Doc

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.

It occurs to me that we as avid gun owners, hunters, etc. do have a sort of tunnel vision. We see guns as tools of our lives and activities, and most of us have been involved with guns in one fashion or another for most of our lives. Therefore, we are very passionate about the 2nd Amendment. But we have to realize that the only thoughts that most people have about guns are the constant negative bombardment of news articles. There are all kinds of things that people are super-passionate about that don't even register on my "list of issues". So, if you do a "man in the street" interview, I am not really surprised that a lot of people are totally confused about the issue. That doesn't mean that they are idiots or anything else. No one is completely educated about every issue even though some pretend to be. I am not too certain that we will have success trying to incite people about the safe act that don't even have a gun or any interest in guns. We will be doing good if we can just get our own people to the polls. I think we would all be surprised at how many avid shooters, hunters, and gun enthusiasts are not even registered to vote. That's a situation we can do something about, and should be busily working on right now.

Why would anyone really be surprised? I'm expecting it. The groundwork is in place.

Old news. We had public water come into a small part of town. If the line ran past your house, you were required to pay a very exorbitant fee, and an annual fee whether you chose to tap into the system or not. Costs from the water line to the house was at the Owner's expense. No choice on any of that. Refuse and it will be added to your tax bill. A bunch of for sale signs went up because the fees were more than some people could afford. That basically is the government taking over your water rights.

The best bear set-up that I have ever seen was in PA in the corner of a small corn field that was surrounded by woods. If you could ever find that kind of set-up in NYS that would be a gold mine. There was a huge area right in the corner of the field that was just completely flattened with bear scat all over the place. There was a heavy trail leading from the woods out into that part of the field. Just a perfect situation. This is a pretty rare thing but it does show that under the right conditions, some deer hunting tactics can be used. By the way, While deer hunting one year, one of our bowhunting group set up a stand down in that corner and did see a bear using that trail during daylight.

I can see where this long distance target shooting could be a lot of fun. Not a skill that I would use while hunting, but just watching that arrow going down-range is a blast. On the NFAA ranges that I used to shoot, there was an 80 yard walk-up that was my absolute favorite shot. Big fun with a 50# recurve. I used to have a prism sight-pin because with my anchor and that bow, the target at 80 yards was behind my fist so I couldn't see it without the prism. I am wondering how these guys are even seeing those balloons at those distances. I see they need a spotting scope to see where the arrows are hitting.

237 yards? ...... why not get serious and go for the 1 mile mark .... lol.

So, does anyone actually pluck the feathers and roast it like a conventional Thanksgiving turkey, or isn't it done that way?

Man! The critters sure do like that spot. It doesn't look like a spot that has big enough trees for a tree stand. Great spot for a pop-up ground blind.

That last picture really has me confused. It could be a deer on it's hind legs as was mentioned, or it could be a sasquatch. Walking in that bent over fashion, and those long arms, and that ape-shaped head, I'm pretty sure it is a Bigfoot. By the way anybody spot the deer in the back at the left? That's probably what he's after.

It doesn't look like horse-stink bothers the deer very much.

Looks like a spot that ought to have a treestand in it.

So, the object is to shoot the oldest bird in the woods? Is that because older is perceived as wiser and more of a challenge?

I honestly hope the DEC knows what it is doing. This is the first time I have ever heard of tackling the problem of an invasive species by putting full protection on them. It sounds a bit bold to me, and certainly counter-intuitive. On the other hand, if the DEC finds that they don't have the resources or the knowhow to handle eradication by themselves, and the population explodes, they will look like the world's biggest dummys for not having taken the route of using the willing army of hunters to help solve the problem. I know the theory of what they are trying to do. The idea is to not disperse populations because of hunter pressure. I understand all that. But the fact is that now that they have chosen this unorthodox way of doing business, they damned-well better be right, and they damned-well better be up to the task.

