By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Since the legalization of raised platforms for firearms deer hunting, one sees them strategically placed along woodlot edges overlooking deer travel routes, while driving most anywhere. More pointedly, the popularity of customized “shacks” has grown significantly, as dedicated hunters personalize them beyond belief. They may contain modern amenities not thought of in hunting terms years ago, while at the same time are designed to be aesthetically pleasing in their natural surroundings. Now comes Joel Sheltrown with House Bill 4897 and he wants to tell such craftsman how their hunting blinds must look.

As I perused the bill, it seemed innocuous enough: Hunter orange is defined; hunters don’t have to wear it when using a crossbow during archery season nor does a person engaged in the sport of falconry; while stationary, hunters don’t need it when hunting coyote, bobcat, or fox. Fine.

Subsection (3) is where my mind’s internal anti-locks involuntarily engaged: A person shall not use a blind to take deer with a firearm unless 144 square inches of hunter orange is visible on the exterior surface of the blind from all sides. A blind means an enclosure used to help conceal or disguise the occupant for the purposes of taking game. The failure of a person to comply with this section is not evidence of contributory negligence in a civil action for injury to the person or for the person’s wrongful death.

The obvious intent of this legislation is to protect hunters but what deer hunter wants orange targets pasted on his blind? If this is such a good idea, why aren’t blinds – portable or otherwise – already made to these specs? Simple: Nobody would buy them! If hunters like the concept, let them add as much orange material as they desire to their hideout on a voluntary basis.

However, by the language defining blind in the legislation, concealment and disguise are elements of a blind. Adding blaze orange anywhere, let alone a minimum of 4 square feet to its exterior, makes it contradictory in nature, so to speak.

Nannyist leaders have allowed no exclusions for those on private property, or for those in elevated blinds. What deer hunter in an elevated blind must be protected from stray fire? Although deer can be hard to find at times, I’ve yet to see one climb a tree, which would require bullets to be shot skyward! If anything, raised-platform blinds offer an inherent protection to occupants far better than any orange mandate.

If protection of hunters is the goal, maybe the legislation doesn’t go far enough. Nannyists could do a much better job of keeping hunters safe if each hunter would be required by law to stick his blaze orange head out the window of his blind, and scream every 10 minutes, “Don’t shoot me Bro!” while flailing his orange gloves in the air and tooting an air horn. Strobe lights can be programmed above all blinds to coincide with the touching of triggers to make sure hunters in the area have a chance to take cover. Glow-in-the-dark, bullet resistant vests could also be required gear.

There’s simply no limit to how safe we could all become, if we just continue to permit our legislators to decide what’s good for us!

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendmen t needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

SIG SAUER, Inc. announces that is has secured a multi-year contract to provide pistols to the U.S. Army’s Materiel Command with a potential value for all quantities and related customer support to be $306 million.

Exeter, NH, April 30, 2009 –(PR.com)– SIG SAUER, Inc. announced today that it has secured a multi-year contract to provide pistols to the U.S. Army’s Materiel Command. The potential value for all quantities and the related customer support package is $306 million. The initial order of 55,890 units is to be released as the standard sidearm for the entire Colombian National Police force. Shipments are to begin immediately with a second release of 42,000 pistols to follow.

Ron Cohen, President and CEO, stated that he is proud that SIG SAUER’s long standing reputation for superior reliability and quality has been recognized with this exceptional contract. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for SIG SAUER to continue to expand its manufacturing facilities and create U.S. jobs at a time when other companies are downsizing and exporting jobs overseas. Mr. Cohen further stated that the breadth of SIG customers is evidence of the worldwide acceptance and demand for SIG SAUER products. These customers include numerous elite law enforcement, military, and government agencies (e.g. the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS), U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Air Force OSI, British SAS, French National Police, and the Colombian National Police).

Employing over 350 skilled workers at its Exeter, NH facility, the company has been on a continuous program of expansion and growth. State-of-the-art automated machines now populate the majority of the facility, the result of over $30 million dollars invested over the past four years.

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that dismisses a lawsuit against Glock by the victims of a deranged gunman in Grenada Hills, CA was a proper decision under existing statute, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

In a 2-1 decision, a three- judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling that the case, Ileto v. Glock, was nullified under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That federal statute was passed to prevent junk lawsuits against gun makers, and this specific case was cited during Congressional debate as precisely the kind of lawsuit the law would prohibit.

“We are delighted that the Ninth Circuit panel not only affirmed the lower court ruling,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “but also that the court upheld the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting this kind of lawsuit. While we sympathize with the victims, it would be an egregious miscarriage of justice to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals over whom they have no control.”

In August 1999, a deranged man named Buford Furrow opened fire at a Jewish Community Center summer camp in Granada Hills. The Glock pistol he used had once been owned by a police department in Washington State, but had been sold as surplus and passed through several hands before Furrow got it. Furrow wounded three children, a teenager and adult at the Jewish Center and later murdered a postal carrier, Joseph Ileto. Families of the victims, and Ileto’s widow, sued Glock and others in 2001, claiming that gun companies “intentionally produce, market, distribute, and sell more firearms than the legitimate market demands.”

