GUN GUYS NEED TO GET A GRIP
The Zumbo Affair, Afterthoughts
By Bill Schneider, 3-08-07
 |
|
 | |
|
Last week, I wrote about how gun fanatics ruined a good man, one of their own, in days because he, in their opinion, misspoke. Jim Zumbo, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and perhaps the most well known hunting writer in America, lost all or most of his major contracts after those who disagreed with him flooded his sponsors with thousands of emails.
I had emails, too. Not thousands, but hundreds, and I believe more online comments than any article ever posted on NewWest.net. And after reading all these comments and emails, I have a few afterthoughts on the Zumbo affair.
Most important, my column wasn’t even about guns or gun control. Nor was it about whether assault rifles should be banned or whether they are or should be used for hunting. It was about how scary it is that a rabid minority can so successfully attack somebody personally, destroy his career, and then boast about it and warn other writers not to cross them unless they want some of the same.
That still scares me. Even more now, after receiving some of the emails talking about drive-by bayonet attacks and reminding me about guys with concealed weapons permits--and a few others that probably could be turned over to the sheriff for investigation.
Concerning our right to bear arms, guys, both Jim Zumbo and Wild Bill agree with you. But let’s stick to attacking the issue of gun control, not attacking people. And get a grip. You’ve won. The Democrats have taken gun control off the table. They don’t want to get mired in an unwinable war over gun control and lose Congress back to the republicans. A maverick dem might throw in a bill, but it’s going nowhere.
I’m sure I’ll get a few more you’re-being-naive emails insisting that there’s a plot by the Brady Bunch to take my old 870 away, but I don’t believe this is close to reality. I’m sure there are people, another fanatic minority, who believe all guns should be banned, but I personally am not worried about it because they have no chance of success.
The Gun Guys have tasted success, though. Regrettably, the personal attack dog mentality works--sort of like negative campaign ads. Nobody likes them, but they work. That was the point of last week’s column. Personal attacks keep people from speaking their mind, and as we all agree, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
I also had several emails and comments saying, in essence, “It wasn’t the NRA that destroyed Zumbo; it was a grassroots effort.” Okay, I agree the National Rife Association wasn’t visibly on the front line, and I suppose there is a difference between the NRA and NRA members, but where did this attack dog strategy originate? The NRA invented it to torture politicians, public officials and media folks who leaned toward gun control and get them defeated or fired. Zumbo might not have been ruined by the NRA, directly, but by NRA monitored and trained attack dogs who now claim to be “the grassroots of America.”
Well, Gun Guys, as my column and your comments illustrate, I have to say, hats are off to you. As long as most people hunker down to avoid confronting you, and most will, you have a system that works for you. Intimidation works.
As far as comments that my writing helps contribute to the splitting of the hunting constituency and subsequently weakening support for the Second Amendment, I say the reverse is true. Gun owners, hunters and non-hunters, need to stick together, but when zealots brutalize one of their best friends, it hardly improves the spirit of cooperation.
The vast majority of hunters wouldn’t be caught dead out in the field with anything that looks like an assault rifle. But by attacking such hunters, gun zealots split the hunting constituency and create an atmosphere where hunters might not step forward to help defeat gun control legislation. Eating your young doesn’t further your cause.
As far as the endless argument over ballistics, what defines an assault rifle, and whether traditional hunting rifles are military knock-offs, again, this is off-message. As I’m sure my critics agree, I’m no gun expert. And I’m sure some traditional hunting rifles are ballistically similar to military weapons, but I have to ask, why then did gun manufacturers make guns that did not look like military weapons in the first place? That seems easy. Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use. They’re our enjoying a quality hunt, not fighting wars or drug cartels. It’s not about ballistics; it’s about image. And as comments on last week’s column prove once again, gun fanatics deserve their bad image.
One common point made in the comments was that the blogsphere we now live in made Zumbo’s demise possible, and I agree wholeheartedly. The Internet gave us power, but let’s not abuse it. Just because we can create a blogstorm to destroy somebody who has a different opinion, we don’t have to do it. I agree with the New York Times editorial on the Zumbo affair. It’s overkill.
What about Zumbo’s sponsors? I heard from them, too, and I encouraged them to consider their message delivered and give the guy a second chance. I also received copies of many emails sent in support of Zumbo, so if I were one of those CEOs (and I’ve been there in a past life), I would say that out of this crisis comes a marketing opportunity. They’ve made the gun fanatics happy. Now, they can make the rest of us happy by forgiving Zumbo and winning kudos from both sides of the debate.
Finally, since this came up in a few emails, I should say I hardly know Zumbo. I met him once about twenty years ago, but I doubt he even remembers. So, it’s not personal.
In summary, my message for the Gun Guys is stop attacking people and work together with hunters to build stronger support for the Second Amendment.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
"Most hunters don’t want to be seen hunting with the same weapons SWAT teams or Marine snipers use."
You'll see a lot of military and police snipers using bolt action .308s. Often, it's a customized Remington Model 700.
Otherwise, great column and a very reasonable course of action to forgive Zumbo, rather than burn him at the stake. I'd say if the blockheads at OL and Remington can't figure this out, some of their competitors will. Like the man said, no such thing as bad publicity.
This is an ironic observation, since Jim Zumbo in his more recent photos, is shown most of the time holding onto a rifle, equipped with telescopic sight, black synthetic stock, gun-metal gray or Parkerized receiver/barrel etc., which would be more than appropriate for use as a SWAT or military sniper rifle on any occasion. So much for the old-school mentality that is supposedly preferable among the "traditional" hunters. Back in the traditionalist days, the glossy wood stocks and polished bluing were implemented so the hunter could display his fine rifles in glass cases during the off-season.
I once asked some "black rifle" hunters what features attracted them into using their particular rifles out hunting. I was told that it was a utilitarian issue for most. Many of these folks didn't want to have a shiny wood stock while out scraping through the brush, rocks, and cactus, only to have a $350 stock ruined in one day.
I'd hazard a guess as that is the reason you see black-rifle inspired synthetic stocks bolted onto Zumbo's rifles too.
