Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Sup ... :&st=email

A 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

journalists

photographers

magazine publishers

television show hosts and producers

Web content publishers

artists

equipment manufacturers

stock photography agencies

outdoor organizations

book authors and sellers

sales representatives

public relations agencies

and 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.

What a crock!

How long are we going to let teh federal govt run us over? We have very few freedoms left and it looks like we are going to have to take up arms to keep those.

Let me see if I understand this one. If I take a picture of a dove hunt in TN, and post that on a web site that is about hunting, and someone in Ohio where it is illegal to dove hunt, comes across that web site picture, I could be charged and jailed for that?

Say a person goes to South Dakota and takes a pheasant, and sends a picture to a home town paper in a State which does not have a pheasant season, would that make that person chargeable under this Federal law, as it would be illegal to take pheasant in that State?

Kind of sounds that way, don't it. Hope the Lt. Gov. doesn't take pics if he goes this year, would hate to see him jailed for having pics of dead birds.

I am more than a little bit sick of the Fed imposing ridiculous ,, I'll use the word junk instead of what I'm really thinking, you can't say this you can't print that you ,cant you can't,,,, what ever happened to the bill of rights? T.J. wouldn't like this one bit, and neither to I.

Supreme Court to hear hunting video case

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 Journal”, 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.

So, I guess posing with dead deer (venison, yum ) is now illegal ?