Judge Susan Graber wrote the majority opinion, stating that “The PLCAA affects future and pending lawsuits, and courts are required to ‘immediately dismiss’ any pending lawsuits preempted by the PLCAA.”

“Holding gunmakers responsible for crime is a false panacea,” Gottlieb said. “Congress saw this when it passed the PLCAA, and now the court has aff irmed that logic.”

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Giving up turkey hunting’s opening day this early season to call for a good friend was followed up with another calling session for another relative newcomer opening weekend. This time, however, I made the trek to the hideout on my own; with the final week of the season dawning, I was the gunner – and, caller.

I expected to be rewarded with yet another unique adventure afield, because that’s how it always has been and always will be; knowing the details, however, that’s another matter, but that’s the beauty of any outdoor experience.

This hunt began to get interesting shortly after setting my lone hen decoy in front of my blind some 24 yards out front. Two birds appeared at the edge of their destination field and began a double-time approach, as they spotted my tricky, inanimate accomplice. A closer look revealed a scrawny 6-inch beard on one. An even closer look told me it was a hen. Yep, a bearded hen.

I knew such a phenomenon occurred in nature but I didn’t know much else about the legal bird. It was an easy call to hold off, because odd as it may have been, it just didn’t seem to be much of a trophy. The body was typical hen sized: small. And, what if I was killing a potential brood raiser? (Research indicates about 10 percent of adult hens sport beards, some have spurs, and generally produce normal broods). I did good.

As the morning progressed, circus girl and her friend were quite content with their surroundings – enough so to set up camp about 10 feet in front of me. Nothing’s better than live decoys; but, nothing’s worse than having them close enough to spot any potential movement. Yet, I didn’t want to scare them off.

Then things got weirder, as 3 crows descended into the legume plot. Intent on a hearty breakfast of worms, they kept their distance from the odd couple near my blind. I knew I was totally boxed in and would never be able to move a muscle, as the three amigos proceeded to within 12 yards paralleling my set up.

It seemed like an hour before the coast had cleared, and try as I might to coax in a lone gobbler, he never showed. By 11 am the temperature was approaching 80 degrees, I was out of drink, and had had enough.

My next opportunity would be Friday, May 1st. This time, my friend, Doug Schaberg attended the morning serenade of songbirds along the brisk march to the blind for what I hoped would be thrill enough to hook Doug into the pursuit of ol’ Tom. You see, Doug tried turkey hunting a couple of times and never caught the disease. All of that was about to change forever!

Atop a distant hill two hens paraded away from us; as is often the case, 2 adult toms followed from a distance. I worked the magic wand of my H.S. Strut slate call and actually got the bachelors to change plans and turn around. They stretched their necks like accordions and gobbled for effect, but were not in position to locate my decoy. Eventually, the pair lost interest and departed.

Less than a hour later, an unmistakable gobble seemed to be sent directly to me so I sounded the love response. As I strained to get a view, the twin longbeards materialized about 125 yards away directly in line with my plastic partner. A stout load of 6 shot powered by Winchester, dropped the 10.25-inch-bearded tom at 35 yards. Doing so signaled the end of my season, but Doug’s turkey hunting career may well have just begun in earnest.

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there.

The legislative plan, signed recently by Gov. Brian Scheitzer, a Democrat, is called, “An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana.”

Click on the title for the full account.

From: Department of Natural Resources
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:21 PM
Subject: 2009 Elk and Bear Hunting Application Periods Began May 1

CONTACT: Adam Bump 517-373-1263, Rod Clute 517-641-4903, or Bob Gwizdz 517-373-3542

The Department of Natural Resources reminds hunters that the Michigan elk and bear hunting license application period dates have changed from previous years. Applications for elk and bear hunting licenses are now available through June 1.

There will be 360 elk and 11,473 bear hunting licenses available for the 2009 hunting seasons.

Only Michigan residents are eligible to apply for an elk license. Bear licenses are available for both residents and nonresidents; however, no more than two percent of licenses in any bear management unit will be issued to nonresidents.

Hunters can apply online at www.michigan.gov/dnr, at any authorized license agent or at a DNR Operations Service Center. A nonrefundable $4 fee is charged at the time of application.

Applicants may call (517) 373-1263 prior to June 1 for assistance with their application and may check the drawing results online at the DNR Web site beginning June 22 for elk and June 29 for bear. Also see the 2009 Michigan Elk Hunting Guide and 2009 Michigan Bear Hunting Guide for more details about the application processes.

You’d think Obama would thank the many responsible gun owners for their financial assistance. And, if he doesn’t think thanks are in order, maybe he should give it back…Glen Wunderlich

NEWTOWN, Conn. — During a time period of great economic uncertainty, firearm and ammunition sales have continued to increase throughout the country.