And they noted, if their rifle malfunctioned, they could field strip it in a matter of minutes, and be back to hunting.
I could relate very much to those two issues. When I was 16, I took my brand new Parker Hale SS1500, 7mm bolt action, gold plated trigger/shiny wood stock/polished blue barrel out elk hunting. Fell onto a rock with it the first day, and put a huge dent in the nice wood stock. A couple of years later, I went elk hunting again (same bolt action rifle), and had a primer pop out after firing off a round to test to see if my scope was still on after falling hard with it. The primer came out of the spent shell as I was extracting it, which jammed in between the receiver and the casing. My day of hunting was over because I couldn't get the spent casing removed from the bolt action's receiver.
And Drover is correct. The U.S. Army's M24 SWS (Sniper Weapons System) is nothing more than a Remington 700 with a bull barrel and a synthetic stock. Before the Army adopted the Remington/SWS platform, the U.S. Marines had used a variant of the Rem. Mod 700 since the mid-1960s, designated as the M40/A1/A3. Great information on the military/police applications of the Rem. Mod. 700 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700
As long as a hunting tool is able to quickly dispatch an animal, and is used responsibly and ethically by the hunter, there shouldn't be any issue as far as I am concerned.
If we are to take the argument at hand to its ultimate conclusion, and we are all supposed to hunt with the same type of rifle, there really isn't any need for a .300 Win Mag, or other high-powered rifle like that. For all intents and purposes, we could all use the 112 year old design of .30-30s, which are a heck of a lot more traditional than the scoped, high-powered, synthetic-stocked sniper rifles of Zumbo's preference. But, then again, if we all did that, there really wouldn't be any real need for someone like Jim Zumbo and other TV salesmen, to peddle the newest and latest gadgets on behalf of Remington and other sponsors, now would there? Why would Remington need to keep him on as their employee? I think Mr. Zumbo finally is starting to recognizing that potentiality after reading his most recent comments on this issue.
I think this particular issue had been bubbling under the surface for quite a while, and I now believe Zumbo was publicly spanked, simply to send a message to hunters who think they don't need these "black rifle" owners to keep their bolt action "Bambi-zappers" from being confiscated. I don't think they could be more wrong. As a matter of fact, I think that mentality is currently creating a multitude of anti-hunters, especially in the wake of Zumbo's lapse in judgment. Perhaps Mr. Zumbo will be afforded the opportunity to educate those who hold the beliefs that Zumbo espoused in his blog, into recognizing that "Black Rifle" owners, have been steadfast supporters of hunting, up until now, but that may in fact be changing due to the the derisive, arrogant and divisive attitudes of the so-called "traditional hunters." Hunting's ranks are shrinking, while the "black rifle" crowd is growing by leaps and bounds. Something to think about before taking these folks for granted any more.
Firefighters responding to a house fire in a Norco neighborhood were greeted with a dangerous surprise: gunfire. Lots of it.
Authorities on Thursday found a cache containing more than 1 million rounds of ammunition and 75 firearms, ranging from small handguns to assault rifles, throughout the burning home and in a shaft and tunnel under the garage.
see
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ammo3mar03,1,6136155.story
No doubt protected by 2nd amendment rights and the NRA. Glad I didn't live next door to the fireworks. However, I'd better not say anymore lest I be attacked by the NRA and some of their members. That is what Jim Zumbo would probably tell me.
He was wrong for adding the "terrorist" label to them. That's what everyone of these articles misses. I'm not a terrorist, I own and I serve our country. I think he would be offended if I called his mother or wife a whore, because they are not. I doubt he would accept my apology for it either, I doubt many men would. That's the point, I'm not a terrorist and to be compared to them is a slap in the face.
Zumbo was not (and I'm not sure is YET) a "staunch supporter of the Second Amendment". Calling AR-15's "terrorist" weapons and by extension those of us who own them "terrorists" isn't a good way to make me or other REAL supporters of the 2nd A give much of a damn about him!
As far as I can yet tell all he cares about is whether a gun is usefull in hunting. Well that ain't what the 2nd A is about.
And any "hunter" who doesn't understand that EVERY rifle, shotgun, revolver, and pistol, are in the sights of the gun-haters is stupid.
Zumbo appeared to be an elitist "hunter". Not a gun-owner, not a shooter, and definitly NOT a supporter of the 2nd A.
That Zumbo was dragged down like Saddam, an internet rope around his neck, should not surprise you media types. I was once a logger, and "a rabid minority" has run the public land timber process for 30 years. No logging was never what national forests were to be about. The forests were to be the primary source of local raw materials, on a sustainable basis. Letting them burn is patently insane, but the rabid minority is now in control, just like in the Zumbo dust up. It is the new American way.
Stop attacking people? Who called whom the "black rifle Gestapo"? Who called whom "attack dogs"?
Your "message" would be a bit more effective if it weren't dripping with hypocrisy.
Over the last few days I was thinking to myself "how is it possible that the republicans are out of power, but still have so many ethical problems"?
To answer the question, I have to go back to communication…
When the democrats have a problem with an elected official they do their research. They find a small thing they can pin on him, and then make a big noise. They demand an investigation. They demand that the Department of Justice should appoint a 'special' prosecutor.
A nice fellow sits at home one night listening to the news, and he hears that Sen. Someone Democrat… is demanding an investigation into Somobody Republican, and not just an investigation, but the Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged crime. What is the first thing that crossed his mind? "A special prosecutor….This is a serious crime". Now you can come and knock on his door and tell him that the special prosecutor came up with nothing but the only thing he will now likely remember is "this guy is a criminal". The Republican, under suspicion, is already a shade grey in everyone's mind. So the democrats get the job done.
What happens if it's vice versa, and the Democrat is under suspicion?
The Republicans hear that there is a criminal investigation going on involving a Democrat. What do they do? They call (the arrogant, selfish) prosecutor, and ask him (not demand him to investigate) about the investigation… Don’t you think that a phone call to a news reporter is worth more money then to call a prosecutor?
