Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/8/2009 4:42:06 PM EST
I just noticed Mr. Cox signed an brief in US v Stevens, the case on whether the .gov can censor anything it thinks is "animal cruelty." He is right there standing along with HSUS and directly opposed to the NRA and the NSSF (who also filed a brief in support of the respondent).

Looks like he just lost my vote.

5th one down under amicus briefs


in case you aren't familiar with the case, there's a summary at the link above if you scroll down

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider a plea that it create a new exception to the First Amendment’s free speech clause, to allow the government to make it a crime to sell videotapes or other depictions of animal cruelty. The Court will do so in U.S. v. Stevens (08-769) – a case involving videotapes of dog fighting. That was one of three cases newly granted review.


Just so you know, those hunting tapes you bought at Cabelas' could potentially become illegal if this gets ruled the wrong way.
Link Posted: 9/8/2009 5:03:14 PM EST
How is hunting animal cruelty? If you're going to eat or use the carcass for something useful, than I don't see anything wrong with that.

I DO have a problem with people just shooting animals for the heck of it, but not people who hunt.
Link Posted: 9/8/2009 5:17:39 PM EST
Sorry, Sparty.... I ain't seeing it. A Marine who likes guns signing an Amicus Brief to ban hunting?

Link Posted: 9/8/2009 5:34:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2009 5:46:49 PM EST by sparty]
Its really not that simple.

Here's an example. Billy Bob makes an instructional video about shooting doves in Texas during dove season. Shooting doves is illegal in Hawaii. Under the current federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 48 criminalizes any depiction (intended to be placed in interstate commerce for commercial gain) that shows an animal being wounded or killed by a person acting in violation of any Federal or State law. Billy Bob sells the video to John in Hawaii. Thus Billy Bob has broken Federal law by creating a depiction of an act that is illegal under another State's law. The key point here is the any federal or state law. Billy may have broken Hawaii law in his video, but Billy was in Texas while he was filming where it was legal. But since dove hunting is illegal in Hawaii, it is illegal to sell Billy Bob's videos anywhere.

Confusing I know, and I'll try to make it more clear if its not


My beef is why the hell is Mike Cox supporting this? I support him on tons of other things but this is just odd for him to be in favor of this.
Link Posted: 9/8/2009 6:17:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2009 6:18:17 PM EST by dougwg]
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
How is hunting animal cruelty? If you're going to eat or use the carcass for something useful, than I don't see anything wrong with that.

I DO have a problem with people just shooting animals for the heck of it, but not people who hunt.


What about Chipmunks? I have never eaten one that I killed.

Does that make it animal cruelty?

What if I step on an ant?

Is it ok to shoot a dog as long as I eat it?
Link Posted: 9/9/2009 12:18:35 AM EST
My beef is why the hell is Mike Cox supporting this? I support him on tons of other things but this is just odd for him to be in favor of this.


Politics is what it is. Aspiring politicians have to go along with a certain percentage of whatever is overwhelmingly popular at the time, or they just aren't going to be in the running. Remember the dove hunting bill? Hunters thought that logic, facts, and common sense would be enough to win that vote. The reality is- the public thinks like little children a lot of the time. You have to cater to the bird watchers and Disney believers, or you write off their votes. Whatever is emotionally popular is what gets people's sentiment. You read about somebody beaten to death in Detroit, how much press does it get? Then the next day, someone is seen killing a duck with a golf club, and that story is repeated in the news for a week straight. No successful politician can stick to his principles all the time- I've seen enough of them come and go that I'm happy if they stand by principle on just the important stuff. A good part of winning an election is to figure out what direction the mob is heading, and then run out ahead of it and look like the leader. Whatever we might expect, or wish, that's just the way it is.
Link Posted: 9/9/2009 7:20:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2009 7:21:04 AM EST by Chris_C]
I support him on tons of other things but this is just odd for him to be in favor of this.


Looks like he just lost my vote.


If he keeps supporting the 2nd Amendment here in Michigan (and abroad), he'll continue to get my support.

Link Posted: 9/9/2009 8:37:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ti45:
My beef is why the hell is Mike Cox supporting this? I support him on tons of other things but this is just odd for him to be in favor of this.


