UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Supreme Court ruling???? (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=349103)

Supreme Court ruling????

Has anybody heard about the latest ruling? I just caught part of it on the radio. I think it overthrew a ruling that could have been detrimental to any "animal harassment film".

Any info out there?

__________________
Island City Blues

Count your blessings everyday!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/...otus_04-20.html

Thanks...

for the link.

I had heard that many were worried that hunting videos might fall under this law due to interpretation by a judge.

I have talked with some of the anti's at length. many of them are working on "creating" scientific evidence that catch and release fishing is harmful to fish. Hounds that run game also stress the game too much and that they often die even if hunters don't kill the game. (shows they have no clue about hound hunting)

So for those of you that don't think this is a real threat please think again.

As far as showing a video of your dog treeing a coon goes the anti's think you are involved in animal cruelty even if the coon was a lay up coon. The coon is under too much stress and may die later from the trauma.

Just be aware.

ICB

__________________
Island City Blues

Count your blessings everyday!

I am very familiar with this bill.

This law would have made hunting videos, hunting shows and even posting pics of hunting on the web or even POSSESSING hunting pics a felony.

It was overthrown.

Keep voting those Liberals into office and letting the Kenyan Fraud sitting in the White House appoint Liberal hacks to the Supreme Court and it will eventually be made into law.

__________________

***TEAM TRAXX***
_____________________________


PUPS FOR SALE...
GRNITECH Hawk's Traxx Attack X Stylish Pete/ Wipeout Female

If they had won "EVERYTHING" we do would soon Fall !! Everything from Hunting, Fishing, Training and even owning your Hounds would fall under "Animal Cruelty" Photos and Videos would only be the Start !!

__________________
Steve Morrow "Saltlick Majestic's"
"Never Have Hounds Or Kids And You Won't Get Your Heart Broke"!!

540-421-2875

PR, Saltlick's Blue Misty Linga "Bluetick Coonhound"

French X American Hounds

ok you guys need to read the law itself it had NOTHING to do with hunting or fishing it was about dogfighting and "crush" videos it was for ANIMAL CRUELTY as defined by the LAW not the antis oppinion so hunting and fishing were never targeted and everyones saying if it was won wed be up spit creek well no we wouldnt this law was on the books for 11 years already

__________________
Josh Nettleton 601-748-2102

You know people just dont do their homework. Further, sport-fishing is a multi Billion dollar industry. It is so now because of some rules that prohibit everyone from keeping everything that they catch. Unless there are no rules and all fish become extinct, it will never be banned.

__________________
Gr Ch "Pr" Powerbawl Zoe's Jewel (RIP)
"Pr" Zoe's Twister Bustin Ruby

quote:

---

Originally posted by xforce6
ok you guys need to read the law itself it had NOTHING to do with hunting or fishing it was about dogfighting and "crush" videos it was for ANIMAL CRUELTY as defined by the LAW not the antis oppinion so hunting and fishing were never targeted and everyones saying if it was won wed be up spit creek well no we wouldnt this law was on the books for 11 years already

---

__________________
Danielle Haney
UKC Licensed Bench Show Judge

Home of:
CH Crystal Springs Dear Darla
Crystal Creeks Dizzy Spell

Proud Handler of:
GRNITECH CH PR Jamie's Trashy Big John
NITECH PR Lifeways Fire Cracker

In Fond Memory of:
NITECH CH PR Jamie's Trashy Hightech Redneck
GRNITECH GRCH PR Morgan's Losses Hills Dawn
GRCH PR Wilkinson's Jebb
NITECH CH PR Gimme Three Steps Mister

quote:

---

Originally posted by xforce6
ok you guys need to read the law itself it had NOTHING to do with hunting or fishing it was about dogfighting and "crush" videos it was for ANIMAL CRUELTY as defined by the LAW not the antis oppinion so hunting and fishing were never targeted and everyones saying if it was won wed be up spit creek well no we wouldnt this law was on the books for 11 years already

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geminite
If you think for one second that the same animal rights activists that are watching dog fighters aren't watching us coonhunters, then you are sorely mistaken...

