Chris Avena 's Entries

• 01 Mar 2013
  The Rhino Debate - Where is the Plan?

  AFRICAN  INDABA    The Rhino Debate - Where is the Plan?  With over 4.800 black rhino and close to 21,000 white rhino in Africa, there is the potential to harvest up to 20 tons of rhino horn per year.    A comprehensive report, A Study on the Dehorning of African Rhinoceroses As a Tool to Reduce the Risk of Poaching, undertaken by the Endangered Wildlife Trust on behalf of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) in 2012 investigates the impacts and efficacy of dehorning and to identify the circumstances under which the intervention is most likely to be effective at reducing poaching.   Yet the rhino debate continues. In the following sections, we first provide an article by  Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, an independent conservation economist based in Cape Town, South Africa who  describes the increase in rhino poaching in South Africa where rhinos are hosted on both state and privately owned land, suggesting that a fresh look be taken at the possibility of re-opening international trade. The article provoked considerable interest and we have therefore invited follow-up contributions from Colman O Criodain of WWF and Mike Knight, Chair of the African Rhino Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC. Colman focuses on enforcement problems relating to illegal trade in one country, while Mike explains more of the background as well as the dilemmas facing rhino conservationists and calls for a balanced and creative approach. Finally Rowan Martin, an independent wildlife consultant in the Southern African region on a range of conservation and development projects comments that all three articles leave him with a sense of dissatisfaction and stipulates that rhino have the potential to transform land use in southern Africa.   Rhino dehorning has been used historically as a tool to reduce the threat of poaching in parts of southern Africa.  Dehorning is a contentious matter due to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the method at reducing poaching, and due to potential veterinary impacts and adverse effects on the behavioural ecology of rhinos.  So where is the plan?  South Africa have released their plan (see National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004): Biodiversity Management Plan For The Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) In South Africa 2011-2020 Government Gazette, No. 36096 25 January 2013)  The plan was jointly developed by South African members of the SADC Rhino Management Group (RMG). The Vision of this plan is to contribute to the long term recovery of the black rhino population by having viable populations throughout their former range within South Africa.  The target is to have at least 3000 D.b.minor and 500 D.b. bicornis by 2020 with at least 5% growth rates.  Amongst the six components to achieve this is the proposal for a regulated harvesting regime limited to bulls. Kenya has released its plan (see Conservation and management Strategy for the Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis michaeli) in Kenya: 2012 – 2016, 5th Edition. Kenya Wildlife Services, P.O. Box 40241 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya). Their Vision is to conserve 2000 East African Rhino with the goal of increasing the national herd from 623 to 750 animals by 2016.  At an estimated implementation cost of Ksh632 million (~US$7.35million), the plan places a heavy emphasis on law enforcement and protection and envisages expanding the range of rhino habitat through establishing additional sanctuaries.  There is no mention of any form of harvesting or trade in rhino horn. In both cases, the strategies are advocating to continue with the status quo which is extremely costly and has not worked in the long term.    Missing from this approach is what to do with the harvested horn.  A paradigm shift if required here if the reduction in illegal trade in rhino horn is to be reduced. This will require that all stakeholders in all range states, from producers to consumers, begin working to the same plan.  Rhino producers in Africa cannot continue to bear the opportunity costs (estimated at US$400 million annually) as a result of decisions at international forums such as CITES. Either the forum advocating the non-trade approach should fund rhino protection in situ by  paying the opportunity costs imposed on rhino producers like protected areas, communities and private landholders in Africa or support devolving the ownership of rhinos to private, community and state landholders and promoting legal markets for rhino hunting and trade in regulated harvested horn.  This will provide powerful economic incentives for rhino conservation in Africa that will reverse the uncertainty and double the population of rhinos in the next 20 years.  

  4467 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  The Rhino Debate - Where is the Plan?

  AFRICAN  INDABA    The Rhino Debate - Where is the Plan?  With over 4.800 black rhino and close to 21,000 white rhino in Africa, there is the potential to harvest up to 20 tons of rhino horn per year.    A comprehensive report, A Study on the Dehorning of African Rhinoceroses As a Tool to Reduce the Risk of Poaching, undertaken by the Endangered Wildlife Trust on behalf of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) in 2012 investigates the impacts and efficacy of dehorning and to identify the circumstances under which the intervention is most likely to be effective at reducing poaching.   Yet the rhino debate continues. In the following sections, we first provide an article by  Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, an independent conservation economist based in Cape Town, South Africa who  describes the increase in rhino poaching in South Africa where rhinos are hosted on both state and privately owned land, suggesting that a fresh look be taken at the possibility of re-opening international trade. The article provoked considerable interest and we have therefore invited follow-up contributions from Colman O Criodain of WWF and Mike Knight, Chair of the African Rhino Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC. Colman focuses on enforcement problems relating to illegal trade in one country, while Mike explains more of the background as well as the dilemmas facing rhino conservationists and calls for a balanced and creative approach. Finally Rowan Martin, an independent wildlife consultant in the Southern African region on a range of conservation and development projects comments that all three articles leave him with a sense of dissatisfaction and stipulates that rhino have the potential to transform land use in southern Africa.   Rhino dehorning has been used historically as a tool to reduce the threat of poaching in parts of southern Africa.  Dehorning is a contentious matter due to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the method at reducing poaching, and due to potential veterinary impacts and adverse effects on the behavioural ecology of rhinos.  So where is the plan?  South Africa have released their plan (see National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004): Biodiversity Management Plan For The Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) In South Africa 2011-2020 Government Gazette, No. 36096 25 January 2013)  The plan was jointly developed by South African members of the SADC Rhino Management Group (RMG). The Vision of this plan is to contribute to the long term recovery of the black rhino population by having viable populations throughout their former range within South Africa.  The target is to have at least 3000 D.b.minor and 500 D.b. bicornis by 2020 with at least 5% growth rates.  Amongst the six components to achieve this is the proposal for a regulated harvesting regime limited to bulls. Kenya has released its plan (see Conservation and management Strategy for the Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis michaeli) in Kenya: 2012 – 2016, 5th Edition. Kenya Wildlife Services, P.O. Box 40241 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya). Their Vision is to conserve 2000 East African Rhino with the goal of increasing the national herd from 623 to 750 animals by 2016.  At an estimated implementation cost of Ksh632 million (~US$7.35million), the plan places a heavy emphasis on law enforcement and protection and envisages expanding the range of rhino habitat through establishing additional sanctuaries.  There is no mention of any form of harvesting or trade in rhino horn. In both cases, the strategies are advocating to continue with the status quo which is extremely costly and has not worked in the long term.    Missing from this approach is what to do with the harvested horn.  A paradigm shift if required here if the reduction in illegal trade in rhino horn is to be reduced. This will require that all stakeholders in all range states, from producers to consumers, begin working to the same plan.  Rhino producers in Africa cannot continue to bear the opportunity costs (estimated at US$400 million annually) as a result of decisions at international forums such as CITES. Either the forum advocating the non-trade approach should fund rhino protection in situ by  paying the opportunity costs imposed on rhino producers like protected areas, communities and private landholders in Africa or support devolving the ownership of rhinos to private, community and state landholders and promoting legal markets for rhino hunting and trade in regulated harvested horn.  This will provide powerful economic incentives for rhino conservation in Africa that will reverse the uncertainty and double the population of rhinos in the next 20 years.  

