It has been interesting to me but in the last couple of weeks I have had occasion to correspond with SCI, the NRA, and The Hunting Reports regarding an issue pertaining to an upcoming hunt. Many of you may have seen the reports that two hunters (one in Denver and one at DFW) had their ammunition confiscated at the airport because the caliber of the ammunition was larger than .500 (a .577 NE in one case and a .505 Gibbs in the other). I wrote to all three groups seeking their help to clarify the situation since I was planning on taking a .505 Gibbs on my trip. The Hunting Reports at least responded and said that were trying to push the NRA along and would keep me posted. The NRA basically sent me a link to a meaningless web page that gives generic information out about traveling with firearms nothing specific to the question that I asked, and said they "appreciate my support". Have not heard from SCI.

I realize that I am just one of thousands of members of both groups, but my problem is not a unique one rather it is one that might impact any number of hunters traveling this summer. I also am coming to realize that they are far more interested in my dues than actually doing anything out of the ordinary to help. Hopefully I am just being overly cynical.

Could it be that nobody wants to go head-on with a restriction designed to limit terrorism? You would have to deal with the new representatives of the "war on terrorism" which sometimes resembles the Spanish Inquisition when it comes to rational thinking.

Mike,
THe best person to "fight" for rights is the person. Knowledge is power and understanding current laws and airline rules is a necessity for those of us who desire to take our guns and ammo to Africa via commercial aircraft.

Also, from my perspective, hunting is not a "right", it is a privilege granted to us by society. Much like driving a car is not a right but a privilege. Gun ownership is a "right" as per our Constitution as is freedom of speech and religion and to vote. Hunting is not longer a part of the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" aspect of our living in the US.

The best way to fight is to arm yourself with knowledge and then attack the rule that restricts our privilege.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
The best way to fight is to arm yourself with knowledge and then attack the rule that restricts our privilege.

That may be the case, but when you leave in two weeks and need something done quickly that calls for involving people that know who to talk to and how to make things happen. Being no stranger to the political process, having effective and connected advocates is often the key in getting something done -- and if it needs to be done quickly, it is ususally the only way to get it done.

Drivers license are nothing more than a government tax.

Die,
I have no issue with viewing a drivers license as a "tax", but somehow, someway - the process must be regulated and managed to ensure that people that operate a vehicle can do it safely and within the bounds of societal laws. I would suggest that the same thing needs to be done for gun ownership but that will open a huge debate and discussion. I am not advocating restricting ownership, just a program whereby the owner is trained in proper use - much like the concealed weapons carry classes.

Mike, go to the source; TSA. Record the conversation (just like they do you) or at least take notes, for reference and clarity. With their own "facts," call the NRA and SCI and relay to them the guidelines you were given. Tucson may not have the answers, so ask SCI for their number in Washington DC. I've called them several times, never had anything but helpful, friendly people on the line. Stir the pot, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Good hunting, David

Speaking of going through TSA or Customs -- and I agree phone calls are the way to go -- I sent Customs an email on the issue. I got an email response back that they would get back to me within two months. Two months: Is that hilarious or what? I guess the good news is that I did not get a response like, please send us an additional $20 to process your question. Seems like now for your tax dollars you get standard lousy service -- if you would like slightly better than lousy service you can pay extra. I guess this is why neighborhoods have to pay for police patrols nowadays, patrols are no longer a basic government service. Sheesh, I am sounding cynical today.

Cynicism in America? Say it isn't so!

Mike, it won't be long and you'll be tracking ele again. Wish I was there! I talked to Kristy today and things are well except she is having to work harder to find bottled Coke.

