Found out about this on another forum, but thought it needed to be seen by as many folks as possible.

I can't even express the shock and anger that I felt when I read what he said. Any hunter and gun enthusiest ought to be pro-2nd ammendment, and Zumbo's comments read like they were pulled right out of Sara Brady's playbook.



http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

If you have the same reaction I did, be sure to let Outdoor Life and Remington how you feel.

Moderators, if this is too political, my apologies.

I can only imagine the reaming he'll get on the AR15 forums! What a knucklehead.

I went back and read some of the other articles he wrote there.

I guess he will say whatever he needs to get the paycheck. Here is a word for word copy of what he wrote in another article about long range hunting.

"But bottom line, whatever we hunt with, and however far we elect to shoot, we indeed are in the same fraternity. We need to keep sight of the objective ....being outdoors, challenging the quarry, and bringing home the game when we're successful. As they say, different strokes for different folks. Enjoy it, however you hunt."

He needs to make up his mind.

Hello
I am really sorrry to hear of this.Jim Zumbo is origionally from here,and was a member of my club(Black Rock Fish and Game).We have a Puma pelt on our wall that he donated,many years ago.
I no longer get Outoor Life.Would someone please post a gist of what he said.I do know that he says a lot of things in jest.He has a bok titled "to **** with Hunting"that is definately NOT anto hunting.
Frank

Kragman,
There is a link to the article in the first post.

Clinton/Zumbo in 08'? It makes me sick to read something like this from someone we thought was on our side. I always knew Outdoor Life/ Field and Stream was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Wow! Incredible writing by Zumbo. Seems Outdoor Life might be trying to sell more copy by publishing such outrageous stuff, but will likely backfire on them. Can't believe his stuff made it through the editors. I don't subscribe to OL and looks like I don't need to bother.

Kragman,
There is a link to the article in the first post.


Thanks,Ted
That article may be a little "extreme"but does represent the feeling of most traditional huunters.I DID hunt with an autoloader;a GI Carbine,when I was physically impared.I am still impaired,but can operate a manual action.I laud Pennsyyvania,which limits big game hunting to "sporting"rifles.I would gladly vote for a law,here in New York,that limits autoloaders to use by handicapped hunters only.I would fall into that catogory,but,by choice,decline to want to use it.I enjoy the "challenge"of hunting.Rapid fire is fun on the range,but less satisfying in the field.
I do agree that it has a place in small game hunting.Jim Zumbo's attack,directed at them,could have been a little less severe.His concern,as I see it,is about the growing acceptance of non sporting guns in the sport of hunting.
Frank

My intial response to this got out of control, to long!

Zumbo is intitled to his opinion, just as each of us are but I think he went to far when he says that a particular style of firearm links its owner to terrorism. Its not the weapon, its the holder of the weapon, the mind-set of the user. ALL of us, including writers like Zumbo, need to educate our fellow citizens, rationally not emotionally, on the difference.

Jim Zumbo has been around long enough to be wiser than I think he has been on this one but he is getting old and perhaps he just didn't think this one out. Course, he might not have cared to either. Regrettably he has given Sarah Brady and her band a golden goose egg and I'd be surprised if we don't here loud applause from them soon.

Dang, still to long!

His concern,as I see it,is about the growing acceptance of non sporting guns in the sport of hunting.
Frank

Frank, every -- I repeat, EVERY -- firearm type was originally a non-sporting, military type. So if we ban the latest to make the transition, how far back down the line do we go? Muzzleloading matchlocks? How traditional should our hunting weapons be -- fire-hardened, sharpened sticks OK?

I Read The Zumbo Article In The Other Forum
He Is An Idiot.age Has Nothing To Do With It.i Am 82.and Hard Core.most Rifles Are Based On Military Rifles.mausers Are The Basic Design.did You Know The Rem Mod 4 Was The Base For The Frence Auto Rifle Of Ww1.gun Owners Are Their Own Worst Enemy.stick Together Or Hang Together.

I don't know the current statistic, but back in the early 80's, a survey of hunters had been done that divided them into categories based on their reasons for hunting. The largest single group at the time (over a third, IIRC) were people living below the poverty line and hunting for food. It is pretty easy to imagine such an individual buying an SKS because it is more affordable both to acquire and feed than many current bolt action rifles. It is also easy to imagine younger veterans preferring an AR because it is the most familiar rifle to them.

Having competed in service rifle matches for years, I would point out that you need to aim, whatever kind of rifle you are shooting. Avoiding "spray-and-pray" shooting was hammered into us at Gunsite, because it results in a majority of misses. Nobody had to explain that to use at matches. Also, a person good at working a bolt isn't that far behind in aimed-fire speed. Sustained fire 10-shot strings are extended 10 seconds out of 60 or 70 for bolt gun matches. The difference with a self-loader, for shooters who are aiming, is therefore more like an edge than an overwhelming advantage. In the case of making a follow-up shot on a charging bear, it is easy for me to imagine a bolt gun shooter feeling much more hurried and therefore more likely to jerk the trigger and make a poor shot.

In slow fire matches, there is no special time consideration given to bolt guns because they are at no disadvantage in carefully aimed long shots. On the contrary, the best bolt guns are typically the more accurate of the two types. Perhaps it cold be argued that’s an unfair advantage in the field? It would be hard to claim more skill is not required for an SKS owner to get close enough to kill a deer with one shot than it is for a .270 bolt gun owner to do so.

Saw an article many years ago about this subject. The author did a test that rated accuracy and speed of follow up shots between a bolt, auto, and pump action.

The pump had the best combination of speed/accuracy. AUto was second. Bolt a close third.

When you factor reliabilty and ability to use different ammo into the discussion, the auto is less attractive. But if someone wants to use it, so what?

Might be a case of old-gunwritter-syndrome. Guy writes long enough and gets a certain age, often thinks that if they don't do it that way, it shouldn't be done that way at all.

[QUOTE=TedH]Found out about this on another forum, but thought it needed to be seen by as many folks as possible.

I can't even express the shock and anger that I felt when I read what he said. Any hunter and gun enthusiest ought to be pro-2nd ammendment, and Zumbo's comments read like they were pulled right out of Sara Brady's playbook.



http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

If you have the same reaction I did, be sure to let Outdoor Life and Remington how you feel.

Moderators, if this is too political, my apologies.[/QUOTE
I bet he wishes he'd never said what he did. What an idiot!
I don't like that type of rifle either but , come on! As more service men come home, we will probably see more of the Ar style auto rifle.
There are times with a field full of pigs that I wished that I had one of those rifles with a 20 round clip. I am seriously considering one of the Ruger ranch rifles.

I have always said, be careful what you say on the internet, cause after you say it, its out there forever!

I hardly read anything from gun writers anymore. He states that he is hunting with PR guys from Remington Arms, let me guess if Remington had a new semi auto "assault looking" rifle for varmint hunting, he would be singing praises.

Hey Guys,

Apparently, Remington is trying really hard to make distance between them and Zumbo.....

http://leverguns.sixgunner.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27512

Lobo in West Virginia

Open mouth, insert foot. Bet he wishes he could call that one back. Truthfully though, there are a lot of hunters who think as he does, sadly. If it isn't the way they were brought up to do it, than it's not right. The larger view is not considered.

See this thread http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html

It's ZM's apology.

Man, talk about swat'n a hornet's nest!

He is apologizing:

I was wrong, BIG TIME
Someone once said that to err is human. I just erred, and made without question, the biggest blunder in my 42 years of writing hunting articles.

My blog inflamed legions of people I love most..... hunters and shooters. Obviously, when I wrote that blog, I activated my mouth before engaging my brain.

Let me explain the circumstances surrounding that blog. I was hunting coyotes, and after the hunt was over and being beat up by 60 mph winds all day, I was discussing hunting with one of the young guides. I was tired and exhausted, and I should have gone to bed early. When the guide told me that there was a "huge" following of hunters who use AR 15's and similar weapons to hunt prairies dogs, I was amazed. At that point I wrote the blog, and never thought it through.

Now then, you might not believe what I have to say, but I hope you do. How is it that Zumbo, who has been hunting for more than 50 years, is totally ignorant about these types of guns. I don't know. I shot one once at a target last year, and thought it was cool, but I never considered using one for hunting. I had absolutely no idea how vast the numbers of folks are who use them.

I never intended to be devisive, and I certainly believe in United we Stand, Divided we Fall. I've been an NRA member for 40 years, have attended 8 national NRA conventions in the last 10 years, and I'm an advisory board member for the United States Sportsmen's Alliance which actively fights anti-hunters and animal rights groups for hunter's rights.

What really bothers me are some of the unpatriotic comments leveled at me. I fly the flag 365 days a year in my front yard. Last year, through an essay contest, I hosted a soldier wounded in Iraq to a free hunt in Botswana. This year, through another essay contest, I'm taking two more soldiers on a free moose and elk hunt.

When I started blogging, I was told to write my thoughts, expressing my own opinion. The offensive blog I wrote was MY opinion, and no one else's. None of the companies that I deal with share that opinion, nor were they aware of what I had written until this firestorm started.

Believe it or not, I'm your best friend if you're a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way. I simply screwed up. And, to show that I'm sincere about this, I just talked to Ted Nugent, who everyone knows, and is a Board member of the NRA. Ted is extremely active with charities concerning our wounded military, and though he's known as a bowhunter, Ted has no problem with AR 15's and similar firearms. My sincerity stems from the fact that Ted and I are planning a hunt using AR 15's. I intend to learn all I can about them, and again, I'm sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth.