  Mar 01, 2013 4467
• 27 Feb 2013
  The Green Hunt

  By Chris Avena   Social media has become a large part of our every day lives. There is a type of social media for every type of interest. Now, social media has crept into the outdoors. Less than two years ago I launched SeeMeHunt.com, the interactive social network for hunters. It is a social media outlet where you can share your experiences and pictures of your outdoor adventures and meet other hunters and outdoorsmen from around the world.    This past August I was invited to join the World Wild Adventure Team to go to South Africa to co-host part of their Big 5 African Game Series.   This particular hunt really did peak my interest. We would be hunting a White Rhino. This was number one on my Big Five hunting list. This hunt would be a bit different than most. This was to be a “Green Hunt”. It would have all of the thrill and excitement of a big game hunt, but instead of using a 375 H & H, I would be hunting this great beast with a tranquilizer gun. The fact is, green hunting requires more skill and precision than hunting with a rifle because the animal must be shot at a much closer range. The darted animals can become very unpredictable. The animal could bolt or it could charge. The tranquilizer gun does not have immediate results like a conventional rifle which leaves a large margin of uncertainty.   After twenty hours of traveling, we finally arrived in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. Our PH for this trip would be Stephan Tam, a young, confident and very competent professional. I must admit, I was a bit nervous to hunt my first Big Five animal, but all of that would change. We got settled in at the lodge and the hunt would begin the next morning. I was up before sunrise. I was overwhelmed with excitement. I watched the sun come up and I was in awe of just how beautiful it was. We discussed our strategy over breakfast and we set out about eight in the morning. The trackers were out about an hour before us looking for signs of rhino. Around mid day the trackers spotted a rhino going down into a creek bed. We carefully followed over the rocky terrain and down into the creek bed. It was a bit unnerving wading through the high reeds of the creek bed because rhino were not the only big game in the area. There are Lion and Cape Buffalo which are just as aggressive and just as dangerous. We followed the trail out of the creek bed and into the thick brush. My view was obscured by the thick thorny brush that adorns the plains. Our PH, Stephen was on point  and he silently moved us within thirty yards of this six thousand pound colossus. As I cleared the brush, the rhino came into view. My heart skipped a beat when I realized that not more than eighteen yards away were TWO huge rhino’s. There is a certain degree of uncertainty of how a rhino will react when it is shot with a tranquilizer. However, when two rhino’s travel together the risk factor increases considerably. Stephan’s calm demeanor put me at ease while we got set to take the shot. I raised the tranquilizer gun and took careful aim right behind its shoulder. Stephan whispered “Take em when you are ready”. I squeezed off a round and watched as the tranquilizer dart hit home. The time factor for the tranquilizer to take full effect is approximately fifteen minutes. Fortunately, both rhino’s bolted in the same direction away from our hunting party.   The two rhino’s ran for about a mile with our trackers in hot pursuit. We caught up with them in the truck only to come upon a very dangerous situation. The drug was starting to take effect on the darted rhino, however, his companion was not going to leave his side. With time at the essence, we needed to separate the two as quickly as possible. We tried to scare off the second rhino by beeping the trucks horn but it only seemed to agitate him. The rhino began to charge the truck. Only stopping yards from hitting us on three separate attempts. The situation was dicey to say the least. With the clock ticking, we were finally able to scare off the second rhino. We had to work quickly and efficiently to collect the DNA samples. The veterinarian drew a vile of blood while I took some hair samples and blood swatches. We were able to take some scrapings from the rhino’s horn. We took measurements of this prehistoric beast including its height, length and the length of its horn which measured 29.5 inches long. With our main task completed we still had a little time for our recap for SeeMeHunt.com and snap a few pictures for prosperity.   The DNA samples were sent to James Derr PHD, the director of the DNA technologies laboratory at Texas A&M University. Doctor Derr supplied us with the DNA kits so we would be able to log the DNA from the rhino into their global data base. We have a responsibility as hunters to assist with the conservation efforts so animals such as the rhino will continue to flourish in the wild for years to come.   You can find out more about our African adventures at www.SeeMeHunt.com the interactive social network for hunters or watch us on World Wild Adventures which airs on the Pursuit Channel. Our next adventure will take place in Costa Rica where we will team up with the wounded warrior foundation so we can show the men and women of our military just how much we appreciate their service, dedication and the sacrifices that they have made for our country to protect our way of life. We will take them on the trip of a lifetime to Crocodile Bay Resort where we will go deep sea fishing for Monster Marlin. These are not just any Marlin; these are 2-300 pound Marlin that you will be telling your children about some day. We will defy the laws of gravity while zip lining over a 1000 foot gorge, skimming the canopy of the rain forest and admiring the views below. If you are interested in attending one of these trips to Costa Rica or you are interested in becoming a sponsor, you can email me for details at  SeeMeHunt.com@gmail.com    