Several years ago when the State Department decided to enforce the law about taking firearms out of the country without a temporary export permit I contacted the SCI in Washington ( I actually live in the Tucson area and the people at headquarters suggested I contact Washington and gave me the appropiate phone numbers). The Washington representative said they were working on getting an exception to the rules for hunters but to fill out the proper forms which they sent me and they would try and expedite their processing. I filled out the forms ,sent them express mail and informed SCI-Washington. The upshot was they got the rules changed the week before I left for Zimbabwe and I also got the expedited permit. They actually do help. This over 50 rule is nothing new just like the no export rule was nothing new, they just decided to enforce it similar to the rules they are now enforcing on shipment of trophies that have been law quite some tie. If we wish the law changed we should endeavor to have it changed but until it is we should obey it. There was some discussion about this very question several years ago but the consensus on this forum seemed to be at the time to just let sleeping dogs lie as they wern't enforcing the law at the time. Sleeping dogs do eventually wake up. I would not chance ruining a hunt by forcing the question just take another caliber and be sure of getting thru TSA. I'm sure both SCI and NRA are both working on the problem but I would imagine all they can advise you to do is obey the law. Several years ago I wished to send 2 PH friends in Zimbabwe rfles. I could find no one to export them for me but found I could apply for a one time export permit and send the rifles. SCI asissted me in this endeavor which I sucessfully completed and the rifles were legally exported to the PH's. Just one persons first person experience for what it's worth.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Die,
I have no issue with viewing a drivers license as a "tax", but somehow, someway - the process must be regulated and managed to ensure that people that operate a vehicle can do it safely and within the bounds of societal laws. I would suggest that the same thing needs to be done for gun ownership but that will open a huge debate and discussion. I am not advocating restricting ownership, just a program whereby the owner is trained in proper use - much like the concealed weapons carry classes.

Ah yes, reasonable gun control.


While you may not want to restrict ownership, you have put yourself on the same side of the fence with those that do. The anti-gun zealots have framed the debate for years, unfortunately, as an all or none proposition.

In the end, it depends on your definition of "shall not be infringed"

quote:

You would have to deal with the new representatives of the "war on terrorism" which sometimes resembles the Spanish Inquisition when it comes to rational thinking.

Add to that irrational mix the different irrational anti-hunting organizations like PETA, the "Humane" Society etc., so it's easy for us to appear "cynical" to others when in fact we may not be so.

Dogcat

I could not disagree with you more. If you own your land or lease the land or provide tax $ to set a side land for wildlife, and game populations will support hunting you have the right to hunt. The day they try to take those rights from us and including the right to own fire arms,we should take away their right to life.

JD

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:


Also, from my perspective, hunting is not a "right", it is a privilege granted to us by society. Much like driving a car is not a right but a privilege. Gun ownership is a "right" as per our Constitution as is freedom of speech and religion and to vote. Hunting is not longer a part of the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" aspect of our living in the US.

The best way to fight is to arm yourself with knowledge and then attack the rule that restricts our privilege.

I beg to differ. Hunting is our god given right and don't you ever forget that. Traveling to Africa to hunt and carrying firearms on a plane are a privileges but Hunting a right just like breathing air and living off the land.

Mike,
I hope you get this resolved so you can take the Gibbs. See ya at the range Sunday morning.

As far as gun control. . .
What part of ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
don't they understand?

I knew my thoughts would stir up the "gun and hunting" rights debate. My intent is not to make this an emotional or name calling discussion but a discussion between "thinking" people. I respect and appreciate your thoughts and think not one wit less of you for differing with me.

Let me take this a step further.

Rights and privileges are two different "possessions". We in the West and of western European descent view "rights" as something given to us by God or by virtue that we are humans. In the US, we see it from a Declaration of Independence view - "unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We expand our view of those rights as we have grown up in an individualistic based society that values the life of one person as much as "the many".

The right to hunt could be interpreted in this context, however, in most of the world today, we do not "need" to hunt in order to feed ourselves. Of all places where a "right" to hunt ought to be viewed in the context of "right to life" would be subsistance hunters in Africa searching for daily food yet heavy restrictions are in force now. As society and mankind has adapted his environment to his needs, hunting has become recreation and not an activity needed to live. So, as mankind has developed societies, structure and law - the purpose of hunting is changing to entertainment or satisfaction of accomplishing something (much like running a marathon or climbing a mountain - a sense of self-fulfillment or worth) rather than "pursuit of life" to feed ourselves.

My point is that hunting, due to the way society is developing, is no longer a "must do" but a "want to do" in order to live. When an activity changes function, it becomes a priviledge, not "God given" right. To invoke the name of God to decide if something is a "right", is not entirely intellectually or spiritually truthful as God (my view is from the Christian background) does not speak of rights in the Bible. We are commanded to obey Him in all things. We are called "bond servants and slaves to Chirst", Moses was commended as "my good and faithful servant". Servants and slaves have no rights. No where does God say that hunting is a "right". God gives life, the awareness to know Him, the freedom to choose Him or not. The creation, which He alone made, is ours as stewards and to use to sustain us. Sport hunting is a "pleasurable" activity, but not a manadatory one or a right.