Ultimately, the voters decide who is eligible for office, largely based on ethical behavior. The republican lack of conveying misconduct to the public is a major factor in their current political status, which doesn't seem to be bettering.
Beginning in the 1960s judges opposed to the right to keep and bear arms falsely claimed that the decision meant that only the guns used by the National Guard were protected. The Supreme Court admission that "the militia" consists of all citizens they rejected as "mere, nonbinding dicta" (whatever that means).
There is _no_ way to interpret the Miller Decision as recognizing an individual Constitutional right to own nothing but pretty hunting rifles. To fail to defend the right to own military-style rifles (even if we draw the line at full-auto) is to forgo any Constitutional protection whatsoever. The stakes are that high, and this is why Zumbo had to be swiftly and emphatically corrected.
minority, I'm a TERRORIST according to Zumboy. I am one of the happy majority that let my feelings be known to the sponsors of Mr. Zumboy. If his words cost him his sponsorships, Xin Loi. It was his words that sparked the event, his First Amendment Rights, but with those rights goes the Responsibility of protecticn his brother gun owners. A Responsibility he does not think he does not uphold. So Bill, tell me why he has First Amendment Rights and I don't, when it comes to voicing our opinions to the sponsors he enjoys for his opinion about we Terrorist.
I don't hunt, haven't since I spent 23 months in Ground Combat in Vietnam, but I shoot weekly and I own "Terrorist" Weapons according to Zumboy. And I'm not afraid to voice my opinions to those who sell products that sponsor or did sponsor Zumboy.
Respectfully,
Michael Smith
I hunt with a 70 year old 12 gauge Browning over and under because I can shoot it well and it's beautiful to feel and see. I hunt with a 47 year old Weatherby 300 because it is lethal and deadly out to 500 yards. It is also a work of art. I hunt with a 32 year old Remington 700 BDL because my dad gave it to me, and it kills with one shot any game animal I see. I never even thought about recoiling from a certain firearm, but just appreciate the history beauty of the ones I have.
I don't care what firearm people use for game hunting, so long as they can shoot straight and dispatch an animal with one shot. That involves the right caliber, the right distance, and the right circumstances.
I am truly amazed at the conversation on this topic. Mr. Zumbo made a mistake and attempted as complete an apology as a human being could muster. He has lived a life doing much for the hunting and sporting arm community for a long time. Where is the forgiveness for his admitted mistake and the recognition for a lifetime of achievement?
From the LA Times 27 Aug 97:
"Since July, more than 500,000 semiautomatic firearms and pump-action shotguns have been relinquished to the Australian government, which has written more than $260 million in rebate checks ranging from $60 to several thousand dollars. After the barrels are bent in a hydraulic press, the weapons are ground to bits and used for scrap metal."
You see, Bill, to the gun grabbers your good ol' 870 is a "high powered assault street sweeper good only for killing a lot of people at once."
Zumbo made a foolish and thoughtless statement, got called on it, but has seen the light and is back in the fight on the side of the 2nd. Check out his letter to the CCRKBA where he plromises to educate the hunting community on this issue.
HR-1022 shows clearly that gun bans, and gun prohibition is not off of the table. Clearly, attempts remove inconvenient freedoms will continue.
If assault weapons are so bad, why do we keep trying to give them to the police? Since they are citizens, not soldiers, by definition they only encounter the same threats as other citizens. Since they continue to push for AR-15 rifles in patrol cars, and pump shotguns, the threat is clearly there. Why is it that the law abiding citizens should be denied the same arms as the police, who are also just citizens?
Sorry. But Cook County (Chicagoland), Illinois just last week BANNED pump shotguns, including your "old 870." And there is a well-supported bill in the Illinios legialature to do the same statewide. But, your in Colorado so who gives a **** about your fellow gun owners in unfriendly states (at least the 15 most populous by my count).
It's the "I got mine. Screw you." attuitde that Zumbo and Schneider display that plays right into the hands of the gun banners. With stupes like you, they believe they CAN win.
Well, Bill, you are certainly giving them "aid and comfort."
http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/111406orddoc.htm
06-O-50
ORDINANCE
Sponsored by
THE HONORABLE LARRY SUFFREDIN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Co-Sponsored by
THE HONORABLE JOHN P. DALEY AND JOAN PATRICIA MURPHY
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Amendment to the
“Cook County DEADLY WEAPONS DEALER CONTROL Ordinance”
WHEREAS, the Federal assault weapons ban, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended, 18 USC Sec. 921 et seq. expired on September 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the County Board desires to (1) amend Ordinance 93-O-37, as amended by Ordinance 93-O-46 and Ordinance 99-O-27, Article I, Section 1-2 by striking and deleting language in section 1-2; and (2) amend Ordinance 93-O-37, as amended by Ordinance 93-O-46 and Ordinance 99-O-27, Article VI, by deleting and adding language as stricken through and underlined below.
NOW, THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE HOME RULE AUTHORITY OF THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AS VESTED IN IT BY THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1970, HEREBY AMEND PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1-2 Applicability.
(a) This article shall control the licensing of all firearms dealers within Cook County except in home rule municipalities which have a separate municipal ordinance specifically regulating the licensing of firearms dealers.
(b) Pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(c) of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, if this article conflicts with an ordinance of a home rule municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction.
ARTICLE VI. ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Section 6-1 Definitions.
As used in Article VI of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
(a) “Assault weapon” means:
(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:
(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(2) A semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(3) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(A) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(B) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(C) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(D) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or
(E) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(4) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or
(E) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(5) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(6) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;
(7) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:
(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
(ii) AR-10;
(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
(iv) AR70;
(v) Calico Liberty;
(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
(xi) Saiga;
(xii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
(xiii) SKS with detachable magazine;
(xiv) SLG 95;
(xv) SLR 95 or 96;
(xvi) Steyr AUG;
(xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
(xviii) Tavor;
(xix) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
(xx) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Calico M-110;
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
(v) Uzi.
(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Armscor 30 BG;
(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
(iii) Striker 12; or
(iv) Streetsweeper.
(b) “Assault weapon” does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or satisfies the definition of “antique firearm,” stated in this Ordinance, or weapons designed for Olympic target shooting events.