  18112 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  The Green Hunt

  By Chris Avena   Social media has become a large part of our every day lives. There is a type of social media for every type of interest. Now, social media has crept into the outdoors. Less than two years ago I launched SeeMeHunt.com, the interactive social network for hunters. It is a social media outlet where you can share your experiences and pictures of your outdoor adventures and meet other hunters and outdoorsmen from around the world.    This past August I was invited to join the World Wild Adventure Team to go to South Africa to co-host part of their Big 5 African Game Series.   This particular hunt really did peak my interest. We would be hunting a White Rhino. This was number one on my Big Five hunting list. This hunt would be a bit different than most. This was to be a “Green Hunt”. It would have all of the thrill and excitement of a big game hunt, but instead of using a 375 H & H, I would be hunting this great beast with a tranquilizer gun. The fact is, green hunting requires more skill and precision than hunting with a rifle because the animal must be shot at a much closer range. The darted animals can become very unpredictable. The animal could bolt or it could charge. The tranquilizer gun does not have immediate results like a conventional rifle which leaves a large margin of uncertainty.   After twenty hours of traveling, we finally arrived in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. Our PH for this trip would be Stephan Tam, a young, confident and very competent professional. I must admit, I was a bit nervous to hunt my first Big Five animal, but all of that would change. We got settled in at the lodge and the hunt would begin the next morning. I was up before sunrise. I was overwhelmed with excitement. I watched the sun come up and I was in awe of just how beautiful it was. We discussed our strategy over breakfast and we set out about eight in the morning. The trackers were out about an hour before us looking for signs of rhino. Around mid day the trackers spotted a rhino going down into a creek bed. We carefully followed over the rocky terrain and down into the creek bed. It was a bit unnerving wading through the high reeds of the creek bed because rhino were not the only big game in the area. There are Lion and Cape Buffalo which are just as aggressive and just as dangerous. We followed the trail out of the creek bed and into the thick brush. My view was obscured by the thick thorny brush that adorns the plains. Our PH, Stephen was on point  and he silently moved us within thirty yards of this six thousand pound colossus. As I cleared the brush, the rhino came into view. My heart skipped a beat when I realized that not more than eighteen yards away were TWO huge rhino’s. There is a certain degree of uncertainty of how a rhino will react when it is shot with a tranquilizer. However, when two rhino’s travel together the risk factor increases considerably. Stephan’s calm demeanor put me at ease while we got set to take the shot. I raised the tranquilizer gun and took careful aim right behind its shoulder. Stephan whispered “Take em when you are ready”. I squeezed off a round and watched as the tranquilizer dart hit home. The time factor for the tranquilizer to take full effect is approximately fifteen minutes. Fortunately, both rhino’s bolted in the same direction away from our hunting party.   The two rhino’s ran for about a mile with our trackers in hot pursuit. We caught up with them in the truck only to come upon a very dangerous situation. The drug was starting to take effect on the darted rhino, however, his companion was not going to leave his side. With time at the essence, we needed to separate the two as quickly as possible. We tried to scare off the second rhino by beeping the trucks horn but it only seemed to agitate him. The rhino began to charge the truck. Only stopping yards from hitting us on three separate attempts. The situation was dicey to say the least. With the clock ticking, we were finally able to scare off the second rhino. We had to work quickly and efficiently to collect the DNA samples. The veterinarian drew a vile of blood while I took some hair samples and blood swatches. We were able to take some scrapings from the rhino’s horn. We took measurements of this prehistoric beast including its height, length and the length of its horn which measured 29.5 inches long. With our main task completed we still had a little time for our recap for SeeMeHunt.com and snap a few pictures for prosperity.   The DNA samples were sent to James Derr PHD, the director of the DNA technologies laboratory at Texas A&M University. Doctor Derr supplied us with the DNA kits so we would be able to log the DNA from the rhino into their global data base. We have a responsibility as hunters to assist with the conservation efforts so animals such as the rhino will continue to flourish in the wild for years to come.   You can find out more about our African adventures at www.SeeMeHunt.com the interactive social network for hunters or watch us on World Wild Adventures which airs on the Pursuit Channel. Our next adventure will take place in Costa Rica where we will team up with the wounded warrior foundation so we can show the men and women of our military just how much we appreciate their service, dedication and the sacrifices that they have made for our country to protect our way of life. We will take them on the trip of a lifetime to Crocodile Bay Resort where we will go deep sea fishing for Monster Marlin. These are not just any Marlin; these are 2-300 pound Marlin that you will be telling your children about some day. We will defy the laws of gravity while zip lining over a 1000 foot gorge, skimming the canopy of the rain forest and admiring the views below. If you are interested in attending one of these trips to Costa Rica or you are interested in becoming a sponsor, you can email me for details at  SeeMeHunt.com@gmail.com    

  Feb 27, 2013 18112
• 25 Feb 2013
  NSSF Postpones Shooting Sports Summit

  To: ALL MEDIA For immediate release February 25, 2013For more information contact: Bill Brassard Jr. 203-426-1320   NSSF Postpones Shooting Sports Summit   NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation's Shooting Sports Summit, set for June 10-12 in Springfield, Mass., has been postponed to June 9-11, 2014. "We have postponed the Shooting Sports Summit so we can fully focus our resources on the legislative and regulatory challenges our industry is facing," said Chris Dolnack, NSSF senior president and chief marketing officer. "We remain committed to working with our Task Force 20/20 partner organizations to increase hunting and recreational shooting participation by 20 percent by the end of 2014." Formed in 2008, Task Force 20/20 Steering Committee consists of key individuals from 15 organizations representing the industry to assist with reaching the stated goal. The top initiatives that surfaced from Task Force 20/20 were to develop programs and efforts to serve as models for many motivated groups to use and to lower costs for implementation. Existing and effective programs were enhanced to reach the most people possible and are referred to as "Models of Success" programs. "NSSF will provide an interim report on the progress of Task Force 20/20 Models of Success projects later this year," said Melissa Schilling, NSSF director of recruitment and retention. Projects designed to increase hunting and recreational shooting participation that are gaining traction can be found in Florida, Texas, Michigan, Alabama and several other states. "We are currently reviewing and selecting new Models of Success programs now to maintain the momentum of our outreach efforts," said Schilling.

  1189 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  NSSF Postpones Shooting Sports Summit

  To: ALL MEDIA For immediate release February 25, 2013For more information contact: Bill Brassard Jr. 203-426-1320   NSSF Postpones Shooting Sports Summit   NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation's Shooting Sports Summit, set for June 10-12 in Springfield, Mass., has been postponed to June 9-11, 2014. "We have postponed the Shooting Sports Summit so we can fully focus our resources on the legislative and regulatory challenges our industry is facing," said Chris Dolnack, NSSF senior president and chief marketing officer. "We remain committed to working with our Task Force 20/20 partner organizations to increase hunting and recreational shooting participation by 20 percent by the end of 2014." Formed in 2008, Task Force 20/20 Steering Committee consists of key individuals from 15 organizations representing the industry to assist with reaching the stated goal. The top initiatives that surfaced from Task Force 20/20 were to develop programs and efforts to serve as models for many motivated groups to use and to lower costs for implementation. Existing and effective programs were enhanced to reach the most people possible and are referred to as "Models of Success" programs. "NSSF will provide an interim report on the progress of Task Force 20/20 Models of Success projects later this year," said Melissa Schilling, NSSF director of recruitment and retention. Projects designed to increase hunting and recreational shooting participation that are gaining traction can be found in Florida, Texas, Michigan, Alabama and several other states. "We are currently reviewing and selecting new Models of Success programs now to maintain the momentum of our outreach efforts," said Schilling.