I would like to point out that the 2nd Ammendment was not written so we all would have something with which to go hunting. Zumbo has cleverly, or stupidly, used politically charged terms of "assault rifles" connected with "terrorisim" to connect hunting with the second ammendmant issue without discussing either. IAW, "guilt by association". When our politicians are able to pass laws "allowing" for firearms for hunting only, we have lost the 2nd Ammendment right and might as well expect to go the way of Canada, Australia, and England (citizens governed by the "state" rather than citizens "governing" the state). Too political? It deserves more than passive "head nodding" and "hear-hear". I for one will let Mr. Zumbo, Remington, and Outdoor Life know I am no longer a "patron", but a Patriot.

I guess I am in the minority and proud of it. I will only post here once. My opinion and you can all read into it what you like. One thing before I start, do not bring in the fact the at one time a muzzle loader was an assault rifle. Does not compute to todays weapons.

I think that if you need a weapon spefically designed for the taking of human life, so you can go kill a deer, you need to choose another sport. Weapons designed for the killing of humans by the military should not be in the home of a civilian. I know at one time the muzzle loader was, so was the bolt action. I am talking about AR's anf AK's, todays weapons. If you cannot kill game with a bolt gun, you need to find another hobby. You abuse the 2nd amendmant with this. It was the ASSAULT rifle that was first banned and it will be because of those weapons in the home that help to fuel the fire for those who wish to take our guns. Its time to grow up and stop playing army with your friends.

Jim only wrote the apology from the bad responses by the majority. I know I am in the minority, but thats my stand, and I truely feel that it will be by those who support assualt weapon ownership that will be the first to have our guns taken from us.

I am also proud of those who have and still do protect our country. I just believe that the weapons they use need to stay in the war, not in the hunting fields.

Seems like he has lost a lot of support from his friends too.
http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/
I wish I could email Remington and get some answers. I say drop it like its hot!

Weapons designed for the killing of humans by the military should not be in the home of a civilian.

I guess there should be some sort of limit on the weaponry an American Citizen should be allowed to own. Myself, I draw the line at nuclear devices.

I firmly believe that the Constitution says I'm allowed to own at least whatever weapon the American soldier carries into battle.

[QUOTE=TedH]Found out about this on another forum, but thought it needed to be seen by as many folks as possible.

I can't even express the shock and anger that I felt when I read what he said. Any hunter and gun enthusiest ought to be pro-2nd ammendment, and Zumbo's comments read like they were pulled right out of Sara Brady's playbook.



http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

If you have the same reaction I did, be sure to let Outdoor Life and Remington how you feel.

Moderators, if this is too political, my apologies.[/QUOTE
I bet he wishes he'd never said what he did. What an idiot!
I don't like that type of rifle either but , come on! As more service men come home, we will probably see more of the Ar style auto rifle.
There are times with a field full of pigs that I wished that I had one of those rifles with a 20 round clip. I am seriously considering one of the Ruger ranch rifles.

I have always said, be careful what you say on the internet, cause after you say it, its out there forever!

I just read the article, responded to Remington's web site, and by the time I got back to the original article Mr Zumbo had in fact published an apology. I can't even imagine how many responses there were but it has been overwhelming I am sure.
The AR platform may not appeal to many folks, but there is nothing to be ashamed of for owning one. My old Rem Model 8 has killed bear and in Frank Hamer's hands, killed Bonnie and Clyde. Every single successful firearm Remington has sold was probably marketed to the military at one time or another. I posed the question to Remington; "Should I stop using all of my Remington assault weapons?" I think "Old Man Remington" would do a double back flip at the thought.

Gismo, gunpowder itself was just a product of alchemists for show until someone figures out they could "Kill" folks with the stuff. The motivation to kill our brethren was apparent long before firearms.
"Sport" is a term that does more damage than the "black rifle" itself. I don't own anything that I can't make meat with, or that won't protect my home and family. If I choose to use these tools in a particular discipline, it is to improve my capability.
Please do not encourage the government or the UN to legislate my "intent" based on what tools I choose to use.

Here we go the Brady Bunch have their hands on it now too! :(

Even Remington's top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons (http://www.myspace.com/bradycampaign)

This is NOT something the Moderators would delete or lock as political, as it deals directly with gun ownership and control issues.

My personal feelings - must respectfully disagree with Gismo.

ALL firearms were originally intended to do mayhem to fellow human beings. Hunting of game came along later. Competitive shooting was third.

I'm not a fan of the black rifles - heck, I don't even like the M1 Garand or M1A1. That doesn't mean others enjoy them, even hunt with them (with appropriately approved magazines), so why should I say they should be banned just because I personally don't care to.

Draw the line at full auto. In my opinion, no one has any business owning one, other than the folks with appropriate tax stamps and law enforcement agencies. Our club has a full auto division which shoots once a month. It's a hoot to watch them, especially at the end of the match when they have a "Mad Minute"! The hillside backstop turns into a huge cloud of dust! :D Shot a deer in Korea with an M2 carbine many years ago - wasn't too proud of my marksmanship and the resulting wounds suffered by the animal. The only lethal hit was one in the heart - a fluke.

. . . Weapons designed for the killing of humans by the military should not be in the home of a civilian. . .

I'm in the opposite camp. I think it is implicit in the Second Amendment that at least one military style rifle belongs in every civilian home. We are the militia. The great insight of the founders was that segregating civilians from the military and basic military arms is a prerequisite for tyranny. Hence, the way the Second Amendment is worded. After WWII at least one former Japanese admiral (can't recall the name) admitted a major reason Japan didn't invade our west coast after Pearl Harbor was that American civilians were known to own military style weapons and that practice and state and national competitions with them were encouraged. They thought this would make us too hard to control.

The Swiss military model is probably as close to ideal, in this regard, as you can find anywhere in the world. It has worked extremely well for them, including that the Swiss enjoy an incredibly low crime rate.

The Army's Director of Civilian Marksmanship program was funded to encourage rifle practice through service rifle matches and surplus rifle sales. A main objective was to have civilians able to teach marksmanship available to our services in time of war. Dianne Feinstein got it defunded, claiming it was a wasted gift to the NRA and target shooters, and of no use to the military, which could train itself. Wrong. Today, with our army stretched thin, and out of the habit of teaching real marksmanship, the CMP fields teams of civilian volunteers (http://www.odcmp.org/1205/SDM.asp) to teach soldiers marksmanship for the Unit Designated Marksman program. The Army doesn't have the resources to handle it. If we CMP members didn't posses and train with our military style weapons it wouldn't be possible and our troops would be less well prepared.

Neither has banning ersatz assault weapons here accomplished anything the ban law makers intended. I call them ersatz (substitute) assault weapons because Dianne Feinstein had to change the definition of the term to frighten people enough to get her legislation to pass. (Always beware when politicians have to change the meaning of words to get their legislation passed. It is a round-about way of admitting they don't mean what they say.)

Prior to the ban, though record keeping was not good, the best published estimate was that military styles semi-automatic weapons were used in 0.1% to 0.2% of firearm homicides. The fear mongers told us that made them the “weapon of choice” among drug traffickers. In 1996, CBS 60 Minutes did a program on the ban, looking for its effects. They could only find one, and it wasn’t on crime. The one measurable effect was that the debate leading to the ban had stimulated so much public interest in semi-automatic military style weapons that private ownership of them had tripled. Sure the newer ones were missing the bayonet lugs and flash suppressors Senator Feinstein had made such a fuss about, despite the NRA warning her this was just a cosmetic distinction. 60 Minutes actually confronted Senator Feinstein with this fact, and, apparently expecting CBS would throw her only softball questions on the subject, she abruptly changed expression and looked mad and blustered something about that being against the intent of the law. Yeah. Right. Like the whole population thinks like judges and are governed by their interpretation of congressional intent.

A little over a year later, in mid-October of 1997, I was watching the NBC evening news. Tom Brokaw came on and introduced a Lisa Meyer story about ersatz assault weapons. He looked into the camera with the combination of disapproval and serious concern that only a network news anchor’s face can muster, and declared that far into 1997, 19 people had been murdered with these kinds of weapons. I got thinking. Hmmm. 19 in mid-October. Extrapolating to the end of the year, that will make 23.5 homicides. Round it up to 24 for holiday desperation. Assuming about 14,000 firearm homicides for the year, divided into 23.5 and you get. . . 0.17%. Wait a minute. I’ve seen that number like that before. Before the ban. Here we had tripled private ownership of ersatz assault weapons and the rate at which homicide was being committed with them hadn’t changed. Homicide was, effectively, what economists call “inelastic” with respect to the rate of ownership of these weapons. That means the homicides being committed with them wouldn’t have changed if ownership had instead been reduced by 2/3. It just didn’t matter to criminals. Good people owning them didn’t make for Dodge City bloodbaths or any other such problem, and wasn’t increasing the criminal supply measurably.

From Zumbo's apology article:

"The offensive blog I wrote was MY opinion, and no one else's. None of the companies that I deal with share that opinion, nor were they aware of what I had written until this firestorm started."

Are the EDITORS just drawing a paycheck?

Let's not forget, the Mauser was first developed as a military rifle. The M70 and M700 are merely offshoots of the Mauser. Both are, in effect, military designs and used for military purposes. Nearly all of our sporting rifle designs are military or have military origins. To claim one as an assault or sniper weapon and the other not, is ignorant or hypocritical at best.

I'm surprised that Zumbo is so out of touch with his own gunwriter fraternity that he was unaware of Mike Venturino's article on shooting prairie dogs with a highly accurate AR-15.