---

__________________
patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.
if you think the price of education is high, check out the cost of ignorance!

quote:

---

Originally posted by xforce6
ok you guys need to read the law itself it had NOTHING to do with hunting or fishing it was about dogfighting and "crush" videos it was for ANIMAL CRUELTY as defined by the LAW not the antis oppinion so hunting and fishing were never targeted and everyones saying if it was won wed be up spit creek well no we wouldnt this law was on the books for 11 years already

---

quote:

---

Moreover, §48 applies to any depiction of conduct that is illegalin the State in which the depiction is created, sold, or possessed, “re-gardless of whether the . . . wounding . . . or killing took place” there, §48(c)(1). Depictions of entirely lawful conduct may run afoul of the ban if those depictions later find their way into States where the same conduct is unlawful. This greatly expands §48’s scope, because views about animal cruelty and regulations having no connection to cruelty vary widely from place to place. Hunting is unlawful in the District of Columbia, for example, but there is an enormous nationalmarket for hunting-related depictions, greatly exceeding the demandfor crush videos or animal fighting depictions. Because the statute allows each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country, §48(a) applies to any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting thatis sold in the Nation’s Capital. Those seeking to comply with the lawface a bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate ju-risdictions. Pp. 11–15.

---

quote:

---

Ҥ48. Depiction of animal cruelty
(a) CREATION, SALE, OR POSSESSION.—Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. …
(c) DEFINITIONS…1) the term ‘depiction of animal cruelty’ means any visual or auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State…”

---

quote:

---

Roberts said the statute created a criminal prohibition of “alarming breadth.”

“A depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction later finds its way into another state where the same conduct is unlawful,” he said.

He noted that since hunting is illegal in Washington, D.C., the law would extend to “any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting, so long as that depiction is sold within the nation’s capital.”

Roberts rejected pledges by the government that federal prosecutors would only enforce the statute against acts of what it viewed as “extreme cruelty.”

“The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote. “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.”

---

quote:

---

Here’s the problem the Court saw in the Stevens case. The statute purported to outlaw the depiction, sale or possession of depictions of certain activities if those activities were illegal in the particular state where the depictions were produced, distributed to or from, or possessed. The example the Court used [they could have chosen from many] was that depictions of legal hunting or trapping that involved injuring or killing an animal could be criminal under the statute. The United States has 56 jurisdictions, including the 50 states, the territories and Washington, D. C. Hunting is illegal in Washington D. C.

To illustrate the problem: if a person buys a hunting magazine in a Texas airport (hunting is legal in Texas), reads it on the plane and takes it with him when he deplanes in Washington, D. C. (where hunting is illegal), s/he would be subject to arrest and prosecution under federal law for entering Washington, D. C. with the magazine. Similar results could arise emailing such depictions to a person staying in a Washington, D. C. hotel on business. That would be distribution on one end and possession by the person at the hotel. The same could occur if one state allowed controlled buffalo hunts, but another state outlawed buffalo hunting.

Anyone depicting an animal being wounded or killed in any context would have 56 different jurisdictional laws to address to know where the depictions could or could not be depicted, distributed or possessed. Meanwhile, people in a restrictive jurisdiction like D. C. would be committing a federal crime based on conduct, which, if committed in Texas, would not be a federal crime. The law was deemed overbroad, on its face, and unconstitutional.

---

quote:

---

Congress wrote the law to make it illegal and punishable by up to five years in prison for the depiction of the killing or wounding of a live animal, if the act depicted was illegal in the state where the video or picture was sold. Safari Club International was among those filing a "friend of the court" brief in the case. They used the example of the sharp-tailed grouse which is legal for hunting in Idaho, but not in neighboring Washington. By the law--the videos of a sharp-tailed grouse hunt would be illegal in Washington. Closer to home, a similar example, it is illegal to kill an elk in West Virginia. Any videos of hunting elk in Colorado would be illegal here along with pictures in any magazine of elk hunting in other parts of the country. It's easy to see the slippery slope it would have created, a slippery slope animal rights groups were hoping for.

Advocates of the law argued hunting videos would be exempt because they fall under the "educational clause" to protect materials used for teaching about wildlife or instructional materials. SCI successfully argued the lion's share of videos of hunting were not educational, but were in fact for entertainment, marketing of hunting equipment, and a recruiting tool to increase hunter numbers in the country.

---

In other words if it had passed it would be Illegal for the Anti's to sneak into a Rooster Fight, Tape it, and show it on TV?

__________________
Perry Metcalf.. Go Big Blue !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chiggers
In other words if it had passed it would be Illegal for the Anti's to sneak into a Rooster Fight, Tape it, and show it on TV?

---

__________________
Steve Morrow "Saltlick Majestic's"
"Never Have Hounds Or Kids And You Won't Get Your Heart Broke"!!

540-421-2875

PR, Saltlick's Blue Misty Linga "Bluetick Coonhound"

French X American Hounds

quote:

---

Originally posted by truly
I sure hope that you don't think dog fighters and coon hunters should be lumped together. One is illegal, one is not.