  Feb 25, 2013 1189
• 21 Feb 2013
  Firearms Owners, Industry Not the "Bad Guys," Says NSSF Preside

  Firearms Owners, Industry Not the "Bad Guys," Says NSSF President Steve Sanetti in PBS Frontline Interview NEWTOWN, Conn. -- In an extended interview with the PBS Frontline program, Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, emphatically says that the nation's firearms owners and firearms industry are not responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms and, consequently, should not be subjected to the severe restrictions being considered by Congress and many state legislatures. "[Firearms owners] are not the bad guys. The industry isn't the bad guys," said Sanetti in the interview. "Insofar as we can help the situation we want to be able to help. But that doesn't mean piling meaningless restrictions and onerous conditions upon people who want to exercise their rights and just enjoy what they do peacefully." PBS has devoted unprecedented airtime this week across all of its news programming platforms to coverage of violence in American society. NSSF agreed to do the interview in order to provide the firearms industry's perspective on contentious gun and legislative issues. NSSF is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry and has more than 8,000 members. The following quotes by Sanetti are taken from the wide-ranging interview: On restricting magazine capacity: "Millions and millions of law-abiding Americans use semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines of varying capacities, and millions and millions of them every day don't do a thing wrong. And so we feel that it's not the correct approach and do not support magazine limitation." On selling guns and providing safety literature: ". . . people look at a trade association like ours and assume that the only thing we're interested in is selling guns. Not true. We want our products to be used safely and responsibly. Because let's face it, we're the ones who get blamed if products are used unsafely or irresponsibly." On Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) saying AR-style rifles are designed to kill people: "With all due respect he could not be more wrong . . . . You have millions and millions . . . of Americans who pass a background check, who buy these guns and have millions and millions of magazines . . . . [Yet] the crime rate has been going down. If you tell these people . . . who use these guns for legitimate purposes . . . ‘You're nothing but a murderer, because that's the only reason why anyone would own guns is to kill people.' How are you going to get these people to cooperate [on solutions to violence]?" On violence and guns: "Let's take Connecticut. In Connecticut there are exactly two homicides committed with a rifle of any kind in the last seven years. There were 40 deaths annually from knives, 320 deaths annually from clubs and 20 deaths annually from hands and feet. So it's not just firearms.Yes, firearms can be misused, but other things can be misused too. So the focus I think should be on violence." Who or what is to blame for what happened in Newtown? "I think primarily the firearms owner in this instance was not exercising that degree of personal responsibility . . . she should have done. She knew she had an at-risk individual in her home . . . . She knew he needed help. She knew he was mentally troubled. She had firearms in the house that she purchased legally. She had gone through all the background check required in Connecticut, the guns were registered to her, nothing was done improperly or illegally. But where I think she really caused this incident was by not adequately storing these guns securely away from her son who she knew to have these problems. Had she done that this incident would not have occurred and you wouldn't see this big cry over, let's have more gun control." On hasty lawmaking: ". . . people react emotionally. And I think people make bad decisions when they are angry, when they are fearful and when they act in haste. And I think that this situation had the making of all three." On restrictions on, and increased sales of, firearms: "We want people to own firearms for the right reasons because they understand, respect them, enjoy them, and will use them safely, properly, and responsibly. So the idea of a mad rush for everybody to buy a firearm I don't think is necessarily the best trend in the world but it's a fact of life because, as I say, we're Americans, and if you say we can't have something, people want it." Frontline has posted its complete interview with Steve Sanetti in written Q&A format. The broadcast segments are nowonline as well. To stay abreast of federal and state legislation that could potentially restrict ownership and use of semiautomatic firearms and ammunition and also to write your legislators, visit the NSSF Legislative Action Center here. Bill Brassard Jr.203-426-1320

  5343 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Firearms Owners, Industry Not the "Bad Guys," Says NSSF Preside

  Firearms Owners, Industry Not the "Bad Guys," Says NSSF President Steve Sanetti in PBS Frontline Interview NEWTOWN, Conn. -- In an extended interview with the PBS Frontline program, Steve Sanetti, president and CEO of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, emphatically says that the nation's firearms owners and firearms industry are not responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms and, consequently, should not be subjected to the severe restrictions being considered by Congress and many state legislatures. "[Firearms owners] are not the bad guys. The industry isn't the bad guys," said Sanetti in the interview. "Insofar as we can help the situation we want to be able to help. But that doesn't mean piling meaningless restrictions and onerous conditions upon people who want to exercise their rights and just enjoy what they do peacefully." PBS has devoted unprecedented airtime this week across all of its news programming platforms to coverage of violence in American society. NSSF agreed to do the interview in order to provide the firearms industry's perspective on contentious gun and legislative issues. NSSF is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry and has more than 8,000 members. The following quotes by Sanetti are taken from the wide-ranging interview: On restricting magazine capacity: "Millions and millions of law-abiding Americans use semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines of varying capacities, and millions and millions of them every day don't do a thing wrong. And so we feel that it's not the correct approach and do not support magazine limitation." On selling guns and providing safety literature: ". . . people look at a trade association like ours and assume that the only thing we're interested in is selling guns. Not true. We want our products to be used safely and responsibly. Because let's face it, we're the ones who get blamed if products are used unsafely or irresponsibly." On Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) saying AR-style rifles are designed to kill people: "With all due respect he could not be more wrong . . . . You have millions and millions . . . of Americans who pass a background check, who buy these guns and have millions and millions of magazines . . . . [Yet] the crime rate has been going down. If you tell these people . . . who use these guns for legitimate purposes . . . ‘You're nothing but a murderer, because that's the only reason why anyone would own guns is to kill people.' How are you going to get these people to cooperate [on solutions to violence]?" On violence and guns: "Let's take Connecticut. In Connecticut there are exactly two homicides committed with a rifle of any kind in the last seven years. There were 40 deaths annually from knives, 320 deaths annually from clubs and 20 deaths annually from hands and feet. So it's not just firearms.Yes, firearms can be misused, but other things can be misused too. So the focus I think should be on violence." Who or what is to blame for what happened in Newtown? "I think primarily the firearms owner in this instance was not exercising that degree of personal responsibility . . . she should have done. She knew she had an at-risk individual in her home . . . . She knew he needed help. She knew he was mentally troubled. She had firearms in the house that she purchased legally. She had gone through all the background check required in Connecticut, the guns were registered to her, nothing was done improperly or illegally. But where I think she really caused this incident was by not adequately storing these guns securely away from her son who she knew to have these problems. Had she done that this incident would not have occurred and you wouldn't see this big cry over, let's have more gun control." On hasty lawmaking: ". . . people react emotionally. And I think people make bad decisions when they are angry, when they are fearful and when they act in haste. And I think that this situation had the making of all three." On restrictions on, and increased sales of, firearms: "We want people to own firearms for the right reasons because they understand, respect them, enjoy them, and will use them safely, properly, and responsibly. So the idea of a mad rush for everybody to buy a firearm I don't think is necessarily the best trend in the world but it's a fact of life because, as I say, we're Americans, and if you say we can't have something, people want it." Frontline has posted its complete interview with Steve Sanetti in written Q&A format. The broadcast segments are nowonline as well. To stay abreast of federal and state legislation that could potentially restrict ownership and use of semiautomatic firearms and ammunition and also to write your legislators, visit the NSSF Legislative Action Center here. Bill Brassard Jr.203-426-1320