Gismo.... if I follow your logic, it will be OK to deer hunt with an AR-15 as soon as the armed forces adopt, say, lasers instead of firearms? Actually - the semi-auto rifle is pretty well already a non-military item; the armies of the world have moved on to full-auto.

So do we need to stay two generations of military weapons back, or three?

Here we go the Brady Bunch have their hands on it now too! :(

Even Remington's top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons (http://www.myspace.com/bradycampaign)

Nice, they won't put Zumbo's apology blog up on their site! Not surprising, they've always relied on misinformation. What struck me was the "quality" of Brady Campaign responses to some of the posts; looks like a bunch of misinformed teenagers in charge of responses.

Here we go the Brady Bunch have their hands on it now too! :(

Even Remington's top gun writer agrees on Assault Weapons (http://www.myspace.com/bradycampaign)

This cracks me up....looks like they got baraged with posts that he apologized yet wouldn't post it:

PS from the Brady Campaign:

We've read his apology. Stop copying and pasting it. If we wanted to post it, it would have been included already. Thanks to a few individuals who attempted to spam-post it, comments are now moderated for this blog post. We will still post comments from all viewpoints, as we respect and cherish the first amendment, but you have only those who refused to respect our requests to thank when you have to wait for your comment to be approved.

It is a very irresponsible statement from Mr. Zumbo. I do use an AR for coyote hunting, Woodchucks also, A Bushmaster DCM 20" heavy barrel. All I can say is if you have not tried it, maybe you should. The ease of operation and accuracy make it a natural. For me the AR has become a multi function rifle. High power shoots, and hunting. What a JERK! The AR and AK forums are buzzing!

I'm surprised that Zumbo is so out of touch with his own gunwriter fraternity that he was unaware of Mike Venturino's article on shooting prairie dogs with a highly accurate AR-15.

Gismo.... if I follow your logic, it will be OK to deer hunt with an AR-15 as soon as the armed forces adopt, say, lasers instead of firearms? Actually - the semi-auto rifle is pretty well already a non-military item; the armies of the world have moved on to full-auto.

So do we need to stay two generations of military weapons back, or three?

Zumbo is a JOKE as a real ELK HUNTER in the wild. He gets driven everywhere he goes, has been Obese for decades and writes about those great hunts and big bulls he has taken on those guests ranches. The guy couldn't walk a 1/4 mile up the side of the mountain 40 years ago.

Then people just naturally think he is the cat's meow of a mountain hunter. The biggest crock of BS I ever heard. He would not make a pimple on Jack O'Conner's nose. A guy who lucked into the job and stayed with the writing circuit. I have little respect for this gun rag period. He has been wearing blinders for the past 25 years and eating seconds and thirds at the lunch table and supper table. :(

Weren't John Kennedy, Martin Luther King shot with out of the box bolt actions. Was'nt Bobby Kennedy shot with a revolver. How about all the other recent assassinations?

Yep, they sure were. Les

I guess there should be some sort of limit on the weaponry an American Citizen should be allowed to own. Myself, I draw the line at nuclear devices.

I firmly believe that the Constitution says I'm allowed to own at least whatever weapon the American soldier carries into battle.

Kenk
Jim Zumbo NEVER challenged yourright to own "assault rifles".
HE did voice concern that,because they are easier to shoot,and really "fun" to shoot,they are supplementing real "sporting"rifles in the field.
Hunting,in my opinion,is a Sport.As such,it should be a Challenge.
Frank

Excellent post unclenick. Unfortunately the anti's don't listen to facts or logical reason...they only listen to emotion. This crap makes my blood boil, and I am taking it upon myself to educate as many people as I can about the AWB II. I suggest we all do the same.

Hunter

Thanks,Ted
That article may be a little "extreme"but does represent the feeling of most traditional huunters.I DID hunt with an autoloader;a GI Carbine,when I was physically impared.I am still impaired,but can operate a manual action.I laud Pennsyyvania,which limits big game hunting to "sporting"rifles.I would gladly vote for a law,here in New York,that limits autoloaders to use by handicapped hunters only.I would fall into that catogory,but,by choice,decline to want to use it.I enjoy the "challenge"of hunting.Rapid fire is fun on the range,but less satisfying in the field.
I do agree that it has a place in small game hunting.Jim Zumbo's attack,directed at them,could have been a little less severe.His concern,as I see it,is about the growing acceptance of non sporting guns in the sport of hunting.
Frank

So you're a 'traditional' hunter. That means you only use bow and arrow or maybe a spear. You'd never use anything as 'modern' as black powder. Right? RIGHT??

I mean why stop at "I would gladly vote for a law,here in New York,that limits autoloaders to use by handicapped hunters only." You could just make it illegal to hunt at all then you wouldn't have to worry about anyone using autoloaders to hunt or those nasty long range scoped sniper rifles to hunt or .....

Kenk
Jim Zumbo NEVER challenged yourright to own "assault rifles".
HE did voice concern that,because they are easier to shoot,and really "fun" to shoot,they are supplementing real "sporting"rifles in the field.
Hunting,in my opinion,is a Sport.As such,it should be a Challenge.
Frank


I don't know about not challenging the right to own, if I were to call one of your rifles a "Terrorist rifle" that would be a challenge! If a member here called you a pansy for using a scope, that would be an inflammatory statement. Mr. Zumbo's statement goes far beyond that. BTW, I use iron sights for Varmint hunting w/ my AR, so there is a challenge in hunting w/ one. It may not be anothers bag, but it is mine and many others. I don't have the need for a rifle that is accurate over 200 yards for vermin here in the North East, But if I did the AR is still up to the task. Owning a Rifle that suits my needs is the only thing I care about. Mr. Zumbo has just joined the Brady bunch whether he knows it or not. Even though an apology was made, he will be quoted time and time again in the next few years, the apology means nothing to the anti-gun crowd. It is injustice to all of us. Start puckering Mr. Zumbo. JP

These are his words!!

"" I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."""

The more that I think about this, I think that I understand his "point" But he went about it all wrong, from what I can see he was wanting to keep the image of hunter as best as possible, BUT went about it all the wrong way. I think that wee need to do what the libbys have done with the gays*, gut them in the media and get everyone desensitized to them and they will be accepted.
Now for the $1,000,000 question isn't the true meaning of Assault weapon, a weapon used for assaulting someone something? If that individual weapon is not used for an assault, the n it can't be an assault weapon right???
* note: I'm not a homophobe, or anti gays I just simply do not agree with their choice.

If I may make suggestion...

To those who now subscribe to OL, do NOT shred or toss your renewal statements. To those who don't subscribe, go to the nearest magazine rack at your grocery and get a subscription card from an OL.

Now, send it in. But instead of checking the subscribe box, just write across it in black marker, "Not only NO, but Zumbo!" Let OL pay for the postage to get your message.

That goes for any Time-Warner product. Flood them.

* note: I'm not a homophobe, or anti gays I just simply do not agree with their choice.

Tim Hardaway..is that you?

…I think that if you need a weapon spefically designed for the taking of human life, so you can go kill a deer, you need to choose another sport. Weapons designed for the killing of humans by the military should not be in the home of a civilian. I know at one time the muzzle loader was, so was the bolt action. I am talking about AR's anf AK's, todays weapons.
First off, weapons are designed to shoot bullets. They can take life, but it does not matter whether it's human or animal. How does a gun know whether it's aimed at a human or not? Wow, maybe we ought to ban all weapons that don't have a target imaging and recognition device, and are interlocked not to shoot people? Might be tough in a self-defense situation, though!

So, what is a weapon "designed to take human life? The AR-15 is not, and never has been, used by the army! Why not? Because the semi-auto rate if fire is not suitable to today's military tactics - so they use the M-16. Guess what - the M-16 is not legal for hunting! The same reasoning applies to the AK's - only the semi-auto variants are legal for hunting. So, we do not even have the situation where a military assault weapon is being used for hunting.

If you cannot kill game with a bolt gun, you need to find another hobby.
I did find another hobby - CMP rifle matches. Personally, I prefer the M-1 for this for the historical role of that rifle, and I like the big ammo it shoots. I recognize, though, that any AR-15 shooter on the line can outshoot me accuracy-wise. Most importantly, the mechanism and rate of fire is the same, and I'm not freaked out by the AR's horribly scary military look.
A fellow shooter on the line told me he was going out west to shoot prairie dogs with his AR, the first time I'd heard of using one in varminting. I was a little surprised, since I'd always thought of a bolt gun as a varminter, but seeing his groups on paper convinced me he could varmint with it.
Personally, like Zumbo, I perfer to use a bolt rifle for varminting, which is why I bought my Savage model 12. But, I fully support another's right to use an uglier rifle than mine, if he wants to.

…Weapons designed for the killing of humans by the military should not be in the home of a civilian.… You abuse the 2nd amendmant with this. It was the ASSAULT rifle that was first banned and it will be because of those weapons in the home that help to fuel the fire for those who wish to take our guns.…
Actually, it was military weapons that were intended by the Founders when they wrote the 2nd amendment. The idea was that the populace should be armed, so that rebellion would not arise. It's been pretty effective to date.
'Most everyone has heard of the German general who toured Switzerland before WWII, and recommended that they not invade that country specifically because they knew that all homes did contain a military rifle and a supply of ammo. After WWII, a Jap general was asked why the Jap army didn't invade our west coast following Pearl Harbor. Answer was the same - they recognized the difficulty of trying to conquer an armed populace.