---

__________________
Danielle Haney
UKC Licensed Bench Show Judge

Home of:
CH Crystal Springs Dear Darla
Crystal Creeks Dizzy Spell

Proud Handler of:
GRNITECH CH PR Jamie's Trashy Big John
NITECH PR Lifeways Fire Cracker

In Fond Memory of:
NITECH CH PR Jamie's Trashy Hightech Redneck
GRNITECH GRCH PR Morgan's Losses Hills Dawn
GRCH PR Wilkinson's Jebb
NITECH CH PR Gimme Three Steps Mister

Interestingly, the one justice who voted in favor of the ban on these videos was Samuel Alito who is usually solidly in the conservative bloc of the court. All the "liberals" voted against it along with the rest of the "conservatives". Just shows that conservative and liberal labels really don't hold up when talking about the Supreme Court.

ok buckshot they use them as exmples however what i am getting at is everyone is acting like this law was going to be BRAND NEW its not it has been on the books as a law for 11 years already im not saying it was not gonna affect videos and pictures of hunting and fishing i am stating that it is not DIRECTED twards hunting and fishing and its been on the books for 11 YEARS and we have not heard of one case of them using it against us im sure if they could have they the antis would have

__________________
Josh Nettleton 601-748-2102

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geminite
Wasn't really my point. I was trying to say that lumping them together is the mindset of the anti's...

---

__________________
Steve Morrow "Saltlick Majestic's"
"Never Have Hounds Or Kids And You Won't Get Your Heart Broke"!!

540-421-2875

PR, Saltlick's Blue Misty Linga "Bluetick Coonhound"

French X American Hounds

quote:

---

Originally posted by xforce6
i am stating that it is not DIRECTED twards hunting and fishing and its been on the books for 11 YEARS and we have not heard of one case of them using it against us im sure if they could have they the antis would have

---

quote:

---

Roberts said the statute created a criminal prohibition of “alarming breadth.”

“A depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction later finds its way into another state where the same conduct is unlawful,” he said.

He noted that since hunting is illegal in Washington, D.C., the law would extend to “any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting, so long as that depiction is sold within the nation’s capital.”

Roberts rejected pledges by the government that federal prosecutors would only enforce the statute against acts of what it viewed as “extreme cruelty.”

“The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote. “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.”

---

xforce6. there is a recent video floating around of lion hunting with hounds where the hounds put a lion in an old mine shaft.

The hunters shoot the lion mulitply times before it dies.

Say the guys who made this video decide to market and sell a hound hunting on lions DVD.

It ends up in state where lion hunting is illegal -- before the the Supreme Court struck down the law, you could be arrested for that DVD in the state where it is illegal.

As the government tried to promise the Supreme Court, they would only enforce the statute against acts of what it viewed as “extreme cruelty.”

What if they the government felt the lion being shot mulitply times was “extreme cruelty"?????????

Chief Roberts stated that “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.”

Now the law was not appealed to the Supreme Court over hunting - it was over the legality over dog fighting videos --- but because the Supreme Court took on the case, they found the unconstitutional text of the law that effected hunting and 1st admendment rights.

no i dont know if it has or not im saying i have never heard of it being used against anyone i mean what about all those undercover videos that the hsus showed while this was still on the books and they got in NO trouble however what im trying to get at is everyones acting like this was a proposed law that got shot down no it was a law for 11 years already and was deemed unconstituitional which i agree with but people get everything blown out of proportion about stuff

__________________
Josh Nettleton 601-748-2102

i see what your getting at with the video but what im trying to say is it has not affected anyone that either of us nor anyone on this bored knows of in its 11 years of existance so i dont see why people are just now freaking out about it it should have been dealt with 11 years ago not today

__________________
Josh Nettleton 601-748-2102

First time it has been challenged. And to be honest, the first time I knew of the language of the law and aware of the actual law.

Did you know the language of the law or even aware of the actual law before this case went to the Supreme Court? I imagine you and 99% of the other hunters didn't know as well either.

I don't know anyone affected by the old law..........but with now ruled unconstitional, the chance for the charges are now gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xforce6
i see what your getting at with the video but what im trying to say is it has not affected anyone that either of us nor anyone on this bored knows of in its 11 years of existance so i dont see why people are just now freaking out about it it should have been dealt with 11 years ago not today

---

__________________
Gr Ch "Pr" Powerbawl Zoe's Jewel (RIP)
"Pr" Zoe's Twister Bustin Ruby

i did not know of it till today or weel till the supreme court ruling as probably NO ONE DID

__________________
Josh Nettleton 601-748-2102

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fortancient
Because 11 years ago we did not have a black democratic president. So now it's overkill on anything.

I saw the hound and cat footage and although I have no problem with it I would never post it on the net for the anti's to use it for their cause. I have lots of personal hunting videos but none of it is on the WWW. Why give them any fuel?

---

__________________
Perry Metcalf.. Go Big Blue !