All in the family would go to the woods in Upton, Maine and stay until they got enough Deer Meat to last the winter. It was an all day trip to reach the camp by horse and buggy. Sometimes it would take more than a week to get all the deer they needed. I can remember my dad telling the story of one trip he went on as a very young child in the early 1900s. They had some deer hanging from a tree near the back of the camp. He and his dad and mother were sleeping on the top bunk up near the roof. In the middle of the night a wildcat climbed up onto the roof and started to screech something awful and it scared him so bad he was afraid to be out in the woods after dark for the rest of his life. True story!!! Milt Black Bear Blog

Milt Inman Photo – Click on Image to Enlarge (You can see more of the details of the pictures)

Let’s go back last December when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews displayed his ignorance born from his hatred of President George Bush and anything that doesn’t fit his lifestyle, when he asked if it was a requirement for a member of the GOP to prove his manhood by killing animals.

We got two for the price of one that night when Matthews was speaking with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and he asked her if she was upset because a presidential hopeful, Mike Huckabee, was out pheasant hunting. And her reply, which by the way she got away with with virtually nobody calling her on it.

“Absolutely. You don’t see any women out there with a gun.”

This helps to explain some of the rudeness and one-sided, nasty reporting and press Gov. Sarah Palin has been getting ever since it was announced she would be Senator John McCain’s running mate.

Hang on to your britches Andrea, here comes Sarah with a shotgun slung over her shoulder. Bring on the smelling salts! I think the ole girl must have passed out!

Michelle Malkin shares with her readers the story of an L.A. Times fashion police blogger, who’s as qualified to make a comment about the recent cover of Newsweek magazine, that shows a 2002 photo of Palin with a shotgun slung over her shoulder, as I am about the clothes Sarah Palin is wearing.

Fashion blogger Elizabeth Snead asks, in reference to the cover:

“Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?”

That’s about as brilliant a statement as our MSM made the day President Ronald Reagan was shot. They repeatedly told viewers and readers that a man took several shoots at the president with an automatic revolver.(If you don’t understand that comment, go away.)

It is always dangerous to write things you know nothing about and to do it out of blind hatred and intolerance, is really dumb.

By the way, I’m not sure the blue in Sarah’s blouse is the exact right color to match the undershirt. Perhaps some manipulation of her makeup could draw attention away from the fact that one sleeve is lower than the other. OMG and check out the bangs!

And besides, shouldn’t she be wearing hunter orange?

Tom Remington

AUGUSTA – Former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife marketing specialist Bill Pierce recently was named a recipient of the prestigious L.L. Bean 2008 Outdoor Heroes award.

Mr. Pierce, who worked at the Department from 1999 until April 2008, was nominated by Fisheries Division Director John Boland. He now works at the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust.

The L.L. Bean Outdoor Heroes Program was developed to thank individuals who have dedicated their time to preserving the outdoors and encouraging the use of recreational outdoor space.

Winners are awarded a $5,000 grant towards their organization to support continued preservation, conservation and educational efforts. IF&W will apply the grant to its youth fishing and education programs.

“The award honors those people who make a difference in the world around us – the one we enjoy today and the world that we will pass along to our children and their children,” said Mike Gawtry, project line manager for hunting and fishing at L.L. Bean.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is grateful to L.L. Bean for its continuous support of its conservation, and youth fishing and education programs.

“Bill’s love of Maine’s great outdoors is evident in his never-ending enthusiasm to share its fishing and hunting opportunities with others, and the programs he developed while at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife could be viewed as an invitation for all to go outside and play,” said Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin. “We thank our partner L.L. Bean for recognizing the dedication we saw in Bill, and for its generous donation to our programs that bring outdoors opportunities to Maine’s youth.”

Among Mr. Pierce’s accomplishments:
* Airing hunting and fishing information on Maine Turnpike Radio;
* Creating and posting hunting, fishing and outdoors safety informational videos on www.mefishwildlife.com, and e-mailing the videos to tens of thousands of people;
* Branding IF&W’s logo on merchandise that is sold through the internet and private partnerships, including one with L.L. Bean, which raises thousands of dollars for conservation and education programs;
* Pitching Maine’s outdoors and recreational opportunities to outdoors writers, sporting magazines and television shows, thus giving Maine international exposure and drawing visitors to the state.
* Establishing corporate partnerships with several companies, including L.L. Bean, that have generated funds for IF&W projects such as the Outdoors Partners trailer, fishing and hunting publications, wild trout initiatives, and threatened and endangered species programs.

“Maine is now a destination for hunters and anglers from across the nation due in part because of Bill’s work with local and national television, radio, web, and print-based media,” Gawtry said. “Anglers, hunters, birdwatchers understand the management programs and needs of IF&W due to Bill’s work.”