(c) “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
(d) “Large capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:
(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
(e) “Muzzle brake“ means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
(f) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
Section 6-2 Assault weapons and large capacity magazines - Sale prohibited - Exceptions.
(a) No person shall manufacture, sell, offer or display for sale, give, lend, transfer ownership of, acquire or possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. This subsection shall not apply to:
(1) the sale or transfer to, or possession by any officer, agent, or employee of Cook County or any other municipality or state or of the United States, members of the armed forces of the United States; or the organized militia of this or any other state; or peace officers to the extent that any such person named in this subsection is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon and/or large capacity magazine and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;
(2) transportation of assault weapons or large capacity magazine if such weapons are broken down and in a non-functioning state and are not immediately accessible to any person.
(b) Any assault weapon or large capacity magazine possessed, sold or transferred in violation of subsection (a) of this section is hereby declared to be contraband and shall be seized and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-2 of this Ordinance.
(c) Any person found in violation of this section shall be sentenced to not more than six months imprisonment or fined not less than $500.00 and not more than $1,000.00, or both.
(d) Any person who, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Ordinance, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine prohibited by this section shall have 90 days from the effective date of the ordinance to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution hereunder:
(1) To remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from within the limits of the County of Cook; or
(2) To modify the assault weapon or large capacity magazine either to render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as an assault weapon or large capacity magazine; or
(3) To surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the Sheriff or his designee for disposal as provided below.
Section 6-3 Destruction of weapons confiscated.
Whenever any firearm or large capacity magazine is surrendered or confiscated pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance, the Sheriff shall ascertain whether such firearm is needed as evidence in any matter.
If such firearm or large capacity magazine is not required for evidence it shall be destroyed at the direction of the Sheriff. A record of the date and method of destruction an inventory or the firearm or large capacity magazine so destroyed shall be maintained.
Approved and adopted this 14th day of November 2006.
Enough said.
Bob's right, all you hunters go over there and ignore all those rude peasants and "gun nuts" with the SKS rifles and AR target guns.
Only one out of four gun owners hunt. That makes the hunters the minority in this issue by along shot and if you don't think they are coming after your "street sweeper" 870's and Remington 700 "sniper" rifles soon, guess again.
Cook County is now trying to get their in-place AWB passed in the entire state of Illinois and there is a Democrat majority in Congress that will make sure that HB 1022 gets to a floor vote in the house and the senate eventually too.
All you over and under guys better get over to the same side of the table as the rest of us, or sit there later wondering why the state just closed your gun club, now makes you register your side by side, and limits the number of boxes of AA #9 you can buy at one time?
Zumbo screwed up and knows it. Read anything he's written since the blow up. Hunting is just a byproduct of the second amendment, not the reason for it.
For those with no detectable sense of humor, the above sentence is IRONIC. Look up "irony" in the dictionary.
Fact is, Zumbo insulted a large number of his fans by calling them "terrorists." His employers wisely decided that he had become a liability and terminated his employment.
News flash here: The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It never has been about hunting. It =is= about safeguarding the individual American's right to defend life and liberty from criminals and tyrants.
People =should= be passionate about something so important. Frankly, nothing disturbs me more than people who are complacent about having their rights trampled....
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 1022 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.
(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Calico M-110;
`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
`(v) Uzi.
`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Armscor 30 BG;
`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
`(iii) Striker 12; or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.
`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.
`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.
`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.
Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--
`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;
`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(C) is an antique firearm.'.
SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).
`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.
SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
(b) Certification Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.
SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.
Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.
We never said that it was wrong for Jim Zumbo to choose to hunt only with wood-stocked, blued-barreled hunting rifles. That's his choice, and we have no argument with that. We took offense because he said that the black semiauto rifles should be banned from hunting. They are as legitimate for hunting as any traditional semiauto rifle is. And many ranchers want a varmint gun that is reasonably accurate, rugged, and reliable after rattling around in the truck all day.
But the real insult came when he said that they were "terrorist rifles". Therefore, by extension, he called all owners of these rifles "terrorists". He is (supposed to be) one of us, yet right then, he betrayed us! Of course we were angry! Wouldn't YOU be, if you owned one of these guns?
The First Amendment argument doesn't fly, either. It says that government may not censor what we say. It does NOT say that we must listen to and/or agree with what is said. If we choose not to associate with someone with different views, we are within our rights to do so.
The worst effect of this, though, is the Shady Bradys were handed a whole case of political ammo. Their strategy is to divide and conquer, by demonizing, then banning guns by specific types. They also want to say that the only legitimate reason for a gun is hunting. That's how they sucker you (us) hunters into siding with them against guns that you don't own. Then they work to outlaw hunting, and, voila! No more reason for gun ownership. And they won't take away your hunting rifles. They'll call them sniper rifles first.
Jim Zumbo has admitted his mistake, and is trying to make amends. Good on him! But there are a lot of elitist "holier than thou" hunters out there still, and you, Bill, appear to be one of them. In fact, Bob, a post or two ahead of mine, actually called for a break between hunters and "gun nuts". Don't you realise that you are playing right into the Shady Bradys' hands?
We must remember that we are gun owners first, whether we are hunters, plinkers, competitive shooters, or just keep and bear arms for self-defense. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or we most assuredly will [be hanged] separately.
>>>>“I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
“I call them ‘assault’ rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles.
“Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms’."<<<<
I don't accept your extensions of meaning that Z is labeling ALL owners of such weapons as terrorists. Read the last paragraph of Z's statement. He is talking about terrorists around the world who use these types of weapons to terrorize. Taking someone out of context always distorts meaning.
Perhaps the ranchers with the varmint problems should have access to the HK 416. Much more accurate and rugged. These weapons can be buried in a pile of dirt, dunked in water and they come up performing as intended without a hitch.
We can trust the gun ban-ers because they are the reasonable people who really don't want to ban your 870?
It's writing like this that feeds the Brady's and sets back the work of those who fight for our gun rights.