Please, somebody show me which clause in the 2nd amendment restricts my arms to hunting or sporting purposes? I feel so ignorant; I keep hearing how new laws that infinge my right to bear arms other than hunting or sporting purposes are constitutional, but I can't find it in the 2nd amendment on my own!

.

Quote from the article:

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue

Mr. Zumbo DOES have no clue - and he MUST be living in a vacuum. He's a rifle columnist for an outdoor magazine who had no clue that AR rifles are popular with varmit and predator hunters? Wha? Hello.....earth to Zumbo, come in Zumbo...are we reaching? Time to wake up and join the 1990's sir.

I personally wouldn't want to hunt with an AR. I think they are butt ugly and silly looking things. On the other hand, I do enjoy burning up alot of ammo at the range with my SKS on occasion. But to claim that AR shooters are "terrorizing the world" is WAY out of line. Shame on Jim Zumbo.

I had an interesting conversation with a girlfriend's mother back in college. She was ignorant of hunting and such and to her credit, appeared to be trying to understand some of the issues. The conversation was about hunting with a semi-auto rifle.

Anyway, the question was, why does any one want to hunt with a rifle that shoots all those bullets, seeing as how that could mess up your deer, etc.

My response.... well, you aren't REQUIRED to shoot them all.

I think she got it.

There's stuff I can't kill with a bolt-action right now.... because I haven't gotten around to building one in .35 Rem. So I'll have to stick with my Marlin for the time being :p Ironically, the only semi-auto centerfire rifle I've ever owned was a model 81 Remington in .35 Rem - but I traded it off for a Stevens side by side.

It's been reported by gunwriter John Taffin over on the Frontier Sixshooter's Message Board that Remington had dropped Mr. Zumbo as a writer.

Considering Remington has been making semi-auto hunting rifles for a hundred years, roughly, this is not too surprising.

It's been reported by gunwriter John Taffin over on the Frontier Sixshooter's Message Board that Remington had dropped Mr. Zumbo as a writer.

Considering Remington has been making semi-auto hunting rifles for a hundred years, roughly, this is not too surprising.

They sure did. Here is a link to the announcement on the Remington site

http://www.remington.com/library/press/2007/2007-1.asp

I guess that saves my Remington 514's stock from being tinder in my wood stove! Whew just in time.

I guess Remington found out which side their bread was buttered on real quick.

I can imagine Mr. Millner when he read what was wrote, probably something along these lines "He said What!!!" KUDOS to the big green for doing what had to be done. Les

Nice, they won't put Zumbo's apology blog up on their site! Not surprising, they've always relied on misinformation. What struck me was the "quality" of Brady Campaign responses to some of the posts; looks like a bunch of misinformed teenagers in charge of responses.


Talk about a tempest in a teapot.

Let's face it. Zumbo isn't very bright. He's either unaware of the number of AR and AK shooters enjoying killing cans on the range or popping p-dogs OR, like he said in his apology, he was just tired and not thinking and opened his mouth without firing up the old brain.

It seems there has been a lot of hoof in mouth disease over this. The posts at OL blog aren't going to help us and some of the things said here aren't either. The same goes for the rabid types on the side of the anti's. You don't convince anyone of anything other than your own dangerousness by being nuts. Cozy, BOTH sides live on Disinformation these days.

I do not own an AR. My wife wants one, I want a Garand. For varmints, I can see how the AR would be handy but I prefer my .243 for small critters a long way out.

Could I find myself in trouble if all the prairie dogs in the town rushed me at once while I was only armed with a bolt action? Sure, but I'd still go down fighting!

I don't care to read Zumbo. I've always gotten the feeling he's full of heavier stuff than hot air.


One LAST thing. Guess I have a few "Assault Rifles"

The No4mk2 is military and has a bayonet lug, so does the M1938 Turk and the M24/47 and those have all been used to "assault" opposing troops haven't they? Kind of have a warm and fuzzy feeling about that 98 action myself.

Guess I won't be buying anymore Gerber stuff, here was their reply!
Following Jim Zumbo’s recent comments, those of us at Gerber would like to clarify that we respect the opinion of our sponsored hunters and users however, we do not necessarily agree with all their opinions, nor do we endorse their public statements. Our presence and development in the tactical and hunting markets is proof-positive we are committed to supporting these industries and all those involved.

Since Jim’s blog was published he has issued this apology: http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html.


Thanks for supporting our rights and for supporting Gerber Legendary Blades.


Jason Kintzler

Senior Communications Manager

Les, I haven't been all that enamoured with Gerber since they sold to Fiskars around 1991. Never were the same after that. I have a few older Gerber knives I really like and one multi-tool but moved on from there.

They took the blog offline as to sweep in under the rug and forget about. Too many times I've seen United Americas forget about something. If I can post one thing It is to not forget about our 2nd Amendment right. No matter the firearm no matter the caliber we all should stand together when it comes to our hobbies. Do not forget. It took something so small as a blog to wake us up. It was the large response that got my attention their are many of us and together we will win.

That is okay, I have saved both and plan on posting them to my website. OL failed to copyright them. :D Les

Tim Hardaway..is that you?
Let me further explain it is the choices not the person I dislike.

I'm glad to see Remington made a statement.

I used the M-16 while I was in the service, I do not care for them to me they are uncomfortable to shoot. But I'd never dream of limiting their (AR type) use. Maby if I shot a flat top I'd like it HHHMMM I may have to buy one

Well,
I prefer the whole load it shoot it make it better theory. I shoot too many .223 rounds to reload. I prefer the 7STW or the .300 RUM but to plink and take out varmints you gotta love an AR15. Before it I had the M1 Carbine just as fun....

Well,
I prefer the whole load it shoot it make it better theory. I shoot too many .223 rounds to reload. I prefer the 7STW or the .300 RUM but to plink and take out varmints you gotta love an AR15. Before it I had the M1 Carbine just as fun....


Very well put!! Even if you like the big bore rifles, the AR has it's place. I find them a great platform for vermin, w/ 5 round mags of course. So My question is what is the difference between a Semi 750 Woodmaster to the AR-15? Answer, None. They both are built As Semi-auto. Cosmetics mean nothing!! JP

Am I too late to pile on?.... For the record, I am not a terrorist. Even though I do own one of those evil looking black assault rifles. Just thought I'd make that clear so everyone can relax......Later,B. :D

Am I too late to pile on?.... For the record, I am not a terrorist. Even though I do own one of those evil looking black assault rifles. Just thought I'd make that clear so everyone can relax......Later,B. :D

Glad you cleared that up ;)

Think Zumbo has just ended his gunwriting career, sadly, all wounds were self-inflicted.

Sure you have your 1st amendment right to say whats on your mind, BBBUUUUUUTTTTTT, you have to make sure that your wallet can afford it. Les

It'll be interesting to see what happens to his humor column in Shooting Illustrated, as it is an NRA publication. I don't agree with him at all, but he did apologize and I think its unfortunate that he is still being for something that he admitted to regretting and apologized for. Again, I do think he was dead wrong and it was foolish of him to publish it and I don't feel bad that he is losing some of his endorsements, but we all have bad days, and his just happened to be more public than most of ours

That "apology" had all the depth of an oil slick on a hot day at the lake.
Dan

What was he thinking? Some of us old f*&ts get soft in our old age, some of us don't. He knows the weight he carries in the gun world. What an idiot!

Time Warner has been anti-gun / anti-hunting for eternity but they made major pushes and expressed massive outgoing support for total gun bans in the 1970's.

Let me make it perfectly clear, I have never purchased a single copy of OL for the simple fact that of the few copies I did read (belonged to others) there was not a single issue that didn't contain something that annoyed me.

I avoid anything connected to Time Warner in any manner as much as possible yet I am amazed to see the number of avid gun owners who have AOL & RR email addresses, giving their money to the empire with the mindset that they should be allowed to anything they want yet everyone else should live in socialism.

Take a look at any major print "NEWS" source and look closely at the titles of the person listed in the articles....you'll see that 99% are "writers" not "reporters". If you go one step further and really read the printed matter, you will find numerous errors, omissions and plenty of pure fabrication.

"Writers" come in four classes:
1- those who write based on facts and personal experience.
2- those who write to express their opinions and ideas.
3- those who write purely for entertainment.
4- the prostitutes who sell themselves to the highest bidder.

There are many writers who identify themselves as being in class 1 yet are really in class 2. These are the people who include some facts yet counter them with their own opinions. Severe cases of this class misidentifaction come from those who are hard core class 2 yet insist they are class 1 writers yet they simply fabricate stories or twist the facts only to fit their agenda.

Class 4 writers are the most dangerous. These are the people who write for the highest bidder and present opinion and sales hype as rock solid fact. These writers will interject personal comments about their experiences with whatever they are writing about even if they have never even seen the item.

Back in the late 80's a writer (definitely a class 4 type) for a particular well respected gun rag at the time, wrote an article on how much he liked XYZ new shotgun ammo and how well they performed on the range and in the field. The rag took the article to print and there was a two month gap between the time it was written and the time the rag hit the stands. Dealers and the mfg were flooded with requests for this gun and the only thing they could offer was excuses. At the time the article was written, the ammo didn't even exist, it was nothing but a concept yet the article contained "actual pattern results" from this non-existent ammo. The ammo never did come about because the company could not make it work at all. The rag never retracted their story and the writer never issued an apology. In a few months all was forgotten by most people.

I don't care what gun rag you pick up, 99.99% of everything you read in it is coming from the class 4 prostitute writers selling their souls to the highest bidder.

