Russell
Site Founder
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 283
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta CANADA
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal animal cruelty law written so broadly that it would have outlawed hunting videos and magazines. The 8-1 ruling in U.S. v Stevens is a big victory for hunters across America.
Anti-hunting extremist organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were the main advocates for the Congressional language that was deliberately overreaching. HSUS’s intentions should have been apparent from the beginning. Before becoming president of the organization, Wayne Pacelle said, “The definition of obscenity on the newsstands should be extended to many hunting magazines.” And, this is what the law did.
The law made the production or sale of a depiction (e.g., video or picture) of “animal cruelty” punishable by up to five years in prison. The Supreme Court found that Congress wrote the law much too broadly. The law made illegal any depiction of the killing or wounding of an animal if the act being depicted is itself illegal in the state where the video is sold. As a result, videos of hunting activities that are legal where filmed would violate the law if the videos were sold in a state where that type of hunting activity is illegal.
“The NRA condemns animal cruelty. However, hunting and depictions of hunting are not animal cruelty. This excessive law would have imposed felony penalties for creating, possessing or selling mainstream hunting images. Therefore, we are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled against this overbroad law,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Indeed, NRA publications like American Hunter, the largest-circulation all-hunting magazine in the world, could have been in jeopardy if this law was upheld.”
SCI President Larry Rudolph said, “This tremendous victory is a great example of how SCI is First for Hunters. SCI did not hesitate to devote its resources to filing a brief with the Supreme Court to advocate our interests. The people who produce and sell the hunting videos we all enjoy should not have to risk five years in prison and now they will not. With this opinion, SCI has reached a new level of advocacy for SCI members and for all hunters.”
“Hunters are the original conservationists and no one cares more deeply about the preservation and well-being of wildlife than hunters and sportsmen,” says John Meng, president of American Deer & Wildlife Alliance. “But this so-called ‘animal cruelty’ law was written so broadly that it was a clear infringement on our First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Roberts said it best when he stated that the government’s aggressive defense of this law was “startling and dangerous,” and we applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
From ADWA News Alert
Anti-hunting extremist organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were the main advocates for the Congressional language that was deliberately overreaching. HSUS’s intentions should have been apparent from the beginning. Before becoming president of the organization, Wayne Pacelle said, “The definition of obscenity on the newsstands should be extended to many hunting magazines.” And, this is what the law did.
The law made the production or sale of a depiction (e.g., video or picture) of “animal cruelty” punishable by up to five years in prison. The Supreme Court found that Congress wrote the law much too broadly. The law made illegal any depiction of the killing or wounding of an animal if the act being depicted is itself illegal in the state where the video is sold. As a result, videos of hunting activities that are legal where filmed would violate the law if the videos were sold in a state where that type of hunting activity is illegal.
“The NRA condemns animal cruelty. However, hunting and depictions of hunting are not animal cruelty. This excessive law would have imposed felony penalties for creating, possessing or selling mainstream hunting images. Therefore, we are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled against this overbroad law,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Indeed, NRA publications like American Hunter, the largest-circulation all-hunting magazine in the world, could have been in jeopardy if this law was upheld.”
SCI President Larry Rudolph said, “This tremendous victory is a great example of how SCI is First for Hunters. SCI did not hesitate to devote its resources to filing a brief with the Supreme Court to advocate our interests. The people who produce and sell the hunting videos we all enjoy should not have to risk five years in prison and now they will not. With this opinion, SCI has reached a new level of advocacy for SCI members and for all hunters.”
“Hunters are the original conservationists and no one cares more deeply about the preservation and well-being of wildlife than hunters and sportsmen,” says John Meng, president of American Deer & Wildlife Alliance. “But this so-called ‘animal cruelty’ law was written so broadly that it was a clear infringement on our First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Roberts said it best when he stated that the government’s aggressive defense of this law was “startling and dangerous,” and we applaud the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
From ADWA News Alert
