Virginia legislators have clearly lost their minds on this latest bill that was drafted and filed this month, which will be open to discussion come January 2020.
This of course is in reference to Senate Bill Number 64, or SB64 as it may appear on various print or spoken discussion.
Virginia is attempted to chip away at the rights of citizens, one small hammer stroke at a time; and this bill is going to attempt to outlaw firearm training. We’ll display the language used in the bill and get into dissecting how it may be perceived generally, or even presented, versus how it can also be enacted.
The first portion of the bill goes as follows:
“A person is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he: 1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder”
How it will be Perceived/Explained:
The way that they drafted the bill, and the portions that will be either emphasized or broadly digested will be the portions related to people “knowing” that they’re preparing someone for some “civil disorder”.
They might even say that this law can be used against Antifa, which it could, but will it?
Talking heads will go on television, hyping up that this is a good measure that will criminalize people training for acts related to domestic terrorism; although why would we need a law for something there’s already a law for? That could be addressed already by Virginia law § 18.2-46.5.
How it can be Enforced:
The most dangerous words in this proposal are “knowing or having reason to know” and “in furtherance of”.
The reason being that intent is no longer really required, leaving every gun range owners and employees susceptible to prosecution for simply doing business. It’s plain as day why this language is the way it is, because with these key words, only loose connections need to be established to criminalize gun owners and enthusiasts.
Furthermore, civil disorder is also quite a broad term as well to be concerned about.
The second and also third portion of this bills is as follows:
“2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or
3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.”
How it will be Perceived/Explained:
Well now this will try to put you at rest from thinking that someone can legally start up some kind of training camp to prepare people to wreak havoc on your city, which with the way the law is written it can certainly be applied in that fashion.
And that portion pertaining to marching, well that’s to stop anyone from making it look like they own your streets via a militaristic grip and toting their scary guns. Keep in mind, this is how it will be sold and broadly digested.
How it can be Enforced:
That last Section, 3, is the most unique part of the law. While Section 2 can be applied much like Section 1 can, that third portion has the ability to criminalize open-carry demonstrations and peaceful protests.
As we saw last year in Washington, D.C., the “March for our Lives” demonstration which had a theme that was about banning guns, encountered some counter-protesters proudly displaying their second amendment rights and openly carrying.
These few dozen individuals held what they called a “Patriot Picket” and that pesky third portion of the proposed bill can send someone to jail for having a firearm on their person whilst attending a march such as that.
I’ve never quite understood the anti-gun movement. Guns seemed to be the only object that gets blamed for murder when they’re used for murder. No one tries to ban Hondas when someone strike a pedestrian with one.
No one tries to ban Clorox when someone’s kid drinks it. Nor do people try to ban kitchen cutlery when someone is murdered with a knife, but for some reason guns are just so awful to some people.
The people that hate them, but don’t stand to benefit from their ban or confiscation are only one thing: potential victims of crime. Don’t stand idly while these laws slide into your state.
People hunt for a variety of reasons: the sense of accomplishment, the thrills, the meat, and also the memories of hunting with friends and family. One of the biggest benefits to hunting is the quality venison that they eat or if they on far away trips, they will donate it to local soup kitchens or food banks. However, people don’t generally think of venison as a replacement for other meats, like beef, in their diet. Putting wild game on the table and providing sustenance for your family is hugely rewarding, but are there other benefits to eating venison? How does it stack up to beef in nutrition and taste? Here’s a side-by-side comparison of venison and beef.
While venison and beef contain many of the same vitamins, venison has a slight advantage over beef in vitamin content. This Livestrong article calculates that venison contains more thiamine and riboflavin than beef, a little less niacin and vitamin B-6, and the same amount of vitamin B-12. While beef does have more minerals overall, venison is still a good source of the same minerals beef provides, including iron, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc.
Venison is a leaner meat than beef, which makes sense considering the active lifestyle of a wild deer in comparison to that of a domesticated cow. It is lower in calories and lower in cholesterol than both beef and poultry. Also, in most cases, venison is also higher in protein.