Mr. Pierce said he is grateful for the Outdoor Heroes award, noting that “the Department’s mission of managing Maine’s fish and wildlife resources – and the resources themselves – are such wonderful things to promote.”

“I am grateful to be honored by L.L. Bean with this award, but any success I have enjoyed is largely due to the hard work of my friends and co-workers at IF&W,” Pierce said. “I am truly blessed to have worked with a lot of very special people in the main office, the regional staff and the Maine Warden Service. Those folks are the real Outdoor Heroes.”

Former Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife marketing specialist Bill Pierce (second from right) celebrates receiving a L.L. Bean 2008 Outdoor Heroes Award with (from left) Mike Gawtry, product line manager for hunting and fishing, IF&W Deputy Commissioner Paul F. Jacques, IF&W Fisheries Division Director John Boland and IF&W Commissioner Roland “Danny” Martin, during a recent ceremony at L.L. Bean.

Tom Remington

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin isn’t afraid of anyone or anybody when it comes to doing what is right for the people within the constitutions and laws in which we all must abide.

Forget the far left’s attempt to smear Palin and her family, a left extremism that Barack Obama and many others support, the democrats in general are attempting to make an issue about Governor Palin’s experience. It’s probably a bit objective as to whether Governor Palin has more or less “experience” than Senator Obama. The liberal media, in its support of Obama, is saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t measure up to Obama in experience and that Senator John McCain’s attack campaign against Obama’s inexperience will now backfire, as he has picked a running mate with little experience.

Isn’t it bizarre in some ways that we are even having this discussion? Those who follow Obama think he is their man. They do and say what they think is necessary to get their guy elected. McCain’s camp is doing the same thing but I see it just a bit differently.

I would give the experience nod to Palin for two reasons. One, I think her past in office has presented her with real executive decisions of which Obama has not had. Two, I personally more strongly approve of Palin’s past experience as one I would look for in a candidate. I want a real person, one that actually does remember what life is like, not just talk about it.

But let’s forget about this experience thing for a moment. Palin is fearless and I don’t think it much matters what color suit or dress the opponent is wearing. If you compare two candidates, both with equally little past experience, the kind some people seem to think is vitally important, don’t we then look at other aspects of that person in determining a winner – like character, morals, strengths and weaknesses?

I would trade you one experience card for one gutsy performer. I love a gutsy guy! I’m a sports fan and have been for years. I am always drawn to underachiever athletes who make up for perhaps some natural athletic ability by out hustling the opponent, and I mean out working them. These kinds of people are determined and fearless. It comes out in their performances.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has taken her share of grief over her position on wolf management. For those who may not know, her team of respected wildlife scientists and game commission, implemented a plan that involves the reduction of wolf populations in a very limited number of specific areas where it has been determined that wolf populations are too high and they are decimating the moose and caribou.

Alaska’s constitution demands that game animals must be managed to provide opportunities for its residents to hunt and fish. Allowing wolves in these isolated and limited areas to go unmanaged, is not only illegal but irresponsible as well. Many methods have been tried and due to the geography and other dynamics of the situation, it was decided to utilize aircraft as a tool to cull the wolf population. This has all been done within all the laws.

Palin has heard from just about every animal rights organization and has had to spend Alaskan resources fighting this decision in court but she believes that it has to be done according to law and that the majority of residents agree. A recent ballot measure proved that to be the case.

Palin has stood by her team of fish and wildlife experts and essentially told all newcomers she isn’t changing her mind. She has taken a similar stance on the recent announcement by her own republican party, that the polar bear would be listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. It takes guts to buck your own party but she has proven it doesn’t matter. I think she is a “We the People” person.

When Gov. Palin announced that the state of Alaska was going to file suit against the U.S. Department of Interior over the polar bear listing, it set off a firestorm of anger throughout the world of environmentalists. Back in May when I reported this story, Kassie Siegel from the Center for Biological Diversity, accused Gov. Palin as being either “misinformed” or “intentionally misleading”. Because Palin wasn’t interested in buying into global warming that some scientists think might create some problems for the polar bear, she did what she knew was the right thing to do even though Seigal blasted her position.

“The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this.”

What is refreshing is that it appears the state of Alaska has a governor that holds environmental extremism in very low regard. There is nothing I would like more than to see a president and vice president, an administration and a Congress that did the same thing.

But in reality, I think Palin takes comments made about her by individuals and groups as nothing more than a pesky mosquito – a little DEET and they’ll go away.

