Hatchery-Supported Trout Waters Open April 7th In North Carolina

I know this has nothing to do with guns or money but I was the President of the Land O’ Sky Chapter of Trout Unlimited for a couple of years and love fly fishing. It reminds me I need to renew my license and do some more fishing this year. Given that a nice trout stream runs through the middle of The Town (My The Town), I really have no excuse other than the town father’s might consider it an athletic facility.

From the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission announcing the opening of trout season on hatchery-supported streams:

RALEIGH, N.C. (March 20, 2012) — The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will open approximately 1,100 miles of hatchery-supported trout waters in 25 western counties at 7 a.m. on April 7. The season will run until March 1, 2013.

While fishing on hatchery-supported trout waters, anglers can harvest a maximum of seven trout per day, with no minimum size limits or bait restrictions.

Hatchery-supported trout waters, marked by green-and-white signs, are stocked from March until August every year, depending on the individual stream. A list of numbers and species stocked by month and county can be found on the Commission’s website. Many of these waters are stocked monthly, although some heavily fished waters are stocked more frequently.

Balsam Lake, which was drained by the U.S. Forest Service to repair a leak in the spillway, remains closed and will not receive stockings this year.

Commission personnel will stock nearly 877,000 trout, with 96 percent of the stocked fish averaging 10 inches in length and the other fish exceeding 14 inches.

Stocked trout are primarily produced in two Mountain region fish hatcheries operated by the Commission and are distributed along hatchery-supported streams where public access for fishing is available. While hatchery-supported waters are open to public fishing, many of those miles are privately owned.

“Opportunities to fish on many of these hatchery-supported trout streams are only available through the support and generosity of landowners,” said David Deaton, fish production supervisor for the Wildlife Commission. “It’s important for anglers to respect the property that they’re fishing on and remember that landowners can take away access if they feel their property is being misused.”

Deaton said that anglers can help prevent the loss of public access to fishing by:

• Respecting private property and landowners at all times;

• Removing all trash and litter from fishing and parking areas;

• Parking only in designated areas and leaving driveways open for pass-through traffic;

• Closing and/or locking gates after use;

• Reporting wildlife violations by calling 1-800-662-7137.

For a detailed list of all hatchery-supported trout waters and regulation information, as well as trout maps and weekly stocking summaries on hatchery-supported trout waters, visit the Commission’s website, www.ncwildlife.org/fishing. Weekly stocking information appears online for seven days, and updates are posted on Fridays after fish are stocked.

Senators Thune And Vitter Introduce Another Reciprocity Bill

It looks like Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) have made good on their intention to introduce a national right-to-carry reciprocity bill. They have introduced S. 2213 today. The title of the bill is the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

From their joint press release:

Mar 20 2012

Thune, Vitter Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Would Balance Rights of States, Individual Gun Owners

Bill would allow concealed carry in-line with state law without requiring new federal permit

Washington, D.C. –

U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.) today introduced their Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would guarantee the rights of gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines in accordance with the laws of individual states. The bill balances the constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment with the rights of each state to enforce its own laws regarding concealed firearms.

“I am pleased to introduce legislation that strikes a balance between state’s rights and individual’s Second Amendment rights outlined by the Constitution,” said Thune. “Rather than establish a national standard, our bill will ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to carry concealed firearms while at the same time respecting the laws of the respective states they visit.”

“I think we’ve succeeded in striking an effective balance here with a bill that expands our right to bear arms but doesn’t institute a heavy-handed federal permitting system,” said Vitter. “Instead, we’re returning power to individuals and to the states by allowing Americans to carry concealed firearms in accordance with local laws. This doesn’t force states to change their laws and it doesn’t force individuals to go through yet another permitting process – the best solution to streamline a complicated problem.”

The Thune-Vitter bill would guarantee that persons who are legally permitted to have a concealed firearm according to the laws of their home state may carry such a firearm in any other state that allows concealed carry. The bill would not force Illinois and the District of Columbia, which currently prohibit concealed carry, to change their laws. The bill would also respect individual state laws regarding specific locations where firearms are prohibited.

The bill does not establish national standards for concealed carry, and it does not provide for a national carry permit, nor does it allow individual gun owners to circumvent the laws of their home states.

In July 2009, a similar version of the Thune-Vitter bill received 58 votes – two shy of passage. The current version of the bill has attracted 29 original co-sponsors in the Senate, including: Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Ms.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orin Hatch (R-Utah), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) Rand Paul (R-Kent.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), and Roger Wicker (R-Ms.).