Ok - enough on that.

Now - gun ownership. I fully support the first amendment to our constitution" We have given ourselves the "right" to own and bear arms. Ownership shall not be "infringed". The debate always centers on the term "infringed". I am of the position that registration and proper training in the correct use of guns does not infringe on my right to own them. I further believe that proper training and demonstrated proficiency is not infringing on my ownership of them. In our society, police and military are required to demonstrate proficiency and safe use - why not the hunting public? I believe Germany and possibly Norway or Sweden require proficiency exams to own guns. Does that "infringe" on their right to own one? I do not think so. I liken this to driving a car and get a driver's license. I do not want my kids driving without proficiency to an accepted societal standard - I feel the same way about guns.

In New Mexico, my kids and I took the hunter's safety course - 18 hours of instruction and a mini-proficiency test. Some people failed eventhough my 10 year old had a perfect score on both proficiency and written exams. I missed two questions. I thought this was a great first step to demonstrate to society, that, as hunters and gun owners, we deserve the "right" to own and use guns correctly and safely.

Overall, we can fight this, via the NRA or SCI and emotions but sooner or later, we will have to prove that we deserve the privilege to hunt and to use firearms safely and responsibly.

PS - A reasonable and logical discussion is needed on this, not name calling.

/

quote:

In Africa the American Constitution has no validity thus the gun ownership "right" does not apply.

As to the "right" to hunting, that in most of Africa is not a Right but a privilege afforded by those entrusted with the conservation of nature on behalf of the "people" of that country.

ALF has covered the situation really well IMO.
There is no "right to hunt" per se. And, factually, not even in the US since a hunting license is universally required, unless you enjoy incurring hefty fines when you're caught by the game authorities. (I don't, but I guess I'm funny that way.)

But defending ourselves from harassment, disinformation, and nonsense policies such as what Shakari has encountered with regards to Barclays bank--I say, definitely, yes we should be very proactive in this regard. As long as we observe all the legalities with regard to hunting wherever and whatever we want to hunt, then nobody has any legal right to harass us in any way.

quote:

I could not disagree with you more. If you own your land or lease the land or provide tax $ to set a side land for wildlife, and game populations will support hunting you have the right to hunt. The day they try to take those rights from us and including the right to own fire arms,we should take away their right to life.

JD

That's the way I see it myself!

And Alf you are correct the US constitution has no bearing whatsoever, anywhere but the US, but here in the US some of us hold that document dear!

Mike - There really isn't a problem that exists with the cartridge designation, the problem is communication (or rather lack thereof) between ATF and US Customs.

Info below is from a previous post I made in the doubles section covering this topic.

... re: temporary export of rifles or ammo over .50 cal.

The logical assumption regarding the US Customs' rule for temporary export is that they are obviously trying to prevent the export of “Destructive Devices,†and they have conveniently borrowed the .50-cal maximum designation as one of the NFA’s primary definitions of a DD.

Unfortunately for the hunter going abroad, they stop there - with that broad-sweeping “.50 cal†brush, and fail to recognize that there are exceptions to the NFA’s DD classification based on bore diameter alone.

Double rifles are one example, but you also see exceptions to the DD classification granted in bolt rifles such as the 600 OK and other cartridges over .50 cal that have received a “sporting†classification after review by the ATF..."



Despite the misleading names, the 505 is actually smaller (as you know) than a "50-cal" (.510").

I would phone the ATF - probably better to fax them - and state your concern with running into problems with US Customs, reminding them that the 505 is smaller than the "50-cal" designation noted in category Ia of the US Munitions List and that you would like to head-off any problem with their written response.

I'm sure they would assist you, and that would greatly assist you with US Customs on your departure/return.

I don't believe I ever had any dealings with Customs in any way when I was trying to export firearms to my PH friends in Zimbabwe. All correspondence,phone calls and permits were from The Department of Defense and the State Department. No permission was asked for or granted from Customs. Of course that's just my personal experience and may not apply .

Dogcat you do write well,but you have missed the mark. It could be said having children is a privileged and not a right. In todays world we do not need children to bring in the crops or tend the live stock or battle the Indians. We should test potential parents to insure they are up to the task. We may even limit who can reproduce and how often because over population is bad. You will say that to reproduce is a God given right, there are many who will claim there is no god so there fore no God given right!