But this all pales in comparison to how she handled California Congressman George Miller after he submitted a proposed bill that would put an end to the state of Alaska’s constitutional agreement to manage its own wildlife.

Back in September I told you what Miller was up to and how Governor Palin was handling it. One thing she did was send the honorable congressman a letter(pdf).

Here are a few choice excerpts from Gov. Palin’s letter to Rep. Miller dated September 27, 2007:

On behave of the state of Alaska, I am writing to express my displeasure with your introduction of a bill that proposes to end what you refer to as “airborne hunting” of wolves and bears in Alaska. You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food for the people of this state. You displayed a shocking lack of understanding wildlife management in the North and the true structure and function of Alaska’s predator control programs. You have threatened the very foundations of federalism and the state’s abilities to manage their own affairs as they see fit.

I am dismayed that you did not attempt to contact the state your bill affects most directly before announcing your legislation. At the very least, we could have helped you correct the many inaccuracies and misstatements of fact in both the written and the oral portions of your media presentation yesterday…………..

I am especially concerned your draft threatens the constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty not just of the state of Alaska, but all states.

In her letter, Palin quite adequately explains to Congressman Miller how much of the predator control program of Alaska works. She ends the letter this way.

With all due respect Congressman Miller, you failed to do your homework. I urge you to learn more about the realities of Alaska’s predator control program, and not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns………

The wolves in this case that Governor Palin doesn’t fear are the “special interest advocacy groups” and their “inaccurate campaigns”, as well as one Congressman George Miller. In all honesty, I just can’t see her being intimidated with anyone who might be a threat to this country, whether they live in California or Tehran.

This is the kind of “experience” that you can’t put a measure to. I want a leader who will stand up to whatever and whoever threatens the constitution of this nation, our sovereignty and freedom.

Tom Remington

The Nature Conservancy, based in Virginia, is proving on a regular basis that it is an extreme, left-wing, radical environmental organization that will allow the death of human beings for the sake of what they call conservation and saving animals. It is thoroughly disgusting to discover their strong arm tactics used to create “wilderness” while trampling on the long held traditions of natives. All this for the sake of saving the Komodo dragon.

The Wall Street Journal tells the obscene story of these Komodo dragons preying on men, women and children in villages near the Komodo National Park, where the dragon makes its home.

The Nature Conservancy stuck its nose into Indonesian business, offering money and advice, seeing a way to promote their self-righteous, Marxist agendas, forcing themselves on the natives of the area.

With this funding and advice, park authorities put an end to villagers’ traditional deer hunting, enforcing a prohibition that had been widely disregarded. They declared canines an alien species, and outlawed the villagers’ dogs, which used to keep dragons away from homes. Park authorities banned the goat sacrifices, previously staged on Komodo for the benefit of picture-snapping tourists.

“We don’t want the Komodo dragon to be domesticated. It’s against natural balance,” says Widodo Ramono, policy director of the Nature Conservancy’s Indonesian branch and a former director of the country’s national park service. “We have to keep this conservation area for the purpose of wildlife. It is not for human beings.”

While reading this story, we can just as easily replace Komodo dragon with wolf or a number of other such species. Check out all the key words and phrases used which are classic examples of the bile spewed forth by animal lovers and environmentalists; “natural balance”, “conservation area”, “purpose of wildlife”. “It is not for human beings.”

It seems that the natives had discovered how to get along just nicely with the Komodo dragon as traditions weren’t just pulled out of the sky. How does anyone think traditions begin?

The natives learned how to feed the hungry dragons so they wouldn’t feed on the villagers. The traditions have been around for so long, they are now deemed as a sacred duty.

These locals have long viewed the dragons as a reincarnation of fellow kinsfolk, to be treated with reverence. But now, villagers say, the once-friendly dragons have turned into vicious man-eaters. And they blame policies drafted by American-funded environmentalists for this frightening turn of events.

“When I was growing up, I felt the dragons were my family,” says 55-year-old Hajji Faisal. “But today the dragons are angry with us, and see us as enemies.” The reason, he and many other villagers believe, is that environmentalists, in the name of preserving nature, have destroyed Komodo’s age-old symbiosis between dragon and man.

For centuries, local tradition required feeding the dragons — which live more than 50 years, can recognize individual humans and usually stick to fairly small areas. Locals say they always left deer parts for the dragons after a hunt, and often tied goats to a post as sacrifice. Island taboos strictly prohibited hurting the giant reptiles, a possible reason why the dragons have survived in the Komodo area despite becoming extinct everywhere else.

These people aren’t stupid. The knew what they had to do to get along with the Komodo dragon. But that means nothing to groups like The Nature Conservancy. They blame the villagers for these problems. Take a look at the pointing of the finger and accusations.