The bill is supported by numerous groups including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Passenger-Cargo Security Group, and Women Against Gun Control.

 The text of the bill is not up yet but I imagine it will be nearly identical to the bill introduced in 2009 that almost passed the Senate. The text of S. 845 from the 111th Congress can be found here.

 In the original release regarding the competing bill, S. 2188, it listed the sponsors as Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mike Crapo (R-ID). You will notice that in the list of co-sponsors above – all Republicans – that Mike Crapo is listed as a co-sponsor. When I checked the Library of Congress’s Thomas legislative information site, the only sponsors and co-sponsors of S. 2188 are Begich and Manchin as well as the two pro-gun Democrats from Montana, Tester and Baucus. Mike Crapo’s name does not appear as a co-sponsor.

This is just speculation on my part but I imagine Crapo’s arm was twisted in the name of party solidarity. If a bill such as this is going to pass – and I’m not sure it will get through the Senate – it will need to have support from both Democrats and Republicans. It will also need some support from the Senate leadership to get out of the Judiciary Committee and to the floor of the Senate. That is also iffy.

Why Does The Brady Campaign Want To Keep Gays Defenseless?

The oral arguments before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Peterson v. Garcia et al are being held this afternoon in Denver. The case involves the attempt by Gray Peterson to obtain a concealed carry permit in Colorado as that state does not recognize his Washington State permit. For those that are unaware of Mr. Peterson and this case, he is gay and is a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights.

While the primary oral arguments will be made by John Monroe, attorney for Mr. Peterson, and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, the Court of Appeals has allowed extra time for oral arguments by certain amici (friends of the court) in this case. Alan Gura will be representing the Second Amendment Foundation and a whole host of groups which include among others Illinois Carry, ISRA, and CalGuns. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund will be represented by Matt Bower of the NRA and the Brady Campaign will be represented by Jonathan Lowy.

As might be expected from the gun prohibitionists, they are portraying this as a battle between the good Brady Campaign and the evil NRA to prevent “guns in the streets.” From their press release:

Attorneys for the Brady Center and the NRA (National Rifle Association) will face off in a first-in-the-nation case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, Colorado Monday, March 19. The case, Peterson v. Garcia, will decide whether the Constitution allows Colorado to protect public safety by continuing its policy of regulating who can carry loaded and concealable guns in public.

Senior Judge Walker D. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the original case on March 8, 2011.The gun lobby then appealed to the 10th Circuit.

The Brady Center filed an amicus brief on July 19, 2011, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, urging dismissal of the appeal. The Brady Center’s brief highlights the severe danger posed by concealed weapons, with studies showing that the carrying of guns in public does not make one safer, but instead increases the risks of death and injury. Brady believes that communities should be able to decide who can carry loaded guns on their streets, and in their parks and playgrounds.

Dangerous legislation has been introduced in Congress to force states like Colorado to honor concealed weapon licenses granted by other states, even by states with virtually no standards for concealed carry, and that allow carrying by people with violent pasts.

Notice that there is no mention in this release – and I presume none in their brief – that this case is really about a gay man wishing to protect himself from predators. I’d like to think that at least some of the the Brady Campaign’s donors might be appalled – and rightfully so – if they knew this.

I Think The Tool Is the Assemblywoman

I stumbled across a pro-microstamping op-ed by NY State Assembywoman Michelle Schimel today. She was the primary sponsor of A.01157 which would require any semi-automatic pistol manufactured or delivered to an FFL in the State of New York to be capable microstamping ammunition. This act passed the New York State Assembly in 2011, died in the State Senate, was returned to the Assembly, and has been passed again.

Assemblywoman Schimel wrote on the bill:

Microstamping allows law enforcement to trace firearms through shell casings found at crime scenes, even if the crime gun is never found. In passing microstamping, the Assembly heeded the call of gun violence victims and their families, anti-crime advocates, and law enforcement who have called for microstamping to be enacted in the budget due to be completed by the end of the month.

Microstamping is about public safety and placing criminals behind bars. This technology will save taxpayers’ dollars by enabling law enforcement to solve gun crimes quicker. At a time when government has to save money and be more efficient, microstamping will help reduce the number of man-hours needed to solve gun crimes. I praise my Assembly colleagues for realizing the urgent need for microstamping in New York State, and I strongly urge the State Senate and Governor to join us and include it in the final budget.

 In her official Assembly biography, she calls this her proudest legislative accomplishment. Given her background, I’m guessing she would.

A lifelong community activist, Michelle serves on the board of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), the largest citizens’ group in New York State dedicated to reducing gun-related violence. In 1995, as Vice President and member of the Executive Board of NYAGV, Michelle and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy co-founded the Long Island Chapter.