All through the ranks we have people in positions of power, be they gun rag writers employed by the particular rag or freelance writers who are picked up by the rag, who constantly interject their own agenda into their writings without considering their actions firsts. I canceled my subscription to SGN based on one article on the gun buy-back programs written by a freelancer that SGN chose to print. I, and many others, took up issue with the writer directly and also with SGN. SGN chose to defend the article and writer and denied all requests to print opposing comments from their subscribers. SGN and all their advertiser lost a lot of business over this one article yet it wasn't enough to make a noticable impact.

Before you buy any thing, take a few minutes and see who and what it is connected to or who the primary owner is and look at their track record. Primedia is still listed as the controlling power of SGN yet they are now Prism Media. If you go to Prism, you cannot find SGN listed anywhere on their site but what you will find is a number of business publications that have run numerous anti-gun articles under the guise of "workplace safety". Know your friends but know you enemies better!

Mark I didn't know RR was anti. I wish I had other sources but unfortunately I don't "dialup maybe".

Mossy Oak Responds to Zumbo Blog
Mossy Oak strongly advocates the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which gives us the right to keep and bear arms regardless of type. The Second Amendment is vital to the outdoors lifestyle we all appreciate and enjoy here at Mossy Oak and across the entire outdoor industry.

“It is unfortunate that a long-time hunter and outdoor writer took a personal position that was unsupportive of the Second Amendment which does not differentiate between firearm types.” said Butch English, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing for Mossy Oak. “As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Haas Outdoors, Inc. the home of Mossy Oak Brand Camo has ended all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While we strongly disagree with Mr. Zumbo’s opinion, we respect his constitutional, guaranteed right to speak freely.”

As shooters and hunters, we should all help educate and promote responsible firearm information and safety. It is important for the outdoor industry to focus our attention to educate those opposed to any type of anti-hunting or anti-Second Amendment movement.


-Mossy Oak

We should write to those companies that have shown their support for the 2nd by dropping Zumbo letting them know we appreciate their decision and will continue to use and purchase their products.

Conversely we should also write to those that have not dropped him and let them know we a done supporting them with our money as they don't support our rights.

"'To err is human, to forgive is devine". While I feel sorry for Mr Zumbo for making such a grave error in judgment, like King David, he may be forgiven, but he'll still have to pay the price. I'm glad to see there are still companies willing to hold their spokespeople accountable, even if it is prompted by their constituents.

May I humbly say that I am neither a Class 4 writer, nor am I the "RR" mentioned above.

(And I sincerely hope nobody here has ever thought of me as a Class 4!)

I am just reading this thread but have to respond. The 2nd Amendment was written so the citizens of our great Nation would never be defenseless in their homes or against their own government. Comments like, "you don't need an AR to go hunting because you can do it with a bolt rifle" may be true. But it is also true that AR type rifles and other weapons used by the military would actually serve the 2nd Amendment's purpose BETTER than a bolt action. That purpose is to allow us the freedom to protect ourselves and our families and to not be powerless against our government. While I may be able to do with a bolt gun the same thing I can do with an AR (kill an animal), I can also do with a knife. What's the point? There is no point it is just an illogical opinion of how to apply the 2nd amendment. The purpose was not so we could go hunting (although providing sustenance for our families was certainly considered). It was so we could protect ourselves! For the record I do not own an AR rifle but fully support those who want to do so. To have a position otherwise is contrary to the words, "shall not be infringed." Webster's defines "infringe" as to violate or transgress. We already have laws that violate the language of the US Constitution that we need to work to eliminate. We don't need more.

Mr. Zumbo clearly made a mistake and he has apologized for that mistake. I take the man at his word that he spoke without thinking and I think he was sincere in his apology.

I work in a max security prison. I guess we are terrorists because most of us have had to qualify with the AR. I wonder what the others at work would say? We have about 600 plus employees, custody and support, and do they know we are terrorists even though together, we keep over 3,000 crooks inside the razor wire? What a stretch. This will make me more serious to complete my Rock River Arms stripped lower. It keeps the project more to the front of the mind. 'Dito

Sure he apologized......
Some one else said it best. "10 minutes of indescresion have cost this guy everything. That same 10 minutes of indescresion has cost gun owners even more!!
I personally don't care what it cost Mr. Zumbo.

I am just happy that Zumbo the dumbo is not longer spewing his diatribes for the liberals to latch onto. Bolt action, single shot, shotgun or M16/M4 will become available if we are attacked. I for one will not rely on our small force here in the States. We should have the Japanese mentality of World War Two when they were preparing for the Allied invasion of their homeland. They had every man, woman and kid old enough to carry weapons of all kinds, including but not limited to old military rifles, pitchforks, hoes, etc. In other words any weapon they could place out near the beaches waiting for our Higgins boats to land.

Mark I didn't know RR was anti. I wish I had other sources but unfortunately I don't "dialup maybe".


Road Runner (RR) and AOL are both part of the Time Warner group. I know many people don't have a choice on their ISP but for those that do, it pays to do some checking to see who is attached to what before you spend your money with them.

I don't like AR's either, some people do and more power to them. I like the snaperska vintovka dragunova, some people don't and that's fine with me. The one thing we all have in common is that we're all shooting and the ball busting should be kept between ourselves and not be extended to the those who do not share our passion for shooting. Kinda like the Navy / Marine bickering, the squids and jar heads can fight all we want but if someone outside steps in, they're getting their @$$ kicked by both.

The same holds true for this situation. Zumbo has made himself an outsider, he did it on his own, no one forced him to do it. I agree with the others, Zumbo needs to pay for the damage he has inflicted on our team. An apology is acceptable when someone bumps into you at the store, in this case, the enemy has grabbed this ammunition and are now using it against us. No apology carries enough weight to correct the injuries that have been inflicted upon us.

I can't hunt much anymore because of my physical limitations and when I do get to go, I prefer to use a flintlock because it is my own choice. If the anti's were to make a case that only flintlocks should be allowed for hunting, it really doesn't affect me at all yet I will be the first one to fight them on it.

Shooting & hunting are all the same. Some guys want to go out and punch paper with specialty BR guns, ain't my thing but they are on my team too. I'll be the first one to admit that while I do prefer hunting with my flinters, that doesn't mean I feel everyone else should be required to use one (the exception to this I have is only for the "dedicated primative" season). We've got some mil-surps in the safe too. While I may prefer taking a flinter, I still want the option of taking my wife's SKS or my k98 or any other gun I have too.

The only lines I draw are that people put safety and ethics first when hunting/shooting. Aside from that, you should have the choice of using whatever makes you happy.

If we do not stand united, we will fall divided. Zumbo interjected division within our ranks publicly and for that there is no excuse!

Thank-you Markkw, Yours is the best reply I've seen yet. May-be there is time for a rest. Q

Mr. Zumbo clearly made a mistake and he has apologized for that mistake. I take the man at his word that he spoke without thinking and I think he was sincere in his apology.

I agree riflefan, I know that most of us have spoken and wished we could do a re-take, I know I have anyway. LOL

But one thing to keep in mind is that this man will pay for this the rest of his life. Remington, Outdoorlife and many other sponsors have already dropped him, his writting credibility is ruined.

I think he has and will continue to pay dearly for his ignorance, but me, I forgive!

I agree riflefan, I know that most of us have spoken and wished we could do a re-take, I know I have anyway. LOL

But one thing to keep in mind is that this man will pay for this the rest of his life. Remington, Outdoorlife and many other sponsors have already dropped him, his writting credibility is ruined.

I think he has and will continue to pay dearly for his ignorance, but me, I forgive!

I thought I'd been keeping up with this thread. When did OL drop him? I know Remington and Haas Bros had but I did not hear about OL dropping him, last I heard they just said they disagree.

Outdoor Life has not dropped Zumbo, all they did was suspend his blog for the time being, they are hoping we forget. Les

Outdoor Life has not dropped Zumbo. . .

OL probably has a contractual obligation to him. I kinda feel sorry for the guy being that out of touch with most of the rest of the shooting community, and winding up scuttling his whole reputation and writing career in a couple of thoughtless paragraphs. Rather like being in politics. As a gun writer, like it or not, I suppose you are.

If he behaves himself and lies low for a while it will all blow over. Americans have short memories. The blogs & forums all lit up pretty good, but I'll bet not even 10% of all shooters ever even heard about it. And, most of those who did won't even remember the name of the guy in 3-4 months.

.

The Brady bunch has picked it up.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=88508969&blogID=231738183&MyToken=293e7b58-4c21-4369-be2b-8da7758de353

One last thing. I may not beleave what you say is right, but I defend with my life your right to say it.

Press
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



Remington to Sever Sponsorship Ties with Jim Zumbo


Madison, North Carolina – As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site, Remington Arms Company, Inc., has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo effective immediately. While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington.

“Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights,” commented Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO and President. “As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights.”

We regret having to terminate our long-standing relationship with Mr. Zumbo, who is a well-respected writer and life-long hunter.


###
http://www.remington.com/library/press/2007/2007-1.asp



Good to see that some American Firearm companies see both the dabger of dealing with scum like him and also that they truly believe in the 2nd Amendment. Folks like Jim Zumbo destroy American Business and American Rights.

Glock23, I merged your new thread in with the rest, FYI, to keep everthing in one place.

In retrospect, you'd think a guy with a blog would be computer savvy enough to spend 5 minutes looking up information on hunting with ARs and SKSs and such, before shooting off his mouth. I typed in "ar15 varmint hunting" in a search engine and got a mere 108,000 hits :rolleyes: Most of the first page was other forums and articles and such on the subject.....