Despite such disbelief in the Komodo villagers’ theories, executives at the Nature Conservancy’s headquarters in the U.S. pledge to reach out and tackle local fears. “Any concern expressed by the villagers will be taken seriously and we will address it if we can,” says Chief Communications Officer James R. Petterson. “The Komodo effort is a work in progress.”

Dragon and man could coexist here in harmony in the past, Komodo park officials add, because at the time the area’s human population was a fraction of today’s size. Now, with local villages pushing deeper inland and attracting new settlers from elsewhere in Indonesia, conflict may be inevitable — and even a fence won’t be able to prevent dragon infiltrations.

“The smell of the village — goats, chicken, drying fish — all this invites the dragons,” says Mr. Latief. “And if the dragons can’t grab the animals, they will bite the villagers.”

Ah, yes! These ignorant natives with their superstitious beliefs. How could one righteous, holier-than-thou organization, bent on controlling the world and stealing the land and stripping people of rights, beliefs and traditions, allow such barbarism? Evidently these people never cooked and raised food before TNC moved in.

They blame the natives for living, accusing them of having the audacity to encroach on the Komodo dragon’s habitat and cook food, raise livestock and live.

The Nature Conservancy should be ashamed of itself but unfortunately they have manage to lie, cheat and steal their way through the American society, convincing enough of them that they are serving the best interest of the animals and the people (notice people listed second). They will continue their evil ways while more human beings, who don’t belong there, according the TNC, get eaten by hungry dragons.

But as Chief Communications Officer of The Nature Conservancy James R. Petterson says, “The Komodo effort is a work in progress.”, The Nature Conservancy places no value at all on human life and the long held traditions of the Indonesians, whether we like them or not.

Fear mongering? Go tell that to the family who had to watch their child get consumed by a hungry dragon. I don’t want to hear it!

Tom Remington

Today, George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine chastised the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for doing an inadequate job of managing the state’s moose herd. His criticism came in his weekly column in the Kennebec Journal.

While I can agree with Smith that the moose isn’t getting the attention it deserves, I can also say that other species aren’t either much because the MDIFW is strapped for cash and Gov. Baldacci thinks he can cure some of the problems by creating bigger departments and absorbing fish and game into another entity.

Smith suggests that Maine pays much better attention to the lobster than the moose and says the state falls short in taking advantage of the moose as a tourist attraction.

Sure, our quality of place is important, but these two critters are critical to our tourist economy.

The state and its lobsterman take care of their lobsters. But the forlorn moose is left to fend for itself.

To compare the management of lobsters with moose is a stretch, even though I understand Smith’s point. He says lobstermen understand the importance of good management and are willing to fork over money for the cause. What competitive lobsterman wouldn’t do that? They can pass on the added expense to the hungry tourist who comes to Maine to dine on the crusty creature.

Moose hunters cough up a lot of dough over the course of each hunting season and the demands being placed on them to dig deeper is getting old. Moose hunters don’t set traps, harvest the moose and sell it at the local butcher shop for whatever the market value is.

If Smith wants to talk tourism and how the moose and lobster affect the Maine economy, that’s fine but comparing lobstermen with moose hunters isn’t quite the same.

Maine isn’t alone when it comes to trying to find the right balance between catering to the freebie wildlife watchers and to hunters. Survey after survey shows that hunting interest is holding steady or in decline while wildlife viewing is up. In fairness, many of those wildlife viewers are hunters and fishers.

States struggle to find funding to meet the demands of wildlife management. Part of the problems have come from states morphing their fish and game departments into fish and wildlife departments, moving their focus away from managing for game and managing for demanding wildlife viewers who essentially pay nothing for the privilege.

We must remember also that when we begin demanding that wildlife viewers pay their two cents worth, they will also demand better representation for the fees they pay and history shows us that not always are hunters and wildlife viewers in total agreement.

I concur with Smith that Maine should have a more accurate count of their moose population. This demand is always easily asked for but extremely difficult and expensive to do. Let’s face it, even the deer population estimates are only that, an estimate based on data and fancy formulas that get tweaked every year.

I hear demands from hunters all across the country that fish and game should go out and count the animals one by one and get it over with. Oh, really? I believe the most effective way to count game is by aircraft. It’s expensive and still is not highly accurate.

I believe Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer biologist and now moose biologist, is a smart man and does his job well. I do agree with Smith that a position should have been filled instead of dumping this in Kantar’s lap.