Independent, peer-reviewed research has shown that this so-called tool for law enforcement is unreliable. The University of California-Davis Forensic Science Graduate Group stated in reference to California’s law that “a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”

The NSSF has called this “a flawed concept that is being pushed as a backdoor way to ban handguns” and I would agree.

After looking at the research, I would have to conclude that the tool in question is Assemblywoman Schimel and those who have voted in favor of this bill.

Hey, Eric! Did You Really Say “Brainwash”?

Yes, he did.

Thanks to Breitbart.com and their “Vetting” project, we have video proof that then-U.S. Attorney (and current Attorney General) Eric Holder actually did say that there needs to be a campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” He made these comments in 1995 during a speech to the Woman’s National Democratic Club.

Holder was calling upon the media and advertising community to help build a campaign to treat firearms like cigarettes.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

Frankly, I found his call to indoctrinate children by bombarding them with this message rather chilling. It is reminiscent of efforts by every totalitarian regime – from Hitler to Stalin to Mao – to use the educational system as a means for control.

NRA Annual Meeting – Who’s Going?

The NRA Annual Meeting will be in St. Louis this year which brings joy to my heart – and wallet. The Complementary Spouse’s Mom, sister, and older daughter all live in the area so housing is not a problem. We plan to make it a family occasion with her brother coming in for the meeting to join the rest of us.

The one downside will be no concealed carry on the Illinois side of the Mississippi. It is always the one negative about going to southern Illinois which, other than that, is a nice place to visit.

I don’t know what blogger events have been planned yet but I’m sure there will be some.

If you are going to the meeting, let me know by email (jpr9954 at gmail dot com) or in the comments below. We may have a chance to meet up.

For those not going, is there anything in particular you want me to cover from the Annual Meeting. I’m thinking of attending the Leadership Forum where all the politicians will be going on about how they support the Second Amendment and how they used to shoot varmints growing up. In other words, sucking up to the NRA in hopes of getting the “clinger” votes. Beyond that, I’m open for suggestions.

I do have a question for the Missouri readers – is concealed carry allowed in the Edward Jones Dome and/or America’s Center? I had read in handgunlaws.us that concealed carry was prohibited in facilities that seat more than 5,000 people. What about restaurants that serve alcohol? Are they considered the same as bars or are they treated differently?

It is hard to believe that it is less than month until the Annual Meeting. Where has the time gone?

Who Or What Is Project Gutpile? (reposted)

This post was originally written in November 2010 concerning a supposed hunting group called Project Gutpile. They were part of the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the EPA to ban lead ammunition and lead fishing sinkers. The EPA had concluded that they did not have that authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. The District Court agreed and dismissed the suit.

Now the Center for Biological Diversity is back again and so is the supposed hunting group Project Gutpile with a second petition to the Environmental Protection Agency asking that lead bullets and shot be banned. The New York Times featured a story on the new petition today and again they gave prominent play to Project Gutpile.

But Anthony Prieto, a hunter who lives in Santa Barbara, Calif. and leads Project Gutpile, a group that advocates non-lead ammunition and is party to the petition, said that copper bullets work just fine. “I’ve had no problem with copper bullets for the last 13 years,” he said. “And it doesn’t fragment like lead does.”

Mr. Prieto said he normally opposes bans of this sort. But after working to preserve the California condor and seeing several animals die of unintended lead poisoning, he said, he felt the need to take a stand. “I just got tired of it,” said Mr. Prieto, who recently wrote about the issue in an opinion piece in The New York Times. “You have to do something to wake people up.”

I called Project Gutpile a Potemkin Village of an organization in 2010 and I stand by those words today. They were (and remain) “useful idiots” for those who would conspire to ban hunting and, more importantly, to attack the Second Amendment by making ammunition prohibitively expensive. I would also call your attention to the comments including the one by Rob Vance who has lived in Santa Barbara for many years and has never heard of this group.

The original post is below and has not been edited except to remove out of date videos and replace it with his updated video.

Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity along with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Project Gutpile filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Environmental Protection Agency. After their petition to ban lead ammunition and lead fishing sinkers was denied by the EPA, they have sued in an effort to force a ban on lead ammunition and fishing sinkers. CBD and PEER are well-known and well-funded environmental lobbies.

Project Gutpile, on the other hand, is an organization that has come out of nowhere to be a participant in the suit. They are portrayed as a hunting group which is against the use of lead ammunition due to its toxic effects on wildlife. Their very name comes across as a caricature of a hunting group. It conjures up images of air-brushed T-shirts saying “Happiness is a Big Gut Pile”.