How far out there are you ready to let the government extend its power and control over your personal lives in the name of Homeland Security? It seems that every time I hear that term Homeland Security, it relates to some new power of surveillance or detention, or changes to justice guarantees, or other shortcut around the Constitution that never existed before. Did 911 actually permanently change our system of government? I am very happy that no significant terrorist successes have occurred on our soil since the implementation of homeland security policies, but it does occasionally cause me to wonder "at what cost". I'll be honest when I say that I have not really developed any firm conclusions on all of this because I can see a need for some pretty sophisticated abilities to short-circuit terrorists attempts (foreign or domestic). But I am still aware of that quote from Ben Franklin that seems to be aimed right at todays situations and circumstances, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". So what do you all think? Where do we draw the lines, and exactly who is really watchdogging and evaluating how far these rules are stretched and bent? It sure seems that the courts are not getting very involved in a lot of these rules changes that come to us cloaked under the term "Homeland Security". Is all this stuff a problem or not? Lol .... Yes I know I am opening the door to the ranting of all the conspiracy theorists on the forum, but I do believe that there are some radical changes that perhaps need a bit of airing. Perhaps there is some middle ground between the Rambo-style mentality of let's tear it all down and the hell with the consequences vs. the Pollyanna, utopian views that see everything in this country as being just great.

Fear not! It is still on. But any day now it will be coming off.....lol.

So here we are almost done with April, and I have to figure out exactly when I can pull the snowplow off the ATV. It's not a real fun thing to put back on if snow decides to give us one last dump. But I do have springtime chores where the plow limits where I can drive. I think I'm about ready to take a chance. Hopefully any snow that we get from here on I can drive through or wait for it to melt. I think the odds are pretty small that we will get any more significant accumulation. I say that remembering that we have gotten 6" storms leaving some pretty sloppy-gloppy snow behind in May (but that is rare).

Cigar smoke will hold them off, but how many continuous hours can you keep a cigar going without winding up with a thunderous head-ache? ..... lol. Also, I spent decades stopping the tobacco addiction. I'm not ready to begin it again. But I mention it only because I recall a Canadian fishing trip where cigars provided the only periodic relief from those nasty little blood-suckers. Does a thermo-cell handle them?

I think the problem I have with spring turkey season is that this is the time I am going nuts trying to clean up leaves and lawn and pick up branches and sticks that are everywhere, and make repairs and do maintenance on buildings and equipment. Frankly, I don't have a minute to spare right now. When you add all that to the fact that turkeys have become pretty scarce in my area for the past decade or so, there's not a whole lot of time or motivation. And of course in the fall, I am bowhunting for deer which is priority #1. So I have almost zero turkey hunting experience. I must say that given the fact that a turkey harvest here would be a rare event, I probably would not be all that picky. But, I was just curious what the significance of turkey age is in hunting.

My first reaction was, "Why not"? But the more I think about some of the conversations we have had on here about all the nuances of the law, and all the little hidden rules and regulations that we may not even be aware of, maybe my answer is softening a bit. Recognizing that we are likely breaking all kinds of laws that we misunderstand or simply are not aware of, perhaps you might be placing yourself in some jeopardy. I have seen thread after thread where guys are arguing back and forth about the fine print or the meanings or the details of some of the conservation laws. It kind of tells me that some rather well meaning individuals can quite innocently run afoul of the law and not even realize it. You know ignorance of the law is no excuse and that is fine until it is your ignorance that you are being ticketed for.....lol. That question posed on the initial post isn't really all that easy to answer anymore.

It's kind of comical to hear somebody start shooting here in the valley, and pretty soon somebody else starts up at the other end of the valley. It's kind of like one guy gets reminded by the other. I know I have started both of them going when I go out to do some shooting. It's kind of like, "Damn that sounds like fun. I guess I'll go out and shoot for a while". For us it's kind of like the sound of rural life. It's exactly the same as hearing a chainsaw or a skidder heading through the woods. Sure, it's nicer when it is absolutely dead quiet, and actually, most of the time that's exactly how it is. The short period that I lived in the city, I came in contact with people who obviously lived to whine and complain and had way too much concern with what the neighbors were doing. It is amazing how sensitive neighbors can get, especially when they are intent on being that way.

I think it's an escape ploy used to confuse predators by pretending insanity.