To hold up the emotional disabled and logically confused to justify similar vitriol and rhetoric to beat back the gun grabbers only further digs a hole. I just wish there was a consistent, logical, unemotional, and accurate argument rather than the knee-jerk reaction as we have seen against Mr. Zumbo. Why hasn't this situation been used as an opportunity to educate the uninformed about why he was wrong while demonstrating an intelligent, calm, and rational message? Trying to censor heretical thought only makes a martyr out of those people who are abused for voicing such opinions. We should be continually shaping opinion and educating the uninformed. Beating the sh*t out of someone like Z after a lifetime of leadership in the hunting community and the NRA only feeds the fears of others, and that is contrary to our mutual interests.
You BETTER WAKE UP SOON! Those nice 870s are based on a Law Enforcement arm, and as such may be subject to the HR1022 ban which now has 12 sponsors in the Senate:
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, [/I]or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General[/I]. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
You do know what shotgun the FBI uses right? McNeil used one against Platt and Matix? Remington 870 shotgun...
Ummm...they DO look like military weapons. Bolt-action hunting rifles are derivatives of the Mauser bolt-action military battle rifle the Germans used in WWI and WWII, and they LOOK like Mausers. For many decades, actual military Mausers were popular hunting guns.
.30-06 Springfield is a military cartridge originally designed to kill people at extreme ranges, and .308 Winchester was also developed as a military round.
I'm sure there were some old-guard curmudgeons around who sneered at the military-style bolt-action repeaters and their military calibers, and made jokes about those who didn't hunt with "traditional" falling-blocks or lever guns. The more things change, the more they remain the same...
BTW, the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 was the U.S. Marine sniper rifle in Vietnam, and the Remington Model 700 is the current military issue sniper rifle.
Your continued defense of Jim Zumbo indicates to me that YOU are one of those elitist hunters who look down on anyone who has a "politically incorrect" gun, and you might even be a Brady shill. Did the words of Ben Fnklin reach you at all?
Look, anyone who can read and use a PC can find out the FACTS about how the number of guns, gun bans, etc. have NO effect crime rates in about an hour. Any one can find the FACTS of how 60-80% of violent crimes are drug related, or perpertrated by those with criminal records. Any one can find the REAL numbers showing murder rates rising and falling over the past 20 years (peeking in 1993), even as gun ownership increases quite steadily. Any one can find that while only 62 kids under age 14 died tragically by gun accident in 2004, 2026 died from MV accident, 699 died by drowning, 238 suffocated, etc. Any one can be quite sure of the fact that less then 3% of ALL rifles, including so called semi-auto "Assault weapons" are ever used illegally.
ANY one who says guns are the problem, and who attempts to "prove" this myth through deceit is a liar, or an idiot. These folks purposely lie, mis-lead and mis-represent the facts, all promote their sick view to remove an inalienable right. They don't trust you any more then the lowliest murderer. I take THAT personal. They don't deserve respect, they deserve nothing but contempt.
Regarding Z's remarks, I see his point. Hunters are finding less land every season to go to the field for many reasons. One such reason is that farmers and ranchers are just plain fed up with irresponsible hunters that leave gates open, drive off the roads, and shoot up the country side because they don't take the time to learn how to hunt. On any opening morning of deer season in Montana the sound of multiple, rapid fire can be heard. Why? Farmers and ranchers do not like this. We as hunters have to continually sell our images as responsible game harvesters. The image we project with an assualt style weapon versus a traditional hunting rifle may just make the difference. Trying to split hairs with a farmer or rancher because he reacts to the style of firearm is just not productive. Also, hunting with a .223 versus a .270 or higher caliber may also be a factor in the landowners mind. Bias or prejudice, it just doesn't matter in order to get the "yes" to hunt. That's what I believe Z was talking about-- land access and appealing to the holder's of the "yes."
Calling Mrs. Brady names after what she has had to live through should give anyone pause. If you had to feed, cloth, and wipe the ass of your brain damaged spouse perhaps you may be bitter too and lash out at the instrumentality that stole their lives.
...just read the US Consitution, Article 8 where it says: Congress is "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia"; and you can see how stupid you sound.
Ignorance is no excuse for re-interpreting bills protecting natural rights.
A number of people who have written about the Zumbo affair have made similar statements and it is simply not true. The democrats would like the shooting sports community think that but I will tell you that, after having worked on the Hill for 30+ years, the issue of gun control is *NEVER* "off the table." Never!
As of this afternoon there are at least 44 bills that have been introduced in the Congress which would further restrict the rights of gun owners. The most onerous being McCarthy's HR 1022.
Most probably will not, as is usually the case, make it out of committee but still they're still there in the system and the antis such as the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, Americans For Gun Safety, and many others are up on the hill every day trying to push the legislation along. Satements, like those made by Zumbo, only aid and abet their mission.
Best
That's great, Ha!
That must be the "fantasy" one that the DC Circuit Court just upheld earlier today, right? The one that holds the DC ban on gun ownership by private citizens is unconstitutional?
The gun control landscape just got a lot more interesting for people like you, Sarah Brady, Sugarman and the rest of the Eloi type elites.
Better strap in it's going to be a bumpy ride.
I am an "attack dog trained by the NRA and pretending to be grassroots". I don't think so, I do not belong to the NRA and this middle aged Realtor in MN wrote plenty of letters to Mr. Zumbo's sponsors urging them to drop him. You "gun writers" are unbelievable, you think you have the right to air your opinion with no repercussions ever.. Does anyone else have this "right", if so please tell me whom as I need to change careers so I can say anything I please and never fear any repercussions. You think Zumba and you are immune to all consequences of your actions and writings, dream on in your fantasy world.
People, meaning all of us, have the right to own and use pretty much whatever we want to, the Second Amendment does not guarantee it as much as affirmed it as a pre-existing right before our Constitution was even written, as endowed by Our Creator as free "men."
Since Senator Feinstein has repeatedly sought legislation to ban so-called "sniper rifles" in the past, and Cook County (Chicago) is about to ban pump and semi-auto shotguns, I think those folks that think that the 2nd is only about hunting had best wake up and smell the cordite!