  Feb 21, 2013 5343
• 19 Feb 2013
  New York Peace Officer On Commitment And Oath

  Hilham, TN --(Ammoland.com)- This letter, from a Saratoga County, New York, Deputy Sheriff speaks of honor, commitment, and respecting any Oath you take. It was sent to Glenn Maine, one of our State leaders. It is placed here with the author’s permission. What would you say to your children about how to live? I think Deputy David Jones said some important things to his children. - Glen, I am not one who seeks or intentionally brings attention to myself. I am one who participates, but does so from the rear of the crowd. My articulation skills are lacking, and in a crowd, I will often pronounce a word with error or stutter through a phrase. I have known the Sheriff of Fulton County for some time now. I call Tom Lorey a friend. I understand and agree with his philosophy and I’m motivated by his passion. I, if allowed, would like to stand next to Sheriff Lorey and do whatever I can to assist in the completion of this mission. I will stand in the shadows no more. I am an Army veteran and have been a police officer for nearly 24 years. I have taken all my oaths freely and accepted the responsibility of an oath as a promise to those that I serve. In today’s society, it seems that an oath is now nothing more than a ceremony of useless words and phrases which no longer are binding to those who have repeated them. Our Government was formed as a representative government for the people and by the people. Our elected representatives should mirror the beliefs and morality of the people they served. If a representative wanders from those beliefs, they feared the vote of the people. Now it seems the government no longer fears the people. Our government has become a government by the government and for the government. Special interest, and money, bribes if you will, tell many of representatives how they will vote and the will of the people are ignored. Elected politicians and appointed government figures have been knowingly and intentionally violating law whenever it suits them to push a political agenda. Never let a good crisis go to waste, even when they are told by a majority of the people they represent that their agenda is not wanted. Yet, they will call one of our citizens, who have committed no crime on Tuesday, who is compliance with the laws and openly accepts personal responsibility, a criminal on Wednesday for being in compliance with Tuesday’s law, only because someone rewrote the definition of a term. Now that the executive branch of our federal government has made the Congress powerless through Executive Order and they believe that there is no need for any type of a spending plan to exist, is there any possible way to hold these politicians accountable since those in Congress appear to be in no hurry or have little to provide except wonderful sounding press releases that never have an action attached to them. I have been thinking about this for some time and from my recent experiences I believe that I must start with our young citizens. Recently I attended a function at the local High School. My daughter was being inducted into the National Honor Society. The auditorium was full of families and school officials. At the beginning of the ceremony everyone was asked to stand for the National Anthem. I stood, clicked my heels and placed my hand over my heart. I was in horror to see the number of adults who stood but considered it a hassle and did nothing else. I looked up and onto the stage and saw my daughter standing with her hand over her heart and smiling while looking at our Nation’s flag. While some students also had their hand over their heart, I was amazed by the number of students who were standing, but talking to the student next to them, chewing gum or fidgeting around. The High School Principal, who is the leader of the school and the primary role model for these students, was standing front and center of the stage and had her hands behind her back. For a moment I said to myself, “What is wrong with me, I am the one who is out of touch, doesn’t this matter anymore and what has happened to our children?” If I had acted the way some of these young adults were acting when I was their age, I would have been punished by my parents for embarrassing them in public. Citizenship is no longer taught properly in our homes or our schools if it is taught at all. It has become the responsibility of those who still believe that this is the greatest country in the world and it is because of an old piece of paper written a long time ago that makes it that way, to teach this to our young people. I am dedicating myself at this time to help teach our young people the true meanings of our forefathers; I just don’t know how to accomplish this. Both of my boys as well as I, are Eagle Scouts. I have taught citizenship, national history and flag etiquette to scouts for many years. This is great, except scouting only reaches a small percentage of our male youth. Part of an Eagle Scout ceremony is called the “Challenge”. It is given to a new Eagle Scout by an Eagle Scout and I had the pleasure, honor and responsibility to challenge my sons. I told them that as of this day, they are marked men to everyone who knows them. That minimal effort and turning away from a situation is not acceptable and to never compromise on their personal beliefs and morals. I then led my sons and every Eagle Scout in that room in the Eagle Scout Oath. This Oath as well as many others ends with, “On my sacred honor.” Meaningless words? I think not. My wife and I have tried, and believe we have accomplished, to teach our children their National heritage and what the meaning of our forefather’s written words actually mean. We have taught our children not to lie. We have taught our children not to steal or cheat or associate with those who do. We have taught our children that morality counts and that there is right and wrong as well as good and evil. The saying in our home is, “Do what you know to be right”, when our children leave our home unaccompanied by an adult. We are all hypocrites in one way or another but we have taught and shown our children that after we are gone, we will only be remembered for our character. Our country is changing at a rapid pace; it seems to be out of control. I do not know how much longer my law enforcement career will last, as I will not violate my oaths because some elected or appointed official does not possess the courage, morality, integrity or guts to say “no” to laws and directives that violate the Constitution of the United States of America. I am asking all of you who read these words not to stand at the rear of the crowd anymore. Let’s all stand together at the front of the crowd with Sheriff Tom Lorey.   Respectfully submitted, David P. Jones Deputy Sheriff Saratoga County -   Note from Elias Alias, editor: The letter above, written by Deputy Jones, stands as an individual example of the character and honor held by the Deputies of Saratoga County, New York. That Sheriff’s Department has written its own statement opposing New York’s Redcoat Governor Cuomo’s S.A.F.E. Act, which was hastily rushed through the State legislature and forged into law in a very despicable skirting of normal legislative processes. Please also read the official Sheriff’s Department letter of condemnation: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/04/saratoga-county-sheriffs-association-stands-against-ny-safe-act/ Oath Keepers salutes the whole Sheriff’s Department of Saratoga County, New York for honoring their Oath to the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of New York. About:Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution. Visit: www.oathkeepers.org Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/new-york-peace-officer-on-commitment-and-oath/#ixzz2LMKGZAyx

  2133 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  New York Peace Officer On Commitment And Oath