The Brady bunch has picked it up.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=88508969&blogID=231738183&MyToken=293e7b58-4c21-4369-be2b-8da7758de353


The Brady Bunch never met a lie they didn't like. Not too surprised.

Outdoor Life has not dropped Zumbo, all they did was suspend his blog for the time being, they are hoping we forget. Les


I stand corrected Les, but do you think he is going to be welcomed back? Fat chance on that!

UncleNick I'm a recovering attorney and I can tell you all those contracts have escape clauses for instances just like this. Other wise they would be obligated to pay someone hurting their good name and reputation. The evidence he has and will continue to harm their interest is on every outdoor type forum in cyberspace!

Just look anywhere on the internet and old Jimmie boy is loathed almost as much as Hillary!

No I guess Outdoor Life didn't cancel him, but permanetly suspending him is just as bad isn't it?

I stand corrected Les, but do you think he is going to be welcomed back? Fat chance on that!

UncleNick I'm a recovering attorney and I can tell you all those contracts have escape clauses for instances just like this. Other wise they would be obligated to pay someone hurting their good name and repatution. The evidence he has and will continue to harm their interest is on every outdoor type forum in cyberspace!

Just look anywhere on the internet and old Jimmie boy is loathed almost as much as Hillary!

No I guess Outdoor Life didn't cancel him, but permanetly suspending him is just as bad isn't it?

I read somewhere that OL is "having its attorneys review contractual obligations". ;)

Doesnt zumbo know that people who hate guns also hate hunting?

People with views like that are not grounded in reality. Drinking to much kool-aid! What surprises me is the fact he fooled so many for so long.

A little while ago today , I sent an e-mail to Stoney Point requesting some info on their bipods. In their preliminary reply back to me there was a disclaimer about Zumbo and what he wrote. They are trying to distance themselves from his commentary.

Outdoor Life And Jim Zumbo Part Ways
By Todd. W. Smith
Editor-in-Chief

Outdoor Life magazine Editor-in-Chief Todd Smith released the following statement today regarding writer Jim Zumbo:

February 2007


In light of comments made by Jim Zumbo in his February 16, 2007 blog posting on the magazine’s website, Mr. Zumbo has offered to terminate his association with Outdoor Life, and the magazine has accepted his offer. Accordingly, he will no longer be contributing to the magazine in print or online. His final column with Outdoor Life will appear in the April 2007 issue, which has already gone to press.

We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error. However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.

We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights.

We appreciate the comments we've received from our loyal readers about this matter and encourage them to continue to correspond with us. Please direct any additional comments to OLletters@time4.com.



GOOD DEAL.......................

NRA Publications Suspends Ties to Jim Zumbo



Thursday, February 22, 2007

(FAIRFAX, VA) – The following statement was issued by the National Rifle Association of America.

Comments expressed by outdoor writer Jim Zumbo reflect neither the opinions of the National Rifle Association and America’s gun owners, nor are they an accurate portrayal of facts in regard to semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by millions of citizens. Therefore, NRA Publications has suspended it professional ties with Mr. Zumbo.

The ensuing wave of grassroots response in support of the Second Amendment is a clear indication that America’s gun owners will act swiftly and decisively to counter falsehoods or misrepresentations perpetuated by any member of the media – whether it is one of the major networks or a fellow gun owner.

That depth of feeling and the unanimity of the response from the nation’s firearms owners sends a message to the new Congress. It says that millions of people understand the issue of semi-autos and will resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms.

At the root of this grassroots response is the basic truth that ‘gun control merely makes the innocent pay the price for the guilty’ and our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake. It says that for the enemies of the Second Amendment there is no chance that the kind of divide and conquer propaganda strategy which preceded the 1994 ban on semi-auto firearms will ever succeed again.

It is our hope that Mr. Zumbo will use his energy and talent to help preserve our Second Amendment, America’s First Freedom, by ensuring that no one else falls prey to the tragic demonization of gun owners.


I am surprised it took as long as it did!

jb, I guess that the NRA wanted to make sure their lawyers made it a fool proof split before posting.

Zumbo speaks...http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/286904.html

Has Cabela's issued anything?

Yep, they dumped him along with Gerber. Les

Well it sounds like the only person left to dump him is his old lady. I'm sure that will happen once the cash flow stops.

Black tail, I had assumed that his was a face only a mother could love.... :D

You know, it is amazing how fast the consequences of one's actions can smack you in the face in todays world.

What with blogs and a world of 24 hour news, it is certainly more important than ever to think before you speak or do.

Zumbo can always do a cooking show
on a ladies cable/dish channel-
He and others around, many other writers
at times, are a symptom of the sporting goods store/no gunshop syndrome. Like 5 acres of tents, treestands, fishing stuff,
boats ,atvs, safes, shoes, clothing,
feed, decoys,ad nauseum..........and
a puny 200 sq ft of politically correct guns.
He opened his mouth and ended up a
blithering idiot, helping the Brady bunch.

Famous gun types should make lucid comments like................

"If she had gun collection...
I'm the father".......................Ed

Bummed that I missed what Zumbo originally said...looks like it has been cleaned off the OL website. Oh ya, someone said the Dr. King was assassinated with a bolt rifle? No, I am pretty darn sure it was a Remington semi-auto rifle.
Anyone save Zumbo's original statement so I can read it on here?

Jim

A writer with as much experience as Zumboner should have known better than to make such a stupid remark. It also shows just how out of touch with the true gun community he has become. I think he has spent to much time on high end hunts with gun company excecutives and celebrities. I Know many people in my area use inexpensive SKS rifles to hunt. Maybe he should get out and hunt public lands.
As many new versions of the AR that have hit the market, and this man doesn't know that they are being used by hunters? Maybe he needs to retire and get up to date on the gun world.

I guess my response would be, "if we can stand together in the shortrun for one issue, and create the response we did for one individual. Why can't we get together for the big picture and put a stop to it before it gets to be uncontrolable?
I have read and responded on several hunting, shooting and reloading websites on this issue along with everyone else. I have seen and heard of servers being shut down from the responses, and very large corperations reacting immediately to protect thier future, and yet we can't shut down the likes of Sara Brady, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the extreme leftists from trying every underhanded trick in the book to take our guns away? Who is the majority and who runs this country anyway?

Dakotaelkslayer - Go to the beginning of this thread and you'll find a link to the article.

Dakotaelkslayer - Go to the beginning of this thread and you'll find a link to the article.


It's a dead link now...it redirects you to the statement by OL that they parted ways with Zumbo.

It's a dead link now...it redirects you to the statement by OL that they parted ways with Zumbo.
Go to this site http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/ it's about half way down the page.

After reading two of Zumbo's apologies I'm convinced that he really does NOT believe folks should own weapons purely for their defensive and battle capabilities. He thinks citizens should be able to own guns that have "legitimate hunting purposes" (his words). He thinks citizens have no use for or reason to own rifles that are only good for combat or "terrorizing the world".

That's why his apologies ring hollow with me. To the contrary, I believe a responsible adult's first reason for owning a rifle is for defense of self, community, and state. Guns for "legitimate hunting purposes" should be way down the list of reasons a person has for supporting a citizen's right to arm himself. It's clear to me from Jim Zumbo's apologies that he does not agree.

Go to this site http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/ it's about half way down the page.

Thanks... To sum up what Zumbo said, it is his opinion that high capacity semi-autos shouldn't be legal for hunting.
I sell guns... I hear stuff like what Zumbo said nearly every other day from mostly the older generation of hunters. Talking to them, they believe that people who hunt with the sporting tacticals are using "high volume of fire" to substitute for hunting and shooting skills. Sure, you can totally disagree with them, as you should, but to my father's generation, when the hunter got real good, they "graduated" to a single shot. So people with this frame of mind come across a kid during deer season sporting a 30rd. magazine you can imagine what they are thinking.
If Zumbo was 30 years younger, he'd probably own an arsenal of DPMS rifles and think they were really cool!

Jim

He should have never called them terrorist rifles. Zumbo's mistake encompasses more than just his slip of the tongue. It gives the anti's fodder to attack gunowners with from a reputable and esteemed gun owning source. A source that can be wielded with more power than sound bites from their side.

His comments have done damage to the fight to keep and bear arms like no single anti ever could. The cumulative effect of those words will not be felt for years to come, I'm afraid.

I believe he truly feels sorry for those comments now that he's had time to think about what effects he may have caused. I truly think those are unintended consequences. I'm not sure I have any sympathy for him though. He really should have known better. The internet is not just sitting around a campfire. He, as a professional writer, should know what he writes cannot be taken or dismissed as flippantly as a regular Joe at the coffee shop. He knows he could not write those words in his column in Outdoor Life or speak those words on his Outdoor Life Network show. He can't do it on the internet which has an even greater audience and an even great trail of evidence.

I agree that he "feels sorry for his comments" and the "unintended consequences", like losing all of his sponsors and the respect he has earned over the years. Yeah I agree he is sorry for that!

alyeska338 I agree with your comments about our previous generation of hunters feeling like an experienced and skilled hunter only needing one shot, but my father and most others were not NRA big-wigs, on-air TV personalities or professional writers on the subject. So no, I think his apology rings hollow, at least to me.

He should have never called them terrorist rifles. Zumbo's mistake encompasses more than just his slip of the tongue. It gives the anti's fodder to attack gunowners with from a reputable and esteemed gun owning source. A source that can be wielded with more power than sound bites from their side.