A right is something a free man,as part of a free society takes ownership of. It is something we may chose to protect by writing it into law.
A right is something our forefathers took on to themselves and defended with their lives and by spilling the blood of those who would not respect their rights when need. As a society we choose lawmakers to manage and protect our rights,but the system is broke (It is still the best system there is, but it is still broke} Our law makers are doing their own bidding,and building power bases instead of protecting our rights.


Hunting is a right,just as eating beef is. You may choose not to hunt are eat beef and are free to do so,but you do not have the right to restrict me from doing so. It will remain a right only, if we will resolve to keep it such.


If I seem a little hard nose and mad I am. After Katina a friend and I were driving into New Orleans to retrieve his hard drives from his office. At a national guard check point a (New York cop )working there made some noise about my AR15 and 12 ga riot gun. He made statement about takeing the guns. I expained that under Louisiana law I had the right to have those guns in my car and that martial law did not negate
my 2nd amendment rights. That I had those guns for the same reason he had his. I told him that I was not his enemy and that it would be best if he did not become mine. I am glad to say he backed down,I offered some spare ammo and MRE'S. There were a lot of good men doing important work down here after the storm, and there were some kicking in doors and takeing legal fire arms form home owners,Stealing boats and trucks from driveways all for the public good.


Sorry about the rant, please wake up before the feel gooders and tree huggers take away all that is dear to us and run this country into the ground. So what if they scream,and call us barbaric.


Dogcat you can't convince them of our worth with logical thought and responsible action, we can only draw a line in the sand and make it known we will not stand for their bullshit.


JD

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
I don't believe I ever had any dealings with Customs in any way when I was trying to export firearms to my PH friends in Zimbabwe. All correspondence,phone calls and permits were from The Department of Defense and the State Department. No permission was asked for or granted from Customs. Of course that's just my personal experience and may not apply .

Your objective and experience were different that what Mike is trying to do. You were trying to obtain a permanent export permit.

Mike (like all hunters going abroad with guns) is only talking about temporary exportation of the guns in his posession.

Chris,

Thanks for the information. If I had more time I would undoubtedly pursue this more aggressively. With the fact being that we leave in two weeks, I have resigned myself to the notion that the government wins this round. For me, there are too many other things to be doing leading up to leaving to be fretting about whether I will be able to take my rifle, if I cannot, what will I take, do I have ammo for it, etc., etc. I have concluded that, for me, I will just pull out the .458 that accompanied me before and take it along with my .500. I really like to spend some quality time at the range before I go with the rifles that I am taking and develop a real sense of confidence in them. To try and do that with the Gibbs, the .458 (as a back up to the Gibbs) and the .500 is just too much. It is easier for me to simply lock in on the .458 and the .500 and plan accordingly. So that is what I have decided to do.

Score this round for the pointy-headed bureaucrats.

Do I see a business opportunity for 495 Gibbs head stamped brass?

Take the Gibbs. If they take the ammo you have a better argument the next time, at the cost of hauling a non-usable rifle to Africa. It was the backup anyway, right?

JD,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate logical views and your articulate them well.

I agree with your points. We differ on the definition of rights versus priviledges.
You handled the situation New Orleans correctly as per our US laws.

Another issue worthy of discussion is "human rights". Exactly what is a "human right" and how does that definition hold within the framework of the many governments and religions on good 'ol planet earth? The disaster in Burma and China are interesting parallels to what happened in New Orleans. The reactions of the survivors and the host governments is also an interesting study. I prefer the way the Chinese have handled the situation to the way things were handled in New Orleans. What I find interesting is the differences between the people in Mississippi that took the full front force of the hurricanes versus the flooding in New Orleans. The rebuilding and the help for those willing to help themselves is also interesting.

All of this to say - we, as a human race, have a long way to go to determine what "rights" are.

To me, gun ownership or hunting is fairly low on the list of "must have" rights. Important - yes, but not as critical as other rights.

quote:

To me, gun ownership or hunting is fairly low on the list of "must have" rights. Important - yes, but not as critical as other rights.

I think both of you ( JD and dogcat ) have expressed wonderful and literate arguments, I wish I could express my thoughts as well as you both have.

But my personal belief is that without gun ownership it is damned hard to protect the other "rights".

Dear MJines

Last week Don Causey sent me an email asking if I would help with this issue. I have been in touch with NRA staff a number of times and they are working to find out what exactly is going on. They are in contact with TSA and some legislators with oversight of TSA. NRA is working the problem now. I am currently at the NRA board meeting in Louisville KY and I brought this issue up in the Legislative Policy committee meeting.