Zumbo screwed up, lets get over it! As one personally scarred from political battles with the Anti-gunners I live by and believe the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Zumbo is one of us and our friend. If we let the Antis split us up we will loose.
Remember there are about 80,000,000 (legal) gun owners in the US and only about 5,000,000 belong to the NRA and other actual pro 2nd groups. Lets oppose the gun grabbers, not go off "half cocked" and destroy OUR OWN.
'Nother correction: HR1022 is (duh!) in the House, not the Senate - sorry! Too excited over the DC ruling!
Some traditional hunting rifles shoot the same calibers as those military weapons. The only difference is what they look like. The problem with this country is, PEOPLE JUDGE EVERYTHING BY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. SWAT and Military snipers use those same traditional hunting rifles, they just take off the wood stocks and put plastic ones on. Same rifle, different look. If you think back to the American Revolution, were the rifles used to make America free the same rifles the people used to hunt to put food on the table? Yes, yes they were. As most of the soldiers used their hunting rifles as battle rifles. It doesn't matter what they look like, they're still the same thing. A simple tool.
Otherwise, very good article.
This is precisely the message that was being sent to Mr. Zumbo, and other elitist "Elmer Fudd" hunters with his public spanking. Don't feed certain gun owners to the wolves simply because you don't like how their gun appears, lest you be fed to the wolves yourselves. Yet we see the elitist Elmer Fudds doing just that, even today. They simply don't get it yet. Maybe with more and more discussion on this issue, they will finally start to see the light, but somehow I doubt it unless they are spanked just as hard as Mr. Zumbo.
The problem is that you're arrogant and naive. I don't mean that as an ad hominem. I think your last columb showed that you think that posting your opinion, which is harmful to everyone's firearms rights, online is more important than helping the cause. That is arrogance.
You probably didn't realize that by doing so you would become a contributing author on the brady campaign's website - even though that was an obvious conclusion. That's being naive.
The problem is that OUR enemies do not make distinctions between "high-powered sniper rifles" and "assault weapons." Hunters, apparently, do.
Here's your contribution: http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/
Just like Zumbo, you have given aid and comfort to the enemy. Your (even unwitting) collaboration is the reason that you receive vitriolic emails.
You refer to the group that got Zumbo ousted as a angry minority. This is further evidence of your arrogance. Every year the ranks of hunters fall, and the numbers of "shooters" rise. Shooters spend far more money and support far more of the firearms industry than do hunters. Hunters might buy 200 rounds a year for their rifle (maybe). Shooters go through several thousand. Hunters support service-side economic benefits but these have far less to do with the firearms industry. Hunting cabins, guides and airlines may indeed profit greatly from the hunting sports. Shooters buy more guns and more ammo. There's a reason that firearms and ammunition suppliers back the shooters.
Moreover, because many if not most hunters only support the right to own "hunting" firearms, shooters and self-defense advocates have to take on the political battles for firearms rights while the hunters sit back in their cabins stirring chili. This makes the shooters and self-defenders a far stronger political and economic force.
Why? Because of unity. The NRA migh have only 9% of voters as its supporters. But it can routinely deliver 7.5% of that vote to an endorsed candidate. 7.5% of the vote accounts for a 15% vote swing. That is a HUGE effect electorally. The NRA's clout comes from the fact that many people use the second amendment as a one-issue vote, or at least as a litmus test.
I do. I would guess that a good number of hunters don't. They share the law-enforcement mentality of "as long as I can have my gun, I don't care if anyone else can have theirs."
That's not an effective attitude when confronting forces who have the theory of "as long as one gun remains in private hands, we've failed."
Think before you type. Collaboration with the enemy, Vichy French Style, is unacceptable. You can bet your rear that if my firearms are taken from me because of hunter apathy and I live through the encounter, I am going to spend every election supporting candidates who vow to outlaw hunting. Maybe that would get the hunters to care.
"Most important, my column wasn’t even about guns or gun control. Nor was it about whether assault rifles should be banned or whether they are or should be used for hunting. It was about how scary it is that a rabid minority can so successfully attack somebody personally, destroy his career, and then boast about it and warn other writers not to cross them unless they want some of the same.
That still scares me. Even more now, after receiving some of the emails talking about drive-by bayonet attacks and reminding me about guys with concealed weapons permits--and a few others that probably could be turned over to the sheriff for investigation.
Concerning our right to bear arms, guys, both Jim Zumbo and Wild Bill agree with you. But let’s stick to attacking the issue of gun control, not attacking people. And get a grip."
Now, accepting as true that Bill has received messages insinuating bodily harm, I would call those messages "angry" and I hope they are only from a rabid minority. To think this attitude and behavior is the mainstream of gun owners is more than a little disconcerting.
As regards those that asked for Zumbo's head, they weren't looking for an apology or a converted heretic that found religion, they wanted him drawn, quartered, and his parts displayed throughout the realm as an example. Wouldn't it have shown real backbone to accept his apology and use Z to profess his return to the faithful? What is it about the angry rabid types that can't think beyond their lust for vengence and punishment?
Oh! I know 1st AMENDMENT Well I happen to like the 2nd AMENDMENT It kinda protects the 1st. I don't hunt but I own AR's and I just bought a AK . I thought Uncle Sam paid and trained me for 13 yrs to fight terrorist and defend peoples right to keep and bear Arms ,along with rest of the Constitution . Not just the part about hunting. Where is the hunting part again? I can't seem to find it,in my copy of the Constitution.
You really are naive if you believe what you wrote in this weeks column about Democrats taking gun control off the table. They are only waiting for a more opportune time to push their agenda.
The intent of the ANTI-GUN crowd (NOT ANTI-ASSAULT RIFLE) is to ban ALL FIREARMS, not just what they term “assault rifles” or what they euphemistically termed at the time “Saturday Night Specials”. If anyone is so naïve that they believe hunting rifles won’t someday be a target of the anti-gun crowd, when in the anti-gun terminology they are already referred to as “Long Range Sniper Weapons” they are fooling themselves.