His comments have done damage to the fight to keep and bear arms like no single anti ever could. The cumulative effect of those words will not be felt for years to come, I'm afraid.

I believe he truly feels sorry for those comments now that he's had time to think about what effects he may have caused. I truly think those are unintended consequences. I'm not sure I have any sympathy for him though. He really should have known better. The internet is not just sitting around a campfire. He, as a professional writer, should know what he writes cannot be taken or dismissed as flippantly as a regular Joe at the coffee shop. He knows he could not write those words in his column in Outdoor Life or speak those words on his Outdoor Life Network show. He can't do it on the internet which has an even greater audience and an even great trail of evidence.


Alyeska
I agree with you 100%
I never knew the man;only saw him once,when he was very young.But those who did know him,liked him and respected him. As a young man,he was an uncommonly successful Hunter and somehow had the opportunity to hunt faraway places for more "bigger"game.He eventully moved out"West"to avail himself f these animals.
His ill advised remark did more damage because he is more respected then most "gunwriters".
I do believe that his apology was from the heart and easy to accept.
I also believe that the unbridled venom heaped upon him by some "frenzies"on this Forum has caused as much damage to our sport as his origional remark has done.
If "Murphy's Law"were to hold true,Senator Chuckie Shumer would be quoting several of these posts to the public.
Frank

After reading two of Zumbo's apologies I'm convinced that he really does NOT believe folks should own weapons purely for their defensive and battle capabilities. He thinks citizens should be able to own guns that have "legitimate hunting purposes" (his words). He thinks citizens have no use for or reason to own rifles that are only good for combat or "terrorizing the world".

That's why his apologies ring hollow with me. To the contrary, I believe a responsible adult's first reason for owning a rifle is for defense of self, community, and state. Guns for "legitimate hunting purposes" should be way down the list of reasons a person has for supporting a citizen's right to arm himself. It's clear to me from Jim Zumbo's apologies that he does not agree.

Bingo. As I was reading through Zumbo's second apology on Nugent's site, I was thinking, "this is a pretty good apology, and well thought out", but then I got to the sentence with "....legitimate hunting purposes" in it. So then I have to ask, as opposed to "illegitimate hunting purposes", as in poaching?!! Seems he could have completely left out "legitimate".

I think I understand what he is trying to convey, but he's not doing a very good job of it. I wouldn't choose to pick up an AR-style rifle to go big game hunting; they're uncomfortable to carry for me, don't sling well and don't ride on the shoulder comfortably. But for people that have grown up using these rifles, or through use in the military, they probably feel fine in their hands.

Zumbo seems to have fallen for the anti-gun hype of cosmetics. The fact that they are a semi-auto rifle that just happens to be on a "black rifle" platform. He's inadvertently cast his dislike for Browning BAR's, Rem 740/742/7400/750, and the Benelli and Winchester semi-autos - which functionally, are no different with respect to rate of fire.

I hope he does as he says he's going to do during his "downtime" - to go out and reeducate himself on these rifles and their uses. Although, his voice in the gun world is not going to be taken with the same respect as before, and as we've seen, the anti-gun crowd isn't going to eagerly put up any of his pro-gun views in the future. They already got his damaging sound bite.

Prior to there being any closed seasons or bag limits or restrictions on market hunting, I can see there being some association with semi auto rifles as being excessive/wasteful for hunting and not needed.

Perhaps this is one source of the prejudice against semi-auto rifles for hunting. No idea where Mr. Zumbo acquired his prejudice, but he has it bad, and needs to seriously examine why.

Certainly, we've come a long way in the past hundred years with regards to game management. Closed seaons and issuing of tags are the tools that have ensured we have more game animals for hunting than ever.

Frankly.... I could probably fill a few tags every year, with nothing more than a big rock or sharp stick. We DO NOT have a shortage of whitetails here in Texas! When my tags are used up, they're used up, and it doesn't matter how they got used. If we don't have enough deer, the state lowers the quotas (usually done on a per county basis here but most often left up to the landowner to enforce). However, since I've lived here, I do not believe the quota numbers have ever been lowered, and in fact, I can cite several counties where they have been increased.

I think perhaps some gunwriters who have their trips and tags paid for by advertisers have lost sight of this.

Ask yourself.... if hunting with a semi-auto rifle is so unsporting, why are there any deer left in the states that allow this?

I know that gun owners are a conservative lot, and resistant to change.... BUT.... folks, it's literally been a hundred years. I think we have ample evidence that semi-auto rifles have little or no influence whatsoever on our game animal populations.

Bingo. As I was reading through Zumbo's second apology on Nugent's site, I was thinking, "this is a pretty good apology, and well thought out", but then I got to the sentence with "....legitimate hunting purposes" in it. So then I have to ask, as opposed to "illegitimate hunting purposes", as in poaching?!! Seems he could have completely left out "legitimate". ...

Wrong again on Zumbos part and I believe yours too. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

He (and it seems you) keep bringing up EBRs and hunting. I don't care if the gun you have or want will never be used for hunting by you or anybody else. That you want it is good enough reason for me, period.

Wrong again on Zumbos part and I believe yours too. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

He (and it seems you) keep bringing up EBRs and hunting. I don't care if the gun you have or want will never be used for hunting by you or anybody else. That you want it is good enough reason for me, period.

Now Hazcat, where did I say anything about the 2nd Amendment? Hint: I didn't, and was speaking only to the hunting part of what Zumbo typed on the fateful day, and in response to that part of what Kart29 had to say. And, Kart29 didn't mention the 2nd Amendment in the post I responded to either. Don't put your thoughts into my typing!

"The 2nd amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING." I AGREE! It's one of the most basic of arguments concerning the 2nd Amendment, and one that I think 99% of members on this forum understand and have long gotten past in their thinking.

alyeska338 I agree with your comments about our previous generation of hunters feeling like an experienced and skilled hunter only needing one shot, but my father and most others were not NRA big-wigs, on-air TV personalities or professional writers on the subject.
Greg, just give credit where credit is due, I think it was another poster that made the comments about the previous generation. It wasn't me, I don't think.

While Zumbo may have been trying to keep his opinion focused on using rifles for hunting, *I* think he did cross over into a discussion on the 2nd Amendment and back again several times during his original "blog" post. I think that is where some of the Zumbo supporters are coming from. They think he was only referring to hunting. The rest of us, me included, believe he crossed the line into a 2nd Amendment tyraid.

I also believe that the unbridled venom heaped upon him by some "frenzies"on this Forum has caused as much damage to our sport as his origional remark has done.
If "Murphy's Law"were to hold true,Senator Chuckie Shumer would be quoting several of these posts to the public.
Frank

Frank, here is someone who agrees with you, as do I.
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_davi.html
If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

I also stand by my earlier comments about my belief in the Second Ammendment.

Frank, here is someone who agrees with you, as do I.
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/gunnut/2007/02/zumbomania_davi.html
If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

I also stand by my earlier comments about my belief in the Second Ammendment.

Simply amazing the amount of "traffic" this issue has caused. Looks as though Dave Petzal's old wounds are opening up and oozing over this as well.

Did he actually state that the sporting tacticals should be outlawed? All I caught was how they shouldn't be allowed for hunting...

Jim

Did he actually state that the sporting tacticals should be outlawed? All I caught was how they shouldn't be allowed for hunting...

Jim

Jim,
I don't think he did that - not that I recall - and I can't now get to the blog since it's been pulled. My recollection was that he didn't want them in the hunting fields. But I think there was probably some tones in his text that could be bent in that direction. Dave Petzal seems to be a different matter as he apparently supported the "Assault Weapons Ban" in the early 90's. It will be interesting if he (and others) come out and support the ban legislation coming up.

Shawn,

I'm paraphrasing here, but he said that "these" rifles have no place in our "hunting fraternity." He went on to say, I'll go so far as to call them "Terrorist Rifles." He also used the term "Assault" Rifle and that hunters should not be associated with "Terrorists" by using these types of rifles. He never explicitly stated that they should be banned outright from citizens owning them, he just used the most inflammatory words he could have possibly chosen in objecting to them for the purpose of hunting; i.e., words straight from the Mein Kampf of the gun-banners. That's my recollection at least.

Found out about this on another forum, but thought it needed to be seen by as many folks as possible.

I can't even express the shock and anger that I felt when I read what he said. Any hunter and gun enthusiest ought to be pro-2nd ammendment, and Zumbo's comments read like they were pulled right out of Sara Brady's playbook.



http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

If you have the same reaction I did, be sure to let Outdoor Life and Remington how you feel.

Moderators, if this is too political, my apologies.

This may have already been posted, but in this morning's Fort Worth Star Telegram there was an article about Zumbo.
It states that his top rated TV program on the Outdoor channel, his longtime career with the Outdoor Life magazine and his business relationship with the biggest names in gun making including Remington Arms Co have been terminated or are on the ropes.

As a professional, he and those like him must watch what they say and write. In writing this, he must have thought about it, and therein lies the problem.

Jim, you gotta live with what you put out there, buddy.
People in business do that everyday. Its called accountability.

He will enjoy retirement, it will give him more time to hunt and now he won't need to be concerned about his true thoughts on the matter.

It made the Austin paper too. Probably the same article; I think it was credited toward the Washington Times.

Hope the politicians are paying attention....

Hope the politicians are paying attention....

Me too Mike. I think a very clear message has been sent.