Politics is what it is. Aspiring politicians have to go along with a certain percentage of whatever is overwhelmingly popular at the time, or they just aren't going to be in the running. Remember the dove hunting bill? Hunters thought that logic, facts, and common sense would be enough to win that vote. The reality is- the public thinks like little children a lot of the time. You have to cater to the bird watchers and Disney believers, or you write off their votes. Whatever is emotionally popular is what gets people's sentiment. You read about somebody beaten to death in Detroit, how much press does it get? Then the next day, someone is seen killing a duck with a golf club, and that story is repeated in the news for a week straight. No successful politician can stick to his principles all the time- I've seen enough of them come and go that I'm happy if they stand by principle on just the important stuff. A good part of winning an election is to figure out what direction the mob is heading, and then run out ahead of it and look like the leader. Whatever we might expect, or wish, that's just the way it is.


Well put.
Link Posted: 9/9/2009 9:11:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2009 9:52:21 AM EST by BustOff]
Sparty - Your title "Mike Cox signs anti-hunting amicus brief" is very negative and misleading. Your argument is a slippery slope stretch and the subject has nothing to do with HUNTING!

Your second amendment right to keep and bear arms has everything to do with military firearms in the hands of the people. It has little or nothing to do with sporting or hunting firearms or a right to hunt. The founders of our freedoms knew that governments becoming too powerful or corrupt could strip the citizens of their freedoms. The founders intended to arm the citizenry with the military weapons of the time as a check and balance against repressive tyrannical government. There is no constitutional right to hunt although I do support those who choose to do so and I support those elected officials that stand up for our 2A RKBA. Mike Cox has done just that to the Nth degree.

Bad issue for you to abandon Mike Cox there Sparty.

Semi quoting the following from a key individual;


This is about centuries-old animal cruelty statutes that ban dog-fighting and other bizarre cruel conduct towards animals. A majority of AGs signed this including Texas and Florida (some of the most pro-NRA AG's besides Cox). A brief read of the brief shows it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2009 12:53:52 PM EST
I would respectively disagree with your interpretation of what this is about.

First off, it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment except in the fact that it is related to hunting which guns are used for. It has everything to do with the 1st Amendment and hunting. If you read my explanation above about how certain forms of hunting could be interpreted as "animal cruelty" in various states and thus it would be illegal to make depictions (including photos and videos) of said hunting through the law being challenged. Sure the AGs say "we're against animal cruelty" but what this law does is make "animal cruelty" subject to the broadest restriction in any state across the whole nation.

If dove hunting is 'being cruel to animals' in Michigan (as we remember the shrills from the anti-hunting group's campaign against dove hunting here), then under federal law ANY depiction of hunting doves that goes into interstate commerce becomes illegal because dove hunting is illegal in Michigan. That goes for any activity, including in this case dogfighting. If you were to make a film about dogfighting in an area of the US where it is legal (I'm not sure if/where it would be) and then try to sell it elsewhere, you are in violation of this stupid law because dogfighting may be illegal in any Federal or State jurisdiction. The reason why dogfighting is being brought up is because it is a horrible act, and no federal prosecutor is going to go after you because of my dove hunting example. But the possibility still is there and may increase if this goes in the .gov's favor.

If US v Stevens is upheld for the government, you can expect to see a lot of hunting shows and magazines to be in trouble and harassed by animal rights groups. Other NRA highly ranked AGs may be on that list, but they are in direct opposition to the NRA, NSSF, and many outdoors magazines. Its about what is allowed by the 1st Amendment, and Mike Cox is apparently saying its ok to censor this stuff.

I respect the man, but I very strongly disagree with his position on this issue and thought some members here might want to know his position.

Link Posted: 9/9/2009 2:57:08 PM EST
I'm still having a hard time with your assessment of this and how your post headline casts Attorney General Mike Cox as somehow being anti hunting and that is FALSE. I object to that statement.

This SCOTUS case seems very narrow in scope dealing with animal cruelty perhaps in the form of video's depicting illegal dog fighting for financial gain and the propagation of such activity by the act of producing such materials. You seem to be portraying this as something it's not and it's a huge leap from dog fighting to hunting video's to hunting and then connecting our AG as being anti hunting and that's Bull Shit...

Link Posted: 9/10/2009 10:57:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By BustOff:
I'm still having a hard time with your assessment of this and how your post headline casts Attorney General Mike Cox as somehow being anti hunting and that is FALSE. I object to that statement.

This SCOTUS case seems very narrow in scope dealing with animal cruelty perhaps in the form of video's depicting illegal dog fighting for financial gain and the propagation of such activity by the act of producing such materials. You seem to be portraying this as something it's not and it's a huge leap from dog fighting to hunting video's to hunting and then connecting our AG as being anti hunting and that's Bull Shit...




That's how I read it too.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 8:07:07 PM EST
Amen Amen
Top Top