Taste is, of course, subjective and, certainly, some people do not like the taste of venison. The flavor of venison is heavily impacted by how the meat is handled immediately after harvest and especially by how it is prepared and cooked. If venison is processed and prepared correctly, chances are you won’t even be able to taste much of a difference or may even come to prefer its flavor over beef. In fact, Alex Robinson from Outdoor Life conducted a blind taste test where venison beat beef 8 to 2.
When you talk about food safety with venison, people immediately jump on the issue of chronic wasting disease (CWD). Currently, there are no known cases of CWD being transmitted to a human being. On the other hand, there have been documented cases of humans contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (the human version of mad cow disease) from infected cattle.
Deer live a life free from artificial growth hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals or medicines that may be employed for use in commercial animal production operations. There is one special risk associated with deer meat and that’s residual lead from the bullet, assuming the deer was killed with a gun. Of course, if you take the deer with a bow then you don’t have to worry about this. For deer taken during rifle season, hunters can mitigate the risk of ingesting lead particles or residue by cutting liberal margins around bullet entrance and exit holes when butchering their deer.
Besides the obvious health benefits, eating venison is important to the balance of nature. It has been well documented that hunting is one of the most efficient and effective ways to keep deer populations within a sustainable carrying capacity for the local ecosystem. The annual reduction of deer population helps to decrease deer-vehicle collisions, which account for hundreds of human deaths each year.
Becoming self-sufficient through hunting and butchering your own deer meat increases your sense of independence. Knowing that you don’t have to rely on a grocery store to provide yourself and your family with a healthy, safe and great tasting (renewable) natural resource is an incredible feeling.
What do conservationists think about hunting animals for sport?
Sounds like a simple question with a fairly obvious answer.
But, if an open letter from a group of 133 scientists is anything to go by, the argument may be more nuanced than many of us may have thought.
They claim there is “compelling evidence” that a ban on so-called trophy hunting will not help protect animals – and in fact will “negatively affect” conservation.
They wrote the letter as the UK Government considers whether there should be new rules on importing hunting trophies.
One of the signatories, Dr Amy Dickman, talked it through with Radio 1 Newsbeat.
She’s very clear that she’s not a supporter of hunting – but she and her colleagues are worried that if it’s banned completely, huge areas of land will be converted to other uses and cease to be a habitat for these species.
“Rather than have a knee-jerk emotional response, conservation action should be based on evidence,” she told us.
The scientists say the focus on banning trophy hunting – where animals are hunted and their remains kept as trophies – is distracting attention from the other threats faced by endangered species.
Imposing a complete ban is likely to likely cause “more animals to die”, according to Dr Dickman, a conservationist at the University of Oxford.
“You might not see it on social media, but animals will be dying – ensnared, poisoned or in conflict with local people.”
She says her aim is to “minimise” overall deaths and that can’t be done “by fixating on one type of wildlife killing”.
“It’s not a win if we say ‘look, we’re going to reduce the number of animals killed through trophy hunting’ but then the unintended consequence of that is we end up with far more animals killed through illegal killings and habitat loss.”
According to the scientists, ending trophy hunting means land will be converted to other uses, and will no longer be home to many animals.
Dr Dickman says “in areas where you don’t have the trophy hunting and tourism, you don’t have an economic reason to maintain wildlife”.
“I don’t like trophy hunting, but what’s the alternative land use for this area and is it going to be better or worse for wildlife?”
Opponents of hunting suggest photo-tourism as a substitute – but Dr Dickman says many places do not have the infrastructure to turn land into attractive animal viewing areas.
“So if maintenance isn’t viable, you’ll end up with more snaring, hunting, killing, conflicts… and those will be more damaging to the population.
“That’s the scientific basis and why trophy hunting can be a benefit – because it act as a buffer against these much larger threats.”
The scientists say they are in favour of well-regulated trophy hunting – and guidance by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) should be followed.
Dr Dickman says it’s not about relaxing all restrictions “and having a free for all”.
She says only trophies which meet certain criteria should be allowed to be imported and adds that “an age and area based approach” should be taken to trophy hunting restrictions – which is better for conservation.