It is obvious to me the department is looking at ways to cut expenses. I’ve said this before and I’ll continue saying it. Maine needs to go in the opposite direction than what Gov. Baldacci is suggesting. The fish and wildlife department needs to return to the fish and game department for the purpose of managing game. If the state wants to start a department of natural resources, then fine. Then they can figure out how to levy fees against the freebie users of our lands and natural resources that hunters, trappers and fishermen have paid for for years but leave the fish and game alone.

Perhaps Smith needs to be reminded as to why we have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 moose in the state of Maine. It didn’t happen all by itself and it didn’t happen because somebody thought they could make a buck hauling tourists around in a van hoping to spot one of the gangly creatures mucking it up beside the road. It came from the fish and game management, through restrictive regulations and thought, all bought and paid for by the hunters.

I have no sour grapes that people want to go to Maine to see a moose or eat a lobster. I like doing that myself. What I don’t like is that more and more demands are being put on the fish and wildlife department, while using up my license fees, that aren’t benefiting me as a hunter.

Smith recalls what former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne had to say.

Kantar’s predecessor, retired deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, summed it up well, saying, “You’ve got to put money and you’ve got to put resources into it, and you have to have leadership.”

Not assuming that Lavigne required those to be in order, I might first suggest new leadership. Baldacci must go. He has cost the state of Maine dearly in his poor leadership skills, especially in suggesting that MDIFW should become absorbed into some natural resources quagmire. Bigger government is not better and everyone, including the viewers, will suffer from this move. History proves it through the number of other states doing just as Baldacci is suggesting.

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to whether wildlife watchers and game hunters can operate well as a cohesive unit. It seems the goals of each entity are polarizing and would war with each other.

Moose watchers want one thing – moose to watch. They don’t understand wildlife management and tend to view hunting as nothing more than a reduction in the moose population, which runs contrary to their goals. This presents quite a problem and one that can’t be remedied simply by saying that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needs to throw more money at the moose issue so both hunters and viewers will have more moose. It’s far too complex an issue and wrought with emotions and politics.

Yes Maine needs to do a better job in managing their moose but I’m suggesting it first begin with new leadership and a better structuring of departments so that all pay their fair share. Then, money will be available to better manage a valuable resource in the moose.

As Smith asks, “Shouldn’t a state agency that brings in $2 million from moose be able to do better than this?”

The answer is yes, as soon as the money stops being spent on none game projects demanded for by non fish and game projects.

Tom Remington

The Boston Globe has a typical article today that shows the media’s desire to disregard hunting in favor of wildlife watching at the expense of hunters. It really kind of irks me, the ignorance that exists and then the arrogance from the wildlife watching community as they are continually told they outnumber hunters and are gaining the upper hand politically to have things their way.

And it appears that the Maine Office of Tourism isn’t exactly jumping up and down in support of the state’s thousands of hunters.

“It’s a challenge,” said Phil Savignano, senior tourism official for the Maine Office of Tourism. “Maine is changing . . . There is clearly a decline in hunting and a growth in wildlife viewing. But we want both to exist.”

According to officials at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, hunting participation has held pretty steady in Maine. I’m sure Savignano is referring to the USFWS survey that I have said for months is not an accurate measure of who hunts and who doesn’t, yet even state officials use that data instead of information from their own agencies. Go figure!

The difficulty, as I see it, does come from the power of the dollar. I don’t want the wildlife watchers taking over fish and game departments. Lee Kantar, a biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and who has recently been put in charge of looking out for the moose, had this to say about the pressures put on the department in managing the moose.

“Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care,” said Lee Kantar, a wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Population numbers, he added, “can be the stuff of battles.”

Perhaps this is what it has evolved into but it’s not supposed to be the function of the fish and game department to be managing game animals for the wildlife watchers and those trying to make a buck off charging people to go on wildlife watching safaris.

Once again we see history being lost in our society. People forget what state the moose was in not that many years ago and whose dollars it was that were used to restore the moose population. Now we have a seemingly abundance of moose and some hunters are demanding more permits to hunt the creature while at the same time wildlife viewers, who pay nothing for the management of the animal, are demanding more moose to watch.

For many reasons there are people who don’t want the two entities to coexist. I won’t go into all the reasons. The media does little to help as is shown in this article.

I want to see the wildlife watchers pay their share to meet the demands they are putting on MDIFW but separate from the fish and game department. I have said this repeatedly. Fish and game needs to be shrunk in size to a function of, well, fish and game and NOT as Mr. Kantar says: “Our job is to balance the interests of all people – the hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, people concerned about road collisions, and people who don’t care.” This is not a function of a wildlife biologist or the fish and game department in my opinion. Why should my license fee be used to satisfy those wanting to go moose watching, or for pandering to the insurance companies to reduce collisions, etc.?