We suspect that it is a miscommunication between TSA and the FAA. I don't know where TSA got the idea that ammunition over 50 caliber may not be transported on commercial aircraft. As you can see from this FAA document any caliber up to 19.1 MM is legal for transport. 19.1MM is about .75 caliber.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_office...assengersAndCrew.pdf

I told the Hunting Report to advise folks traveling with .505 or larger caliber ammo to carry a copy of this document with them and show it to the TSA folks if they try to confiscate your ammunition. I would also advise asking for the highest ranking TSA supervisor at the scene and taking the names off all TSA staff involved. Document all of this as accurately as possible and get the information to me or to NRA staff in Fairfax.

The only other option is to leave the .505 (or larger) home until NRA can sort this nonsense out once and for all. It could take time. These bureaucracies move at a snails pace.

Rest assured NRA is working on this issue. Quite frankly the NRA is the ONLY organization with the "juice" to fix problems like this.

Todd Rathner
Member, NRA Board of Directors,
Legislative Policy Committee,
Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Committee,
Executive Committee

Mike

Interesting to note from the latest Safari Times, is that from the latest list of nominations put forward by the nominations committee for the SCI management positions, there are preciously few from Africa.

With the amount of safari action that takes place in Africa, this hardly seems balanced. Or maybe I am missing something?!

TJR - we certainly appreciate the NRA's help, but, as we say in Texas, you’re barking up the wrong tree…

The problem isn't with the carrier's willingness to transport the ammo- it has to do with classification of "Firearms" and what US Citizens are by law allowed to temporarily export - without a permit.

The first challenge is the definition of "Firearms":

Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Sec. 38, as Amended
Title 22, United States Code, § 2778
The U.S. Munitions Import List

CATEGORY I-FIREARMS
(a) Nonautomatic and semiautomatic firearms, to caliber .50 inclusive, combat shotguns, and shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches in length, and all components and parts for such firearms.
CATEGORY II-ARTILLERY PROJECTORS
(a) Guns over caliber .50, howitzers, mortars, and recoilless rifles


So, technically, your over .50 caliber is not actually a "Firearm"... it's an "Artillery Projector".

Rather than loooking towards the carriers, look at the International Traffic In Arms Regulations


22 C.F.R. § 123.17 Exports of firearms and ammunition.
(c) Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall permit U.S. persons to export temporarily from the United States without a license not more than three nonautomatic firearms in Category I(a) of §121.1 of this subchapter and not more than 1,000 cartridges therefor, provided that:
(1) A declaration by the U.S. person and an inspection by a customs officer is made;
(2) The firearms and accompanying ammunition must be with the U.S. person's baggage or effects, whether accompanied or unaccompanied (but not mailed); and
(3) They must be for that person's exclusive use and not for reexport or other transfer of ownership. The foregoing exemption is not applicable to a crew-member of a vessel or aircraft unless the crew-member declares the firearms to a Customs officer upon each departure from the United States, and declares that it is his or her intention to return the article(s) on each return to the United States. It is also not applicable to the personnel referred to in §123.18.



So, here’s the problem: the homeland security guy inspecting your rifle doesn’t know that a “50-cal†actually has a bore diameter of .510â€â€¦ and he assumes that the smaller bored “505†is actually larger than a “500â€...


Nor does he know that the 600 OK is not categorized as an "Artillery Projector" because it has been reviewed by the ATF and received an exemption to be classified as a sporting cartridge.


Nor does he know that regardless of caliber, double rifles are NOT classified as Category II(a) destructive devices.

Within the letter of the law, however, he is correct in prohibiting their temporary export if thier caliber is over "50".

The problem is with the way the International Traffic In Arms Regulations is written... or the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 is written... or both

Todd,

Unlike Chris, who is well up to speed on this issue, I am still feeling my way along. I will say that your efforts seem to be the most helpful to date in trying to push this along to a resolution. I should have known that the most help would come from someone on the Forum. Thank you for your insights and help.

Chris,

When the trigger goes off it feels like an artillery projector that's for sure. Customs was more than happy to register the rifle and issue a 4577. I wonder if the combination of the 4577 to cover the rifle and the literature above regarding the ammo would be sufficient to talk most -- but maybe not all -- of the potential problem children at the airport out of making a stink?