According to the most recent Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax Collection Report, released earlier today by the Department of the Treasury, firearm and ammunition manufacturers paid more than $98.1 million in the fourth calendar quarter of 2008, up 31.3% over the same time period reported in 2007.

Manufacturers of firearms and ammunition pay a federal excise tax — a major source of wildlife conservation funding –on all firearms and ammunition manufactured (11% on long guns and ammunition and 10% on handguns).

The report, which covers the time period of October 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, shows that $27.6 million was collected for pistols and revolvers, $35.0 million for long guns and $35.5 million for ammunition. Compared to the same quarter in 2007, collections were up 70.1% for handguns, 11.4% for long guns and 31.1% for ammunition.

These figures close out the 2008 calendar year. In 2008, a total of $345.2 million was collected in excise taxes, up 13.9% from the $303.2 million collected in calendar year 2007.

“Demand for firearms and ammunition is clear,” said NSSF President Steve Sanetti. “Since the November elections we’ve seen an increase in firearm ownership coupled with an unprecedented level of attendance at firearm safety courses nationwide. Americans are buying firearms, and they’re taking the proper precautions to ensure that they exercise their individual Second Amendment rights safely and responsibly.”

Using the latest collections as an indication of sales, a projection of $917.5 million was generated in the fourth quarter (calendar year) of 2008. Please keep in mind that although excise taxes are one of the best indicators of industry performance, they only report what the manufacturers paid in taxes and do NOT reflect retail mark-up and final retail sales. Furthermore, these figures are based solely on U.S. civilian sales and do not include sales to military, police and other governmental agencies.

Pistols and revolvers: $27,649,109.11 / .10 = $276,491,091.10 = $276.5 million for handguns

Long guns: $35,021,474.66 / .11 = $318,377,042.36 = $318.4 million for long guns

Ammunition: $35,488,061.46 / .11 = $322,618,740.55 = $322.6 million for ammunition

Total estimation for the quarter: $917.5 million

Using the same methodology, a projection of $3.22 billion dollars was generated in calendar year 2008, up 15% from the $2.8 billion projected for calendar year 2007.

Pistol and Revolvers: $907.1 million
Long guns: $1.15 billion
Ammunition: $1.16 billion

“These numbers speak to a much greater story,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “America’s gun owners have serious concerns about the country’s current political make-up. Lawmakers should recognize this and understand that these gun owners are not merely consumers buying a product, but voters reacting to a very real threat.”

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

With all the concern about bovine TB and Chronic Wasting Disease in Michigan – including the 2007 TB scare in Bennington Township – some citizens believe the DNR overreacted when it banned deer feeding/baiting in the Southern Lower Peninsula. I am not necessarily one of those, but nonetheless, felt somewhat victimized by the recreational feeding ban. Like any other lawful caretaker of the natural resources, I obliged and went one step further.

The DNR indicated it would test a certain amount of road-killed deer and asked that hunters voluntarily submit deer heads for disease testing, as well. Doing so is not always easy, but when we harvested deer on New Year’s Eve and another on New Year’s Day, I was compelled to help the DNR in its quest for knowledge – especially in light of the fact that one of the deer showed suspicious signs of some type of lung ailment.

About a week after processing the two animals, I took time off to head for the Rose Lake DNR facility and met a desk jockey there. The staff informed me that I couldn’t receive deer cooperator patches and I let them know that wasn’t the reason for my visit; I wanted to know what was wrong with one of the deer. A gentleman then filled out the requisite forms after I gave him the precise location of the kills. He tagged the heads and gave me two claim checks: numbers 288630 and 288631.

Approximately two weeks later, I entered https://secure1.state.mi.us/testresults on a search engine to follow up on the results at the MDNR Wildlife Disease Lab (the url is listed on the tags; How convenient!) After carefully entering the specimen numbers and my driver’s license number, no records were found for either number. Hmmmm. I then emailed Jean Fierke at fierkej@michigan.gov, because that’s what the site’s instructions advised. (There was also a phone number, but for the time being, I took the easy way out.) No response.

Then, while at the MUCC’s Outdoorama in late February, I strolled along an aisle and noticed a booth manned by uniformed DNR officials. Hmmmm again. I happened to have those two tags with me and a very polite and seemingly helpful agent plugged those numbers into the computer, along with my driver’s license number. Again, no record found. He even tried both tag numbers. Same result.

The helpful servant then telephoned the same Jean Fierke in Lansing, as I mentioned to him that I had emailed her with no response. He gave the phone to me and I ran off the driver’s license number to her and finished the conversation by giving her my telephone number before ending the discussion. The DNR representative at the show then explained how good their tracking system was and I went on my way after spending about a half hour of my life with them.

From the first of January to the first of May seems like a fair amount of time to answer an email or make a telephone call but maybe that’s just me. However, the next time the DNR pleads for hunting or fishing license fees, maybe I’ll have a talk with them. That is, if anyone cares to listen.

BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

“The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California,” Peña noted, “but now that a manufacturer didn’t pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become ‘unsafe’.”

“The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether th e State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.

“The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”