Shawn,

I'm paraphrasing here, but he said that "these" rifles have no place in our "hunting fraternity." He went on to say, I'll go so far as to call them "Terrorist Rifles." He also used the term "Assault" Rifle and that hunters should not be associated with "Terrorists" by using these types of rifles. He never explicitly stated that they should be banned outright from citizens owning them, he just used the most inflammatory words he could have possibly chosen in objecting to them for the purpose of hunting; i.e., words straight from the Mein Kampf of the gun-banners. That's my recollection at least.

Yeah, that sounds about right; thx gringo.

I could imagine that Jim Zumbo is trying to sell all of his vehicles by now, since I'm sure that someone has driven drunk in the same models, and he wouldn't want to be associated with drunk drivers. :rolleyes:

He will enjoy retirement, it will give him more time to hunt and now he won't need to be concerned about his true thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, except now he will have to pay for those hunts himself!

The one thing that bother me about that article is that it said how quick that gun owner turned on one of their own. They tried to make him the victim.

Now Hazcat, where did I say anything about the 2nd Amendment? Hint: I didn't, and was speaking only to the hunting part of what Zumbo typed on the fateful day, and in response to that part of what Kart29 had to say. And, Kart29 didn't mention the 2nd Amendment in the post I responded to either. Don't put your thoughts into my typing!

"The 2nd amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING." I AGREE! It's one of the most basic of arguments concerning the 2nd Amendment, and one that I think 99% of members on this forum understand and have long gotten past in their thinking.

Shawn, In Zubos world for a gun to have legitimacy it must be for hunting. No he does not outright say this but his article said EBRs should be banned from hunting and that he saw no reason for them.. Now he says that they are OK because they can be used for hunting. In both cases he is implying that unless a gun is used in hunting there is no reason for it. He is the essence of the definition of a "Fudd".

I took your remark as saying basically the same thing as you accepted his apology and even pointed out the 'hunting' part of it. If I am wrong in my thinking about your thoughts then I heartily apologize.

Anybody know if the Militia Act of 1792 was ever repealed?

Anybody know if the Militia Act of 1792 was ever repealed?

I think it was rendered impotent with the GCA of 1968.

Hazcat,
Thx for the explanation; I understand your point.

No, I don't agree that a gun needs to have a "hunting purpose" to be "legitimate" for ownership. Plenty of other valid reasons to have gun besides hunting with it - 2nd A being foremost.

Accepted his apology? Well, time will tell. Not yet. I do think that it was a sincere apology. However, an apology can be sincere yet come from someone still ignorant of what his position really means in the big picture w/respect to the 2nd A. IMO, that's where Zumbo is really at - ignorant of the bigger picture - which really floors me given his involvement in the NRA. If he uses his remaining time trying to correct this abomination of his making, then yes, I could forgive.

I guess I got a thorn in my arse with you implying that I didn't know that the 2nd A was not about hunting. No harm done, no apology necessary, just a misunderstanding.

I think it was rendered impotent with the GCA of 1968.

Impotent, perhaps, but not invalidated.

Here's what I just found:

U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW (emphasis mine) to possess a [military style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipmemnt....There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the national Guard."

Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the Untied States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.....

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)
(BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.)

More on Title 10 of the U.S. Code

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 302, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and

(2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or of the Naval Militia.

See also: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm by the author of the below article.

MILITIA'S INTENT

The Radical Amendment
Want sensible gun regulation? Start by backing the right to bear arms.

BY EUGENE VOLOKH
Friday, May 10, 2002 12:01 a.m.

Those dangerous radicals John Ashcroft and Ted Olson are at it again. The Second Amendment, the Justice Department has just asserted in two Supreme Court briefs, protects an individual right. People like you and me do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms.

This, a lawyer representing the antigun Violence Policy Center opined, is a departure from what was "the government's position for more than 60 years"--and an illegitimate one, because "people who happen to be in office temporarily shouldn't use the office to promote their personal views." Unnamed "scholars and gun-control advocates" called this (according to the Los Angeles Times) a "'radical' shift in position" that "alarmed" them.

Our radical Justice Department, though, turns out to be in good company. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, probably the second most respected 19th-century justice--after the great John Marshall--and the author of the leading early-1800s constitutional-law treatise, also took the view that the right belongs to "the citizens," not the states.
Same for Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional-law commentator of the late 1800s. William Blackstone, the leading late-1700s British legal commentator, and a major influence on the Framing generation, saw even the much narrower English right to have arms as an individual right.

Framing-era documents confirm this understanding, as does the text itself. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the Second Amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not the states or the National Guard.

The reference to the "Militia" only reaffirms this. From the Militia Act of 1792 to the current Militia Act (enacted in 1956), the "militia" has meant pretty much the adult able-bodied male citizenry age 17 to 45. Following the Supreme Court's sex equality decisions of the 1970s, it almost certainly includes women, too. The two clauses both stress the Framers' commitment to keeping the citizenry--not the states or small state-selected groups--armed.

In fact, from the late 1700s to the early 1900s, the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment was the nearly unquestioned interpretation. Virtually no court or commentator of that era reasoned that the Second Amendment protects the rights of states. Attorney General Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olson are hardly promoting their personal views. They're promoting the views of the Framers, and of the American legal system throughout most of American history.

The individual-rights view is also in good modern company. In the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act, Congress specifically reaffirmed "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms." In 1960, those noted conservatives (or is it "radicals"?) John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey both asserted their support for the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms. Some leading liberal constitutional scholars today likewise take this view.

Nor has the Supreme Court held the contrary. The 1939 U.S. v. Miller decision did say that the right extends only to arms that are related to the militia. But it also specifically stressed that "militia" meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," and that ordinarily "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves."

So the Ashcroft Justice Department may be going against the views of past Justice Departments, and of most federal courts of appeals, which have indeed endorsed the states'-rights view of the Second Amendment. But it's returning to a much broader consensus: the view, adopted throughout most of the nation's history, that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is as individual a right as "the right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures" or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The right wouldn't be absolute, just like other rights aren't absolute. Forty-four of the 50 states have right-to-bear-arms provisions in their bills of rights, and the overwhelming majority are clearly individual rights. But state courts have nonetheless upheld many gun controls, such as bans on felons possessing guns, or restrictions on certain types of guns that are particularly likely to be used by criminals.

Nonetheless, the right would meaningfully protect private gun ownership. The District of Columbia gun ban, for instance, which prohibits virtually all handguns and requires even rifles and shotguns to be kept locked and unloaded, may well be struck down. This law was upheld under a states'-rights theory by the D.C. Court of Appeals in the late 1980s. But a new challenge in federal court might lead to the law's invalidation.

And the right, if firmly accepted by the courts, may actually facilitate the enactment of modest gun controls. Today, many proposals, such as gun registration, are opposed largely because of a quite reasonable fear that they'll lead to D.C.-like gun prohibition.
But if the courts can make clear that the Constitution takes such a prohibition off the table, this slippery slope concern may become less serious. And some people may thus become willing to support compromise legislation, precisely because the core of the right will be protected--just as the radical and alarming Bill of Rights commands.


Mr. Volokh is a professor of constitutional law at UCLA.

... IMO, that's where Zumbo is really at - ignorant of the bigger picture - which really floors me given his involvement in the NRA....

Actually, it doesn't surprise me at all.

Did you read the NRA's email about HB1022? They made NO mention of section (L) and the "sporting use" clause that gives the AG the "authority" to arbitrairly defing what is a "sporting" gun - and thereby outside the Ban - and what is not. Shades of the Reichstag & their "sporting-arms" rules.

It took them almost 10 days to come up with their feeble email. I was screaming about (L) from the moment I read the bill on Feb 17.

Meh.

Did you read the NRA's email about HB1022? They made NO mention of section (L) and the "sporting use" clause that gives the AG the "authority" to arbitrairly defing what is a "sporting" gun - and thereby outside the Ban - and what is not.

Haven't read the email, although I did visit NRA's site today about HR 1022 and they did mention the section (L) AG issue:

"• Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense."

May have been a hastily assembled email. Seems they're on top of it now though.

But, getting a bit off-topic....Zumbo still has a long road of re-education. Wouldn't HAVE to be long, but suspect that it will be, and no assurance that this re-education will stick.

I couldn't believe my ears... The whole Zumbo flap made it on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. His "Word" feature was all about the Zumbo fallout.

Jim

Sad(?) thing is, it exposd how many "pro gun" people out there aren't really pro gun, just "pro MY gun" - at least to the extent they are willing to let the government dictate not only the appropriate ballistics for hunting, but which metal tubes will be allowed, based on no objective criteria at all.

Read and weep.
http://www.indianasportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5750

This is why we will lose. People just don't care about the principle of the 2ndAm.

OI, That is a very sad thread.

Those are some true 'sheeple' there. "The government says so...BAAAA BAAAAA, must do what government says...BAAAAA BAAAAA".

Sickening!

Sad(?) thing is, it exposd how many "pro gun" people out there aren't really pro gun, just "pro MY gun" - at least to the extent they are willing to let the government dictate not only the appropriate ballistics for hunting, but which metal tubes will be allowed, based on no objective criteria at all.

Read and weep.
http://www.indianasportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5750

This is why we will lose. People just don't care about the principle of the 2ndAm.

Are you sure that wasn't Zumbo writing under an alias?

Who knows? Unfortunately it's a pervasive sentiment in this state. :(

I have read what Jim wrote and I can see where he was coming from. However, we as shooters are all under a microscope and we are not just a little jittery.
Let's be realistic; I can't refer to my .45 Colt as a 'weapon' because it is not politically correct, rather I must call it a gun. What foolishness these semantics have become all because we are under attack