Someone once said that a wise man will make sure his brain is engaged before putting his mouth in gear. Jim Zumbo didn't and he paid the price. While the first amendment protects his right to free speech, he should have remembered that (1) He works for a magazine that sells it's product to the shooting fraternity (2) He is sponsored by companies that sell their products to the shooting fraternity (3) that the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with the right of the people to own whatever firearm they choose, and for whatever legal purpose they choose to use it.
Jims Feb 16 column, posted on Outdoor Life Magazines web site (which has since been taken down, along with the rest of Jims articles-and an apology posted in its place) contained the following quote regarding AR-15s being used for hunting…..which is what ignited the firestorm.
“As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that his employer and sponsors would not want to be associated with or represented by a person who (on his employers web site, giving the impression that Outdoor Life agreed with him) basically said that citizens who own semi-automatic firearms are domestic terrorists?
If Jims statement was just that he disagreed with the utility of the AR-15 or any other rifle for hunting purposes, he would have been okay, but Jim chose to apply the “Terrorist” label to those firearms, which is why he’s in forced retirement today.
All actions have consequences, even stupidity. Jim Zumbo should have thought about that before he opened his mouth to insert both feet.
Additionally, Jim should have remembered (1) the article he wrote back in 94 regarding Smith & Wessons sellout to the Clinton Administration and what happened to S&W;. (2) That all gun owners are in the same boat when it comes to the gun banners. To quote Abraham Lincoln “A House divided against itself cannot stand.”
"Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
I wish Jim good luck in his retirement. Hopefully the door won’t hit him in the brains on the way out.
Terrorists have never just come from other countries; some are right here in our own nation. Because your readers here don't happen to be one, doesn't mean nobody is. The fanatical response of some of your readers just validates the concern that people like me, who believe in gun ownership, own a lot of them and have a concealed weapon permit and yet still do not see why anybody needs to own an assault rifle. I wrote about this subject in my own blog and got the same basic response you did although not as angry. Why can't people discuss things without it turning into threats and vendettas? I really don't understand it.
Because there is NO VALID reason for banning semi-automatic rifles, no matter how scary they look. They are a non-issue with regards to crime; they are a great choice for many various defensive situations, they are typically well-built, well engineered, and well supplied with spare parts, ammo, etc. The cosmetic parts that make them so-called assault rifles are for functioning (pistol grip), ease of use (muzzle brake/suppressors, detachable mags), safety, ease of maintainance, etc. They are accurate, reliable, and easy to shoot. Until full autos areunrestricted again, they also are the next-best choice for the people to own in defense of a free state.
In the bigger picture, it must be understood that the new bans would include MOST semi-autos, including any based on a military or LE design. I like my Garands! I like my Carbines! I like my M1a! I like ALL my guns - and don't want ANY of them banned for NO GOOD REASON.
We should ALL be angry at ANY attempt to remove or infringe upon a natural inalienable and constitutionally-protected right. "Fanatic" should be an understatement.
From Jim:
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/45/37/
February 28, 2007
Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Dear Alan:
They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.
I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.
But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.
I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts and unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.
My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.
I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.
I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.
The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.
Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”
I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.
Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”
I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.
I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.
I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.
Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo
I will shoot at coyotes when I am at my friends ranch if they come after the rat terrier that always goes camping with me.
Some of Mr Zumbo's detractors were NRA but I bet most were not.
You old hunter types are way out of date, most of the internet commandos see the NRA as "RINO's" who only look out for hunters.
I know about 70 gun owners & not one hunter!...guess what else?
I have 16 guns and am a vegetarian, I use a knife to collect my food and it doesn't try to run away if I bite it without cooking first.
It's not about hunting anymore and the Zumbo madness was spontaneous combustion, what he did was the same as yelling the N word in Harlem if you're not black.
I am glad Mr Zumbo has had a change in heart and I forgive him.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor – He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, He wears their face and their garments, He appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men, He rots the soul of a nation, He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear"
Marcus Tullius Cicero 42BC
Just substitute "Gun Community" for Nation and you get the idea of how I feel about the Elitist Fudds.
Sad, that it has to be this way, but I've always supported hunting even though I don't hunt, but that the way I feel about the Elitist Hunting Fudds who would sell the Shooter, Collectors, and Self Defense Gun Owners down the river of politics. I've always disliked "Sell Outs" whether it be Judus, Benidict Arnold or guys like John Walker, Jr.. Truly Sad.
Respectfully,
Michael Smith
This country has a gun problem, and if you think otherwise you are in denial. More than 10,000 people are murdered with guns each year--more than twice as many as died on September 11, and we went to war to right that wrong. The NRA and its followers have taken an extreme position on gun ownership that does not address the problem. I know, guns don't kill people--but people with guns do. Guns and gun ownership should be regulated. There is no other hobby that generates this kind of body count, and aids and abets so much crime.
I hunt and the NRA and the gun extremists do not represent my views.
But of course, on the East and West Coast, the more exclusive and sophisticated of our hunting comrades can rationalize anything from being Fudd Elitist to being a Traitors to the Second Amendment, Freedom and Liberty. Just as long as it feathers their own nest. Nothing I haven't seen before.
What I see that is good comming out of this Zumbo Situation is that the Fudd Elitist, such as Bob are comming out of the closet. Is that sound a door slamming, Bob?
We are in a Culture War for Freedom and Liberty in this country. Too bad the Elitist can't see it or more likely, are afraid to see it.
For me, the Fudd Elitist just remind me of the Anti War Activist of the Vietnam Years.
I don't hunt and those who believe in Freedom, Liberty and the Second Amendment do represent my views.
Respectfully,
Mike Smith
My wife was glad to hear that I've reached elite status; she never thought I'd amount to anything. Now that I'm elite, I'll feel better driving to work tomorrow in my 19 year old beater truck. But elite or not, I refuse to stop dressing like Elmer Fudd.
Respectfully,
Bob Fudd, Esq.
No, Mr. Craig, we don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem. Take away your guns and mine, they will still be armed. Just like Washington D.C, just like Great Britain. Even analysis from the Center for Disease Control and the statistics of other government agencies have shown that gun control does nothing to reduce violent crime.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is so profoundly important (the prevention of tyranny) that even if a lack of gun control actually increased crime (it does not) I do not believe it justifies the disarming of our country.