There are no sour grapes here toward those who want to make a buck or two by schlepping those interested in canned photo opportunities and wildlife viewing safaris across the state. What irks me is their demands that hunters stop shooting the animals in order that they have more animals to watch. All this without paying a red cent to the agency they are demanding provide them more opportunities.

It’s been said countless times. If it wasn’t for the millions of dollars paid by hunters over the years, these viewers would have little to watch and safari organizers would be doing something different. Hunters generally speaking do not resent that people want to go wildlife watching. What we do resent is these groups looking to promote their new-found activity at the expense of running the hunters off the face of the earth.

Tom Remington

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia vs. Heller.

It actually seems quite ridiculous that it has taken over two hundred years to get a definition of this great Amendment, the Second. So has been the case with District of Columbia vs. Heller, more commonly known as the D.C. Hand Gun Ban.

Heller worked as a security guard and petitioned the District for a permit to keep a hand gun in his home for protection. He was denied and thus began the process of a legal challenge by Heller and others that such an act was unconstitutional. A District Court of Appeals agreed with Heller and the case was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.

In March, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Even before the conclusion of oral arguments, many thought the High Court would rule that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. For whatever the reasons, some in this country have come to want to believe that the Second Amendment applied only to giving states the authority to arm state militias. There is little evidence to support that claim.

Somewhat lost in the debate over the Second Amendment was the actual case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. The District’s ban against Heller and being challenged in court, states that for all intent and purposes, that it prohibits the possession of a handgun and demands that all other guns kept in a home be rendered inoperable through disassembly or the use of trigger locks. The U.S. Supreme Court could not and does not rule on certain issues on the administration of the Second Amendment as some would have hoped because of the case before them.

As I said earlier, it has taken over two hundred years in order to get the Supreme Court to actually define the Second Amendment. In case you have been in outer space in the last few days, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, agreed to uphold the lower court’s ruling that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority which included the following justices: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

Here is Scalia’s summary of the Court’s decision:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

For the Court to reach this decision, it first opted to actually define the Second Amendment. For those interested in reading the entire rendering of the case, which includes Alito’s opinion and dissenting opinions by Justices Stevens and Bryer, I have made it available at our Skinny Moose Media website.

Although Justice Scalia didn’t spell out something I find quite important and never considered by most in discussions about the Second Amendment early in his opinion, I would like to bring to your attention this important fact before getting into the highlights of Scalia’s definition.

Scalia points out that the way the Second Amendment is written clearly shows us that our right to keep and bear arms was a recognized, preexisting right long before the Bill of Rights was written. The Second Amendment isn’t a right granted to us by the U.S. Government. The Second Amendment merely recognizes that as free human beings we have that right.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

To spell that out more clearly, Scalia is saying that if this was a right being granted by the Government, it would have stated so. Instead, by defining the right and declaring that this right “shall not be infringed” points to the fact the right already existed.

Justice Scalia goes to great lengths in creating the definition of the Second Amendment supporting it with historic facts and data. He also points out that our Constitution was written in language that we would understand and of that used at the time of its writing.

The opinion states that “the right of the people” refers to individual rights and cites references in even the unamended Constitution that clearly signifies rights as being intended for individuals and not a “collective” right when suggesting that the Second Amendment pertains to the military only.

A bit of cleverness was used by Justice Scalia in his discussion of the interpretation of “keep and bear arms”. He actually uses the opinion of Justice Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in what was defined as “carries a firearm”.

“[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

As Scalia points out, Justice Ginsburg’s opinion of what “carries a firearm” means, she uses reference to the Second Amendment but does not refer to that in any context of the military, yet Ginsburg was one of the four justices voting against the appeal of District of Columbia vs. Heller. One would think that if you believe that the Second Amendment means that an individual has the right to “carry a weapon” how can you then take on the opinion that the Second Amendment pertains to the military uses only?

Justice Scalia spends a great deal of time refuting Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion concerning individual vs. military rights under the Second Amendment. He also points out that four states had included in their constitutions, rights to keep and bear arms that clearly defined such as the right of an individual.

There has always been differing opinion about the preface of the Second Amendment, i.e. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”, and the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and how they work together. Scalia claims that the two parts fit nicely together and the meaning is clear once we gain an understanding of the history that our founding generation knew and all that he gives in his opinion.

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

If we now have determined exactly what the definition of the Second Amendment is according to the interpretation of Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy at the time of ratification, how has it been viewed and written about in history since that time? I actually find much of this quite puzzling. I find myself asking the question, “If it was widely agreed upon, the definition of the Second Amendment, and was so rarely interpreted through law and referred to in writings after ratification not differently, then how did we reach a point of banning ownership of guns without being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court until now?