  Hilham, TN --(Ammoland.com)- This letter, from a Saratoga County, New York, Deputy Sheriff speaks of honor, commitment, and respecting any Oath you take. It was sent to Glenn Maine, one of our State leaders. It is placed here with the author’s permission. What would you say to your children about how to live? I think Deputy David Jones said some important things to his children. - Glen, I am not one who seeks or intentionally brings attention to myself. I am one who participates, but does so from the rear of the crowd. My articulation skills are lacking, and in a crowd, I will often pronounce a word with error or stutter through a phrase. I have known the Sheriff of Fulton County for some time now. I call Tom Lorey a friend. I understand and agree with his philosophy and I’m motivated by his passion. I, if allowed, would like to stand next to Sheriff Lorey and do whatever I can to assist in the completion of this mission. I will stand in the shadows no more. I am an Army veteran and have been a police officer for nearly 24 years. I have taken all my oaths freely and accepted the responsibility of an oath as a promise to those that I serve. In today’s society, it seems that an oath is now nothing more than a ceremony of useless words and phrases which no longer are binding to those who have repeated them. Our Government was formed as a representative government for the people and by the people. Our elected representatives should mirror the beliefs and morality of the people they served. If a representative wanders from those beliefs, they feared the vote of the people. Now it seems the government no longer fears the people. Our government has become a government by the government and for the government. Special interest, and money, bribes if you will, tell many of representatives how they will vote and the will of the people are ignored. Elected politicians and appointed government figures have been knowingly and intentionally violating law whenever it suits them to push a political agenda. Never let a good crisis go to waste, even when they are told by a majority of the people they represent that their agenda is not wanted. Yet, they will call one of our citizens, who have committed no crime on Tuesday, who is compliance with the laws and openly accepts personal responsibility, a criminal on Wednesday for being in compliance with Tuesday’s law, only because someone rewrote the definition of a term. Now that the executive branch of our federal government has made the Congress powerless through Executive Order and they believe that there is no need for any type of a spending plan to exist, is there any possible way to hold these politicians accountable since those in Congress appear to be in no hurry or have little to provide except wonderful sounding press releases that never have an action attached to them. I have been thinking about this for some time and from my recent experiences I believe that I must start with our young citizens. Recently I attended a function at the local High School. My daughter was being inducted into the National Honor Society. The auditorium was full of families and school officials. At the beginning of the ceremony everyone was asked to stand for the National Anthem. I stood, clicked my heels and placed my hand over my heart. I was in horror to see the number of adults who stood but considered it a hassle and did nothing else. I looked up and onto the stage and saw my daughter standing with her hand over her heart and smiling while looking at our Nation’s flag. While some students also had their hand over their heart, I was amazed by the number of students who were standing, but talking to the student next to them, chewing gum or fidgeting around. The High School Principal, who is the leader of the school and the primary role model for these students, was standing front and center of the stage and had her hands behind her back. For a moment I said to myself, “What is wrong with me, I am the one who is out of touch, doesn’t this matter anymore and what has happened to our children?” If I had acted the way some of these young adults were acting when I was their age, I would have been punished by my parents for embarrassing them in public. Citizenship is no longer taught properly in our homes or our schools if it is taught at all. It has become the responsibility of those who still believe that this is the greatest country in the world and it is because of an old piece of paper written a long time ago that makes it that way, to teach this to our young people. I am dedicating myself at this time to help teach our young people the true meanings of our forefathers; I just don’t know how to accomplish this. Both of my boys as well as I, are Eagle Scouts. I have taught citizenship, national history and flag etiquette to scouts for many years. This is great, except scouting only reaches a small percentage of our male youth. Part of an Eagle Scout ceremony is called the “Challenge”. It is given to a new Eagle Scout by an Eagle Scout and I had the pleasure, honor and responsibility to challenge my sons. I told them that as of this day, they are marked men to everyone who knows them. That minimal effort and turning away from a situation is not acceptable and to never compromise on their personal beliefs and morals. I then led my sons and every Eagle Scout in that room in the Eagle Scout Oath. This Oath as well as many others ends with, “On my sacred honor.” Meaningless words? I think not. My wife and I have tried, and believe we have accomplished, to teach our children their National heritage and what the meaning of our forefather’s written words actually mean. We have taught our children not to lie. We have taught our children not to steal or cheat or associate with those who do. We have taught our children that morality counts and that there is right and wrong as well as good and evil. The saying in our home is, “Do what you know to be right”, when our children leave our home unaccompanied by an adult. We are all hypocrites in one way or another but we have taught and shown our children that after we are gone, we will only be remembered for our character. Our country is changing at a rapid pace; it seems to be out of control. I do not know how much longer my law enforcement career will last, as I will not violate my oaths because some elected or appointed official does not possess the courage, morality, integrity or guts to say “no” to laws and directives that violate the Constitution of the United States of America. I am asking all of you who read these words not to stand at the rear of the crowd anymore. Let’s all stand together at the front of the crowd with Sheriff Tom Lorey.   Respectfully submitted, David P. Jones Deputy Sheriff Saratoga County -   Note from Elias Alias, editor: The letter above, written by Deputy Jones, stands as an individual example of the character and honor held by the Deputies of Saratoga County, New York. That Sheriff’s Department has written its own statement opposing New York’s Redcoat Governor Cuomo’s S.A.F.E. Act, which was hastily rushed through the State legislature and forged into law in a very despicable skirting of normal legislative processes. Please also read the official Sheriff’s Department letter of condemnation: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/02/04/saratoga-county-sheriffs-association-stands-against-ny-safe-act/ Oath Keepers salutes the whole Sheriff’s Department of Saratoga County, New York for honoring their Oath to the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of New York. About:Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution. Visit: www.oathkeepers.org Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/new-york-peace-officer-on-commitment-and-oath/#ixzz2LMKGZAyx

  Feb 19, 2013 2133
• 02 Feb 2013
  DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN

  DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia , the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union ; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States ." The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached. During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada . The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country. The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA , and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold. Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States ." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it." "This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power." The Honorable William Gordon

  1934 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN

  DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia , the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union ; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States ." The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached. During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada . The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country. The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA , and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold. Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States ." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it." "This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power." The Honorable William Gordon

  Feb 02, 2013 1934
• 25 Jan 2013
  Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show

  Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show Yamiche Alcindor, @Yamiche, USA TODAY10:45p.m. EST January 24, 2013   (STORY HIGHLIGHTS) Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule the event Glendale, Calif., may ban guns and gun shows on city property The region where the show was supposed to be will lose about $80 million in revenue A decision Thursday to postpone a large Pennsylvania gun show has sparked debate about whether such events are coming under fire in the wake of last month's Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. Reed Exhibitions announced it was postponing the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pa., which had been scheduled for Feb. 2 to Feb. 10. The change came after Reed banned assault rifles at the show, prompting several exhibitors to boycott. "In the current climate, we felt that the presence of modern sporting rifles would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests," the company said in a statement. Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule "as the national debate clarifies." The Pennsylvania postponement comes as Glendale, Calif., lawmakers consider passing an ordinance banning guns and gun shows on city property. Those efforts and others, made in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings that killed 26 people, may signify changing attitudes toward gun shows and gun possession, according to Tom Lorenz, a Glendale city spokesman. "Some City Council members and the police chief see it as a symbolic message that gun violence is not tolerated in our community," Lorenz said. Legislators recently asked the city attorney to draft the new gun law. The attorney now has four to six weeks to write an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to have or sell a gun on city property. Gun advocates argue that gun shows and gun rights will remain stronger than ever because of push-back by citizens eager to protect the second amendment. Other cities are talking about taking similar steps while some gun shows have postponed their events, Lorenz said. The region where the Pennsylvania show was supposed to take place will lose about $80 million in revenue, said Rick Dunlap, a spokesman for Hershey Harrisburg Regional Visitors Bureau. "This economic loss is collateral damage from a national debate," said Dunlap adding that local businesses rely on the show for first quarter earnings. Gun rights advocates argue that the president, congressional leaders, and gun control supporters are unfairly using the Newtown shooting to pressure organizations and the public into restricting guns. "An attack on one firearm is an attack on all," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a non-profit legal defense organization based in Bellevue, Wash. "They are trying to pit one gun owner against another gun owner." Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, another gun advocacy group, said banning one of the most popular selling rifles in the world doesn't make sense. He and Gottlieb said they doubt future organizers will make attempts similar to Pennsylvania to curtail gun shows. "This is a strong warning to anyone throwing a gun show in America," Hoffman said. "You don't get to police what is legal and otherwise protected by the Constitution." ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT THE AUTHOR YAMICHE ALCINDOR Yamiche Alcindor, a breaking news reporter, splits her time covering quickly developing incidents and stories about the social issues affecting the USA. She's also a proud Miami Heat fan.  Send Yamiche Alcindor a Message        

  1400 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show

  Organizer postpones big Pennsylvania gun show Yamiche Alcindor, @Yamiche, USA TODAY10:45p.m. EST January 24, 2013   (STORY HIGHLIGHTS) Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule the event Glendale, Calif., may ban guns and gun shows on city property The region where the show was supposed to be will lose about $80 million in revenue A decision Thursday to postpone a large Pennsylvania gun show has sparked debate about whether such events are coming under fire in the wake of last month's Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. Reed Exhibitions announced it was postponing the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pa., which had been scheduled for Feb. 2 to Feb. 10. The change came after Reed banned assault rifles at the show, prompting several exhibitors to boycott. "In the current climate, we felt that the presence of modern sporting rifles would distract from the theme of hunting and fishing, disrupting the broader experience of our guests," the company said in a statement. Reed Exhibitions plans to reschedule "as the national debate clarifies." The Pennsylvania postponement comes as Glendale, Calif., lawmakers consider passing an ordinance banning guns and gun shows on city property. Those efforts and others, made in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings that killed 26 people, may signify changing attitudes toward gun shows and gun possession, according to Tom Lorenz, a Glendale city spokesman. "Some City Council members and the police chief see it as a symbolic message that gun violence is not tolerated in our community," Lorenz said. Legislators recently asked the city attorney to draft the new gun law. The attorney now has four to six weeks to write an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to have or sell a gun on city property. Gun advocates argue that gun shows and gun rights will remain stronger than ever because of push-back by citizens eager to protect the second amendment. Other cities are talking about taking similar steps while some gun shows have postponed their events, Lorenz said. The region where the Pennsylvania show was supposed to take place will lose about $80 million in revenue, said Rick Dunlap, a spokesman for Hershey Harrisburg Regional Visitors Bureau. "This economic loss is collateral damage from a national debate," said Dunlap adding that local businesses rely on the show for first quarter earnings. Gun rights advocates argue that the president, congressional leaders, and gun control supporters are unfairly using the Newtown shooting to pressure organizations and the public into restricting guns. "An attack on one firearm is an attack on all," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a non-profit legal defense organization based in Bellevue, Wash. "They are trying to pit one gun owner against another gun owner." Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, another gun advocacy group, said banning one of the most popular selling rifles in the world doesn't make sense. He and Gottlieb said they doubt future organizers will make attempts similar to Pennsylvania to curtail gun shows. "This is a strong warning to anyone throwing a gun show in America," Hoffman said. "You don't get to police what is legal and otherwise protected by the Constitution." ADVERTISEMENT ABOUT THE AUTHOR YAMICHE ALCINDOR Yamiche Alcindor, a breaking news reporter, splits her time covering quickly developing incidents and stories about the social issues affecting the USA. She's also a proud Miami Heat fan.  Send Yamiche Alcindor a Message        

  Jan 25, 2013 1400
• 24 Jan 2013
  Hunting in America: An Economic Force

  Hunting in America: An Economic Force January 17, 2013 By Bill Brassard    National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) released two new reports today documenting the importance of sportsmen’s activities in America. NSSF’s Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation and CSF’s America’s Sporting Heritage, Fueling the American Economy reports provide detailed information about participation and expenditures by American sportsmen and women. The reports were released to the country’s top outdoor writers and industry professionals during the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) in Las Vegas. The reports utilize information provided in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service five-year study released late last year–data that is available only every five years. Some key facts: Hunter spending has a total economic impact of $90 billion on the U.S. economy. Hunter numbers increased by 9 percent between 2006 and 2011. Spending on hunting-related products grew by 30 percent during that same time frame. Money that sportsmen and women spend helps support more than 680,000 jobs. In some rural communities, the dollars brought in during hunting seasons alone can be enough to keep small businesses going from year to year. Sportsmen contribute nearly $8 million a day that goes to support wildlife agencies and conservation. Read the NSSF report Hunting in America: An Economic Force For Conservation. Read the CSF report America’s Sporting Heritage: Fueling the American Economy. Read the press release.

  1202 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Hunting in America: An Economic Force

  Hunting in America: An Economic Force January 17, 2013 By Bill Brassard    National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) released two new reports today documenting the importance of sportsmen’s activities in America. NSSF’s Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation and CSF’s America’s Sporting Heritage, Fueling the American Economy reports provide detailed information about participation and expenditures by American sportsmen and women. The reports were released to the country’s top outdoor writers and industry professionals during the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) in Las Vegas. The reports utilize information provided in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service five-year study released late last year–data that is available only every five years. Some key facts: Hunter spending has a total economic impact of $90 billion on the U.S. economy. Hunter numbers increased by 9 percent between 2006 and 2011. Spending on hunting-related products grew by 30 percent during that same time frame. Money that sportsmen and women spend helps support more than 680,000 jobs. In some rural communities, the dollars brought in during hunting seasons alone can be enough to keep small businesses going from year to year. Sportsmen contribute nearly $8 million a day that goes to support wildlife agencies and conservation. Read the NSSF report Hunting in America: An Economic Force For Conservation. Read the CSF report America’s Sporting Heritage: Fueling the American Economy. Read the press release.