The people who are trying to tell you that hunters are NOT exempt from the gun banners aren't guessing. The gun banners have been pretty open about what they want to do. If I haven't done enough research here, email me and I'll be glad to put together a list of links to primary sources. It's not that difficult to do.
I think the problem is that we have extremists on both sides of the issue--those who want to ban all guns and those who oppose any restrictions on guns. We have a problem with gun violence, and guns should keep guns out of criminal hands. I think background checks, certified gun sales (nothing sold at swap meets and through the classifieds in the paper), licensing, shooter safety certification, and no assault rifles are good options. What do you think would help?
The NRA at one end of the spectrum, and the extreme gun banners at the other, both make a lot of money off the all or nothing positions. Zumbo was right to question the utility of an assault rifle as a hunting firearm. The extreme response was wrong.
The other observation about guns is that most of the hunting calibers are produced from military brass that has been modified to become some wildcat cartridge that gains favor enough for ammo to be made available to the public. The venerable 30.06 and all its offshoots are born from military brass, and Zumbo, if my memory serves me, shoots a lot of game with his 30.06. He is a beneficiary of military assault gun development.
We all should be happy that the right to own and bear arms has such staunch defenders. Our government's founders knew that the greatest threat to our young democracy would be from within. That is why have the right be armed. If we were not, some tin horn bully would hold the countryside or the country hostage eventually.
Son, you want facts, try this:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200703/CUL20070307a.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/03-06-2007/0004541057&EDATE;=
Mr. Moore, should you want more facts, I'm sure the gentlemen at the Illinois State Rifle Assocation could enlighten you.
Don, nothing you post will convince the Elitist Fudds that the Gun Banners want their "Hunting Guns". I had the esteamed Senator from Ohio tell me in the late 80s when I ask him if we just gave him the "Assault Rifles", what's next. He replied that we would have to ban those "Deadly Sniper Rifles" like they killed Jack Kennedy with. When I ask him what a Deadly Sniper Rifle was, he asaid "You know, those ones with periscopes on them". I did not argue with him futher.
Its truly sad that the Fudds don't realize the importance of the Gun Owners of this country being united in the defense of the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the US Constitution.
Mr. Moore, As far as hunting, as I said I stopped hunting non human animals after Vietnam, but I did spend the next thirty four years seaking out those animals who prey on our fellow citizens.
Respectfully
Michael Smith
You write, "As far as hunting, as I said I stopped hunting non human animals after Vietnam, but I did spend the next thirty four years seaking out those animals who prey on our fellow citizens."
Really?, do tell more. By the way say a prayer for the children of Dunblane. Their anniversary is on the 13th of this month. Falling right on the heals of that massacre was Port Arthur in Australia. Those are real facts Mr. Smith. The type of facts that lead to political knee-jerk reactions. Like the AG's opinion that I linked above for guys like you, we have the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, there is no constitutional protection for particular types of arms. The AG's opinion steered cleared of this as has the NRA.
Especially the SCOTUS Ruling in Miller vs The US. I believe the hold of that Supreme Court was that the guns that are Constitutionally Protected are Firearms suited for Military Use.
Jesus, get a grip son.
Craig, what you need to understand is that the AG holds very little sway as far as the legal interpertation of the Constitution. Its better than nothing, but not as good as Federal Appeals Court's Rulings. The only thing that trumps them is SCOTUS.
Tell us Craig, are you a Disarmed Subject from the UK or Australia?
Respectfully
Michael Smith
An AR15 .223 is differentiated from another .223 how? Certain features of convenience and style. If we're going to go around picking on certain guns because of style, maybe we should set up a dress code for hunting... no vest older than 20 days on the hunt, like John Kerry... sound good to you?
Should we start insisting that woodland camouflage fatigues and Army boots are big no-nos? Gotta go for the Mossy Oak or some such "non-military-style"?
Bill, this is the level of lunacy that the rest of us--the ones you hoitie-toitie hunter types (as differentiated from just regular folks who hunt) have designated "gun nuts" to set yourselves apart from and above--this is what we see coming from some hunting writers. And it rankles. And we've been seeing this tripe for years.
Perhaps Zumbo just became a lightning rod for it; perhaps he's the only one who could withstand it.
Bill, you started off with a reasonable enough question, which I'll paraphrase: "Didja really have to do your best to destroy the guy?"
Perhaps the backlash was called for, perhaps not. As I implied above, this backlash has been building for years, as the rest of us defend your right to hunting guns as part and parcel of all guns covered under the Second Amendment...
...and the Bill Schneiders of the world go on serenely in pollyannish sense of security, not realizing or appreciating what we "nuts" have done for you, and in fact, crucifying us at zero hour, calling us names and trying to marginalize us--the actual majority of gun owners! Wake up! Without us, your rights would already be gone, you political milquetoast.
Bill, it's well publicized and been so for a couple of years now: they're coming for your 870. See comments from others, above, about what's happening in Chicago, if you're really so oblivious. And Carolyn McCarthy's AWB will get you, if it passes. (God forbid!)
And on that note, Bill, what blindness leads you to suggest that "gun control" is off the table? How can someone so literate be so completely ignorant? How?
I mean, let's look at this: if the Republican congress of the last few years didn't repeal a whole lot more than it repealed, why should Democrats even pretend to hide? Get real: they're out there, they're ON it, and they're coming for... they won't stop until you don't even have a BB gun, Bill.
It's time for hunters of the Bill Schneider ilk to wake up. Your rights are staged at the wood chipper. The rest of us need your help, and expect that you will respect our tastes and preferences in re: guns, and defend our rights along with yours.
I hunt with the gun that my father gave me 30 years ago when I was a teen. Its pretty well worn. My truck is nearly as old. I hunt on public land near my home. I am not elite, and I don't know where these guys get the elite Elmer Fudd nonsense. It's a pretty poor way of arguing your point. Name calling and threats make peopl