage of those who voted for the safe act come up missing at the next term, one god-awful powerful message will have been sent that even those who dodged the bullet won't be able to ignore in the future. The safe act is the one (and only) rallying point that can keep the gun owning voters focused through election day. The anti-gun forces have handed us a powerful election issue if only we can use it in a smart way. Start complicating things and our unity will be lost. That safe act voting record serves as a very simple guideline for an election result that will send the message that it is not a good political move to vote for gun control. We will never have this opportunity again because gun owners have never been so concentrated in their reaction to any piece of legislation before. It truly is now or never.

My intent for this election is to keep the message simple. Not complicated or anything that they can spin in their mind, or anything that needs any long explanation for them to understand. Just a simple litmus test that cannot be confused. Yes or no. Did you vote for the safe act or not. Your career path hangs on that answer. It is the message that's important and it has to be delivered in as basic a way as possible, so that it will be remembered by these candidates and the ones that come after them. It also is a very simple way for gun owners to be united and focused without a whole lot of polarizing fine points that can fracture the voting result. Here is a good time to apply the K.I.S.S. principle to achieve success.

I understand why you would be unhappy with the bird feeder becoming the site of carnage .... lol. It's one thing to recognize that these things happen frequently, naturally and necessarily in nature. It's quite another thing to realize that you are actively baiting in the birds to their demise. Most people don't feed birds for that purpose. But I guess we have to understand that every time we muck around in the affairs of mother nature, there are always unintended consequences. It almost always goes without saying.

I share your disgust, but keep your eye on the prize. This is the year to send the message that if you voted for the Safe Act we're voting against you. If you voted against it we are rewarding you with our vote. The Safe Act has to become our litmus test this year while we still have many of the gun owners irate enough to act in unison. It is a "now or never" election. If could turn out that you have to hold your nose and vote for an idiot just because he did not support the Safe Act. But for this year only, the message has to be sent that a vote for these kinds of gun laws is dangerous to your political career. If we pull it off in any significant fashion at all, the message will stay in place for quite a few years. If we don't ....... well I think you can guess the consequences. By the way, access the "Lest We Forget" thread pinned at the top of this sub-forum to see exactly who voted for or against the Safe Act.

While this guy's quote was not stated as clearly as it should have (And perhaps the reporter was lifting things without supplying context), the focus of the legal action is reflected in this part of what he said: "South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said semi-automatic guns are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so the New York ban is unconstitutional." The safe act does talk about so-called "assault rifles" being semi-automatic. This guy is simply pointing out that even semi-automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment. All the talk of hunting is simply mentioning one common application for these kinds of rifles. I didn't interpret that as meaning that hunting was the only purpose of them. In terms of where this action will lead, I doubt anyone here is qualified to have a credible opinion on that.

What? Someone with the gall to investigate the king? How dare they? I only want to hear good actual results of his removal from office. This scum-bag is slipperier than snot on a door knob. But it is good to know that someone is after him.

An interesting new avenue of the fight against the NYS Safe Act. http://wivb.com/2014/05/07/south-dakota-ag-challenges-new-york-gun-ban/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A New York state ban on semi-automatic weapons sets a worrying precedent that could affect the rights of South Dakotans and people across the country to use such weapons in hunting, the South Dakota Attorney General said in a court filing. South Dakota joined 21 states in supporting a court challenge to New York’s ban on semi-automatic weapons. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley said semi-automatic guns are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so the New York ban is unconstitutional. “Hunting with semi-automatic firearms for pheasant, waterfowl and big game is commonplace in South Dakota,” Jackley said in a statement. “While the ban only applies to New York at this time, the federal court’s upholding of the gun ban sets a concerning precedent interpreting limitations on Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens including here in South Dakota.” A federal judge in December allowed most of New York’s new gun control law to stand, rejecting arguments that its bans on large-capacity magazines and the sale of popular semi-automatic rifles violates gun rights. Judge William Skretny in Buffalo, New York, argued that those provisions in the law are constitutional because they’re related to achieving an “important governmental interest” in public safety. The law was adopted following the shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school in late 2012. The New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, sportsmen’s groups, firearms businesses and gun owners filed the suit. The “friend of the court” brief signed by the 22 states was filed in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New York. ___ The case is Nojay v. Cuomo.

That was the essence of my post earlier. Because we are focused on guns here in this forum, we begin to believe that gun rights are some kind of flashpoint that will spark revolt or mass outrage across the entire population when gun rights are attacked. But the reality is that we are tolerated or at best, ignored by the bulk of the people. Our only hope is that we represent a unified, and dedicated, impassioned minority that can vote as a unit where the rest are fractured by indifference and concerns relating to other scattered issues. Really as just a little dash of reality, we have to understand our position and the only realistic option that we have available to us.