  Jan 24, 2013 1202
• 24 Jan 2013
  NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show

  NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show January 24, 2013 By nssfnews   We have just learned that Reed Exhibitions has decided to postpone the 2013 Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. In the days following Reed Exhibitions’ announcement that modern sporting rifles would be prohibited from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the leadership of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has been in intense, frank discussions with Reed Exhibitions management in an effort to reverse this unacceptable decision. These discussions reached an impasse. NSSF is in no way affiliated with, nor does it participate in or exhibit at this show in any way. Reed Exhibitions does, however, manage the NSSF-owned SHOT Show (though Reed manages the SHOT Show, all SHOT Show decisions, policies and actions are made at NSSF’s direction). Because of Reed’s recent actions, NSSF is considering all options regarding the management of future SHOT Shows. _________________________________

  1526 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show

  NSSF Statement on the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show January 24, 2013 By nssfnews   We have just learned that Reed Exhibitions has decided to postpone the 2013 Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. In the days following Reed Exhibitions’ announcement that modern sporting rifles would be prohibited from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the leadership of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has been in intense, frank discussions with Reed Exhibitions management in an effort to reverse this unacceptable decision. These discussions reached an impasse. NSSF is in no way affiliated with, nor does it participate in or exhibit at this show in any way. Reed Exhibitions does, however, manage the NSSF-owned SHOT Show (though Reed manages the SHOT Show, all SHOT Show decisions, policies and actions are made at NSSF’s direction). Because of Reed’s recent actions, NSSF is considering all options regarding the management of future SHOT Shows. _________________________________

  Jan 24, 2013 1526
• 10 Jan 2013
  Bank of America - The Un-American Bank

  Bank of America – The Un-American Bank   By Chris Avena, President of SeeMeHunt.com     Is Bank of America The Un-American Bank? Only a few short months ago Bank of America severed their business relationship with McMillan Firearms because they were a gun manufacturer. As much as Bank of America portrayed their statements as just a misunderstanding, their sincerity was just a little hard to swallow. When a financial institution takes a political position about a particular industry, they walk a very dangerous line.   Should a financial institution be able to decide that they do not want to do business with a legal and federally regulated business because they do not agree with their industry? Should they be able to freeze your account without provocation? Should they be able to act on their own accord while putting their client’s financial interests in jeopardy? That is exactly what Bank of America has done.   According to Joe Sirochman the President of American Spirit Arms, he was told by a Manager at Bank of America     “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and GUN PARTS ON THE INTERNET “   With the recent surge in recent firearm sales, American Spirit Arms e-commerce sales have increased by 500%. Naturally, they have had much larger than normal bank deposits at Bank of America. You would think that a financial institution would value a client whose business is growing. Instead, Bank of America decided to hold the deposits for “Further Review”. They did not clear those payments or make the money available to American Spirit Arms. Their account was frozen in a state of flux or as Bank of America stated –   “They were keeping the account Under Review”.   While they were holding those payments under review, American Spirit Arms was fulfilling their obligation by shipping product to their customers that they rightfully paid for. When a financial institution’s political beliefs inhibits their customer’s ability to operate their business, that institution has just crossed the line. Where does the legal obligation to their customers end?   As a firearms manufacturer, American Spirit Arms holds a FFL (Federal Firearms License). They are bound to abide by ALL of the State and Federal rules and regulations. They are audited regularly by ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) and Homeland Security.   Bank of America Also has State and Federal Rules and Regulations that they Must abide by and they are regulated by the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission).   By acting as Bank of America has, they may have broken several SEC Regulations. A financial Institution has a fiduciary duty to act in their clients best interests. Bank of America’s actions shows a complete disregard for their clients well being and in doing so, put their financial future at risk.   If a gun manufacturer was not working within their legal guidelines, ATF and Homeland Security would shut them down. What will it take for the SEC to do their job as a Federal Regulator to make sure that Bank of America lives up to their Obligation.        

  2881 Posted by Chris Avena
• By Chris Avena

  Bank of America - The Un-American Bank

  Bank of America – The Un-American Bank   By Chris Avena, President of SeeMeHunt.com     Is Bank of America The Un-American Bank? Only a few short months ago Bank of America severed their business relationship with McMillan Firearms because they were a gun manufacturer. As much as Bank of America portrayed their statements as just a misunderstanding, their sincerity was just a little hard to swallow. When a financial institution takes a political position about a particular industry, they walk a very dangerous line.   Should a financial institution be able to decide that they do not want to do business with a legal and federally regulated business because they do not agree with their industry? Should they be able to freeze your account without provocation? Should they be able to act on their own accord while putting their client’s financial interests in jeopardy? That is exactly what Bank of America has done.   According to Joe Sirochman the President of American Spirit Arms, he was told by a Manager at Bank of America     “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and GUN PARTS ON THE INTERNET “   With the recent surge in recent firearm sales, American Spirit Arms e-commerce sales have increased by 500%. Naturally, they have had much larger than normal bank deposits at Bank of America. You would think that a financial institution would value a client whose business is growing. Instead, Bank of America decided to hold the deposits for “Further Review”. They did not clear those payments or make the money available to American Spirit Arms. Their account was frozen in a state of flux or as Bank of America stated –   “They were keeping the account Under Review”.   While they were holding those payments under review, American Spirit Arms was fulfilling their obligation by shipping product to their customers that they rightfully paid for. When a financial institution’s political beliefs inhibits their customer’s ability to operate their business, that institution has just crossed the line. Where does the legal obligation to their customers end?   As a firearms manufacturer, American Spirit Arms holds a FFL (Federal Firearms License). They are bound to abide by ALL of the State and Federal rules and regulations. They are audited regularly by ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) and Homeland Security.   Bank of America Also has State and Federal Rules and Regulations that they Must abide by and they are regulated by the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission).   By acting as Bank of America has, they may have broken several SEC Regulations. A financial Institution has a fiduciary duty to act in their clients best interests. Bank of America’s actions shows a complete disregard for their clients well being and in doing so, put their financial future at risk.   If a gun manufacturer was not working within their legal guidelines, ATF and Homeland Security would shut them down. What will it take for the SEC to do their job as a Federal Regulator to make sure that Bank of America lives up to their Obligation.        

  Jan 10, 2013 2881