Scalia takes us through a chronology of three eras in history since ratification and explains to us how each era viewed the Second Amendment. The first era is the Post-Ratification era in which he describes the writings of three prominent legal scholars during that time – St. George Tucker, William Rawle and Joseph Story.

The second era is the Pre-Civil War and the third is the Post-Civil War era.

As was the case during oral arguments, dissenting Justice Stevens places a lot of emphasis on The United States vs. Miller, in which it was determined that the use of a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon covered under the Second Amendment.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence
tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

Miller can get quite confusing if not understood. Scalia points out that “ordinary military equipment” means those “ordinary” for its time, yet in 1939 machine guns were in use in our military but had been banned by the National Firearms Act. Scalia believes he understands the meaning of Miller.

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right,

If this were the end of the discussion on the Second Amendment and that the U.S. Supreme Court had made its ruling, many “purists” of the Second Amendment would be happy and of course those who hate the right of others to keep and bear arms would be riled to the ultimate. Scalia however, in his opinion, begins to point out that the court understands that, like other rights guaranteed via the Constitution, none are without some kind of limitations. This becomes a troubling situation for many and an opening in the proverbial door to gun control and restrictions.

The court, also through this finding, establishes that in the case of Miller, it is recognized that there are restrictions to the types of weapons individuals can own. Although not clearly defined, it generally means that those weapons that can be kept are those “in common use at the time” and also referred to as “dangerous and unusual weapons”.

Scalia points out that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the balance of power, if you will, was considerably different than today. In other words, the weapons owned by individuals who could be required to take up their arms as part of their duty to the state’s militia, we very much the same weapons as were being used readily by the military. The same weapons being owned today by individuals would pale in comparison to some of the high-tech weapons of today. That being the case, Scalia declares that this still cannot change the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

While the court has recognized that limitations are reasonable, it does not spell out what those limitations are. In discussions prior to the Court’s rendering of this decision, it was not thought that the court would do this. It was believed by legal scholars that the High Court would rule on an individual right but leave open the door for “reasonable restrictions”. I stated that when this happened the courts would be very busy attempting to sort out what were reasonable restrictions.

Falling somewhat short of naming weapons and limitations, Scalia’s opinion falls back onto the case at hand, District of Columbia vs. Heller. Because Heller was prohibited to have an operable gun in his home, the Court, through the work and the definition it derived, declared the District of Columbia’s ban unconstitutional. The ban removes Heller’s well established right to self defense which is contrary to the Second Amendment.

The lower Court of Appeals and the attorney for Heller, created a problem that left the door open to the possibility of strict regulation. Scalia points out that in the lower ruling, the court failed to address the issue of required licensing to own a gun in the District of Columbia. Couple that with the fact that during oral arguments Alan Gura, attorney representing Heller, told the court he didn’t have a problem with licensing and that this requirement is permissible as long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

As a result of these two events, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of licensing as an unreasonable restriction on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. For those who see licensing as an obstruction to the owning and possessing of firearms, this could pose serious problems in the future. Time will tell.

The second part of the District’s case was that if the Court found that the Second Amendment right was guaranteed to an individual, they still had the right to limit and restrict usage and ownership because of safety concerns. Both Justices Breyer and Stevens, in dissenting opinions stated that because of the crime problems in Washington, D.C. the District should have the right to limit guns. Scalia pointed out that the court believes that although they may recognize a crime problem, there are more than enough laws to combat violence.

It has taken over 200 years to finally have the highest court in this land define the Second Amendment. That is done and the court has voted, however this does not put to rest any of the continuing debate on what kinds of restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. This will have to be hammered out in the lower courts and perhaps one day one case will find its way back to the High Court.

What this ruling does do could be even more far reaching than any of us can imagine. In the near term, actions will begin to challenge existing gun bans – probably in cities like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.

This ruling will give power and ammunition to those fighting off the efforts of gun control freaks to snatch our guns.

Our current presidential election could prove to be interesting now that there is a clear definition, laid out by the Supreme Court, that we as individuals are guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. Both Obama and McCain need to watch their step and make sure they speak clearly and precisely on their positions on guns and gun control.

Perhaps one of the most important and encouraging aspects of this ruling is that the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to take a stand, return to the history of this great land and help us all gain a better understanding of what it was the founding fathers and the citizens of that time wanted when they crafted the Second Amendment. This is important to our future.

Perhaps this is one giant step toward the preservation of our great and inspired U.S. Constitution.