So who or what are they?

The lawsuit identifies them as:

Plaintiff Project Gutpile is an educational organization comprised of hunters that provides educational resources for lead-free hunters and anglers. Project Gutpile members observe, research, study, and seek protections for the wildlife species that are vulnerable to lead poisoning by lead bullets, shot, and sinkers, and intend to continue to do so in the future. Project Gutpile’s members and staff derive scientific, recreational, conservation, and aesthetic benefits from these species’ existence in the wild and these benefits will be harmed by the damage to wildlife by lead bullets, shot, and sinkers. Project Gutpile has been promoting non-lead ammunition and raising lead awareness in the hunting community since 2002. Project Gutpile co-authored the Petition and brings this action on its behalf and on behalf of its adversely affected members and staff.

Based upon this description, one gets the idea that they are a fairly large organization with a paid staff of Ph.D. level biologists and wildlife experts as well as on-going research that appears in peer-reviewed journals.

The reality, however, is that they are to major hunting groups like the Safari Club as Potemkin villages are to real towns and villages. In other words, they are a facade.They are useful when “environmental” groups need to trot out a “hunting organization” to mainstream their argument. In other words, useful idiots to use the Communist term.

The organization is the brainchild of Santa Barbara, California musician Anthony Prieto who describes himself as a lifelong hunter with a love for the California condor. His love for the condor has been translated into his “concern” over the supposed poisoning of the condor through eating carcasses shot with lead bullets.

He has been the feature of a glowing story in Audubon Magazine. The organization received a grant from the Fund for Santa Barbara to educate hunters and ranchers on alternatives to lead ammo. The grant was for all of $2,400.

As to the aims and size of the organization, let’s let Anthony tell us himself.

Video Removed – The original is no longer on Exposure Room but in it Prieto detailed his organization.

Four members. And this video was updated only two months ago. I have no doubt he is sincere in his beliefs and has a genuine concern for the California condor. However, junk science is not the way to promote conservation of the California condor.

For an example of his scientific method, watch the pig hunt below. He shoots the pig with a “lead bullet” which causes a “snowstorm of lead” as seen by an X-ray.Why he doesn’t think of using hardcast lead isn’t explored nor other less expanding bonded bullets.


The Non-Lead Hunter from Anthony Prieto on Vimeo.

Tom McIntyre has been a contributing editor of Sports Afield magazine for many, many years. He has hunted on six continents and is as astute an observer of hunting and hunting organizations as you will find. He wondered about Project Gutpile just like I did. In a blog post on them and those who use them he had this to say:

This is a perfectly transparent tactic by the CBD, one often resorted to by progressives, and let it be noted, by more than a few reactionaries, to grant authority to some essentially nebulous, straw-man group, from a supposedly divergent, and unexpected, segment of the political spectrum, which echoes, or apes, their own position.

Anti-gunners have, in opposition to the NRA, the vocally pro-Obama, and in almost every other respect obscure, American Hunters and Shooters Association (with which the hideous Jimmy Carter’s former press secretary Jody Powell is somehow affiliated), which claims to be—wait for it—

…a national grassroots organization committed to safe and responsible gun ownership. We are a mainstream group of hunters who are looking to belong to a gun owners association that doesn’t have a radical agenda.

McIntyre notes, “And we see that none of it’s about lead, at all, but about quicksilver, the kind found in smoke and mirrors.”

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Anthony Prieto is concerned about the condor and believes what he believes. That said, Project Gutpile is merely a useful front group for environmental organizations in much the same way that the American Hunters and Shooters Association was in 2008 for anti-gun politicians.

Enlightened Comment Of The Day

Florida’s “stand your ground” law which does not require a duty to retreat in the face of a deadly threat is generating some really off-the-wall comments as a result of the Trayvon Martin case. Case in point is this comment by Gregory O’Meara.

Gregory O’Meara, an associate professor of law at Marquette University School of Law, agrees.

“These ‘stand your ground’ laws license pistol-packing urban cowboys and paranoid people,” says O’Meara, who fought the passage of a similar law in Wisconsin. “We’ve all been trained to be afraid of black men, and if you’re afraid enough that justifies everything.”

Professor O’Meara is also Father O’Meara as he is a member of the Jesuit order. The Jesuit Order has traditionally been known for their academic and intellectual rigor. Given his comment above, Father O’Meara seems to have strayed from the Jesuit tradition and is instead embracing the mindset of Father “Snuffy” Pfleger.