“With lions for example, you don’t want want more than one lion killed every 2,000 square kilometres.
“And the science shows if you only take male lions above the age of six, it’s unlikely to have a detrimental impact because they should have reproduced and pass on their genes by then.”
She adds that this has been successful in places such as Mozambique because trophy hunters change their behaviour and only take older males, meaning it has less impact on the wider population.
There’s been criticism of the scientists for this letter.
Eduardo Gonsalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said:
“Many of the world’s wild animals are in danger of extinction. Trophy hunting is a leisure activity for the very rich. It is needlessly adding to the problems they already face.
“It’s a barbaric hang-over from the colonial era and has no place in a civilised society. It needs to be abolished.”
But Dr Dickman says it’s important to “develop fully funded alternative solutions that deliver equal or greater benefits for people in wildlife”.
“If we leap to the end, and just put bans without proper steps, the huge likelihood is that we will make things worse for conservation, and for local people – and none of us want that.”
Update 3 December 2019: In October the Science journal published declarations of interest from the letter’s authors. These included Dr Amy Dickman, who is the Director of the Ruaha Carnivore Project, which has been funded by phototourism (Asilia and Nomad) and in the past from the Dallas Safari Club and Safari Club International.
A Montana man told authorities that he cut off a grizzly bear’s claws as a memento after shooting it in self-defense because he was mad that the bear was going to eat him, according to court records.
Bryan Berg, 35, appeared in court last Thursday in U.S. District Court in Missoula after pleading guilty to illegal transport of grizzly bear claws, a misdemeanor, according to the Flathead Beacon. A judge sentenced the man from the northwestern Montana town of Marion to three years of probation and ordered him to pay $5,000 in restitution.
Grizzly bears in northwestern Montana are classified as a threatened species.
Prosecutors said Berg shot the bear in self-defense in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in 2017. He cut off its claws and pushed the carcass over the side of the mountain.
Berg never reported the shooting to law enforcement and he later took the bear claws to Washington state, prosecutors said.
Acting on a tip, authorities interviewed Berg in March 2018. He admitted he shot the bear in self-defense, handed over the claws and provided investigators with photos and videos of the scene, according to records.
He added that he didn’t report the incident because he was “terrified” and said he knew taking the claws was illegal. “I was hoping I would never run into you two,” he told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents investigating the case.
Berg was also charged initially with failure to report the shooting of a grizzly bear within five days. That charge was dropped as part of a plea deal with prosecutors Berg signed in December.
Korth makes spectacularly great double-action revolvers. Co-developed by Nighthawk Custom and Korth, the new NXR handgun features a 6-inch stainless barrel inside a black DLC-finished shroud and frame, over-travel-adjustable trigger, fully adjustable rear sight, and interchangeable front sights.
An under-barrel balancing and recoil-taming weight is user-removable. The double-action is silky smooth, and features a perfectly brief indent at full hammer extension with the cylinder fully locked up, so you can squeeze to that point, then hold till ready to fire and drop the hammer with a single-action-like feel.
You can order this action in one of five settings, tuning that “indent” to suit your preference perfectly. The single-action trigger is tuned to break at 2.5 pounds. The walnut grip is nicely contoured to fit your hand and features the legendary Sheriff Jim Wilson’s signature at the base of the grip. The cylinder release is located near the hammer, enabling the shooter to activate it without breaking his grip. Picatinny rails atop and below the barrel enable simple accessory mounting.
This revolver would make an ideal heavy hunting handgun, and with a scope mounted atop would provide plenty of range and firepower. You’re going to pay as much as you’d hand over for a used car, but trust me, this handgun is spectacular.
• Finish: DLC Coated
• Caliber: .44 Magnum
• Weight (Empty): 3.05 lbs.
• Barrel Length: 6″
• Overall Length: 11.65″
• Width: 1.72″
• Height: 6.38″
• Cylinder Capacity: 6
• Barrel: 416R
The Korth NXR has an MSRP of $5,299. For more information, visit nighthawkcustom.com.