More on District of Columbia vs. Heller

Tom Remington

Have you noticed all the hype of late about getting your coupon to offset the cost of the purchase of a converter box so you will still be able to watch television on your old analog TV? The thing is Congress approved this move a long time ago, yet they sat quietly by while television manufacturers unloaded millions of analog television sets at reduced prices to the masses of Americans who were for the most part unaware of the changes that lay ahead.

But that is only one aspect of the scam dumped on an ignorant, lazy and inept Congress. The television broadcasting companies weren’t really sure what to do because they wanted to convert to digital broadcasting but knew that just under 50% of Americans who watch TV do so by means other than cable or satellite – in other words by use of the old roof antenna or rabbit ears.

If the broadcast industry were to decide to set a date to make the conversion, that would leave millions of Americans unable to view TV unless they stepped out and bought a new digital set. In short, the broadcast industry didn’t want to financially contribute to helping in the transition or make the move and suffer the consequences of losing a percentage of their market. So what did they do?

They went to Congress and asked them to fund the changeover because the U.S. Government depends on the broadcast industry as part of their Emergency Broadcast System. Congress bought it hook, line and sinker and it appears they never got off their broad backsides and did any research into the claims being told them by the industry.

While listening to the hearing over a year ago, I recall the broadcast industry telling the Congressional committee the cost of providing the millions of households with converter boxes would run around $2.5 billion. They asked Congress to cover that cost so that these millions of Americans wouldn’t be left without access to the Emergency Broadcast Network.

Now, with virtually no means of verification, anyone can apply for up to two converter box coupons valued at $40. These coupons are mailed to the applicant who can then redeem them at certain stores toward the purchase of a converter box, priced in the $50 – $70 range.

Nothing is free as we all know and when the coupons are redeemed by the merchants it is our tax dollars that are paying for the broadcast industry to continue operating uninterrupted, while putting nothing at risk in hopes of improving their businesses by what they claim to be better quality broadcasting. Is it?

Now for some truth. I bought a converter box for my camp here in Maine. To be as transparent as possible, I could subscribe to cable television as it does run up the road in front of my camp. I could also throw up a satellite dish and cut down a lot of trees in order to get it to work, but this is all quite unnecessary and frivolous as I am only here two months out of the year.

Presently, I have a small color set that I am able to watch 4 stations on with rabbit ears. I get one PBS station, NBC, CBS and ABC. The reception isn’t the greatest but I can certainly view the stations and for the most part can read the text that appears on the screen.

I connected the converter box following the directions that came with it. I should point out that I am not illiterate when it comes to dealing with electronics, television, etc. The converter box failed as it appears the signal that I am able to pull in with my “old fashioned” analog set and rabbit ears, isn’t strong enough for the converter box to use and so all I get is a “no signal” message. I was able after many attempts to pull in the signal from one station but all I ended up with is broken up squares of jumbled video and no sound.

The broadcast industry convinced an ignorant Congressional committee that taxpayers should pay for this conversion. Obviously no homework was done and now it appears that at least a certain percent of Americans – and these are taxpayers too – will not be able to watch television where once they could. This is progress? This is improving television reception and quality?

So for me to be able to watch TV when I return to camp next summer, I will have to buy a roof antenna and hope then the signal will be strong enough to use the converter box or opt for cable or satellite, which isn’t going to happen.

Now that we live in a complete socialist country, with little hope that any of this will change by looking at the two candidates for president (I believe Sen. McCain sat on that committee), I should be able to have my government pay for me to be able to watch TV next summer.

This is just another example of a Congress that is wrought with laziness and ignorance. They did not do their jobs and allowed the private enterprise of the broadcast industry to dupe the taxpayers of billions of our dollars in order to take a step backwards.

Will any of this every end?

Tom Remington

My day will be consumed with getting to Kittery and setting up to stream live audio and video of the Maine Moose Lottery drawing to be held at the Kittery Trading Post.

If you are interested in viewing the events, click this link to the Skinny Moose Media broadcasting site where you can view and/or listen to a live broadcast beginning around 3 p.m. today. You’ll also find instructions on how to view pictures as we take them around the venue. All pictures will be taken by our chief photographer, Milt Inman.

Just a quick reminder. Once you get to the video/audio viewing page, if you want to leave there to look at some photos, make sure to open another browser window or tab if you are using tabbed browsing. In the new window, go to the Black Bear Blog. You can then switch back and forth.

Activities get underway in full force by 4 p.m. but many people will be there by 3 p.m., myself included. I have some interviews planned with some interesting people. Once the drawing of names begins at 6 p.m., I will be streaming live video and audio of that only so you can listen for your name to be drawn.

I hope you’ll join us for the event. Comments will be available on this page, the page where we post pictures and the broadcasting page. Depending on how busy I am, I’ll try to answer any comments or questions.

Tom Remington