Jim Zumbo's career over !

[82ndtrooper]

Jim Zumbo, renowned hunter and supposed 2nd Amendment supporter has lost his television show, his Remington sponsorship, his radio show, and other sponsors have announced that they are dropping him. Outdoor Life magazine also dropped his as their editorial writer. A position he has held since his first writing in 1962.

In his blog he stated that "Their is no sporting purpose with the AR15 "Black Rifle" and "Only terrorist own them" This past two weeks must be a real wake up call for Jim Zumbo. Retirement seems his only option.

The Washington post of course slants this but recognizes that there is a "Gun Culture" with strong grass roots.

Story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301709.html

[Defender968]

Talk about open mouth insert foot. He's obviously got a serious lack of SA, especially with regard to his audience. But the old adage holds true, if you live in a glass house don't throw stones. I read the apology he posted on Outdoor life and it sounded like he was just upset people were making a big deal out of it, I read another later apology he posted on another forum which seemed sincere, and he has paid a pretty high personal price for his ignorant comment but it makes me wonder if he's just trying to salvage his career. Either way I’m hoping some good will come out of this in that the NRA and other pro legal gun folks will band together and defeat HR1022.

[The Reaper]

I guess that I am a terrorist as well, in his mind.

I don't hunt anymore, but I support his right to do so.

Looks like after all these years, he still does not understand the Second Amendment, and that it ain't about duck hunting, despite when Jim Z., Slick Willie, and JF Kerry think.

Glad to see him gone, if he believed that.

I looked on his website for a link to tell him so, and it would appear that he does not like corresponding with the terrorists, err, I mean public.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

Talk about open mouth insert foot. He's obviously got a serious lack of SA, especially with regard to his audience. But the old adage holds true, if you live in a glass house don't throw stones. I read the apology he posted on Outdoor life and it sounded like he was just upset people were making a big deal out of it, I read another later apology he posted on another forum which seemed sincere, and he has paid a pretty high personal price for his ignorant comment but it makes me wonder if he's just trying to salvage his career. Either way I’m hoping some good will come out of this in that the NRA and other pro legal gun folks will band together and defeat HR1022.

Worth noting is that there is a great divide among hunters and shooters. What's the difference ? To some, there is little difference, to others, these are two separate camps of thought on the 2nd Amendment.

Those that fall into the "I'm a hunter, I have a legitimate reason" camp are only going to swing into the other camp politically when house bill 1022 get's passed and it is adopted in a national or state by state form. This time, their Benelli Super Black Eagle is on the list of restricted firearms. What will they feel like then ? :(

I believe Zumbo is proof that these two camps of thought exist.


"Those that forge their own chains"

[Defender968]

I guess that I am a terrorist as well, in his mind.

TR

As am I, and so are many of my friends on the PD, I guess we are all terrorists in his mind along with the many airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines I know that own both AR's and AK's, who also defend his right to make such foolish comments.

I don't own an AK as of yet, but with the looming possibility of HR1022 in congress and the sheep that think like him pushing it, I'm probably going to buy one when I get back from this deployment.

[Peregrino]

Looks like Zumbo showed his true colors. He definitely forgot where his support comes from. Sadly there are multiple "gun cultures" in America and the Left has done an excellent job of "divide and conquer". Now that one of their own has been "cut loose" maybe the "sportsmen" group will wake up and smell the roses. "If you aren't for us - you're against us!" Peregrino

[lksteve]

i could be wrong (but i'm not) but i'd argue that i have a constitutional right to own an assault rifle, but ownership of a sporting arm may not be protected...at least, that's how i read the Second Amendment...

[The Reaper]

i could be wrong (but i'm not) but i'd argue that i have a constitutional right to own an assault rifle, but ownership of a sporting arm may not be protected...at least, that's how i read the Second Amendment...

That is exactly what Miller vs. US determined.

Military type weapons are protected, sawed off shotguns, which were not in use by the military were not.

The legality of regulating automatic weapons is a puzzler. I believe it was accepted as a tax revenue measure.

TR

[lksteve]

I believe it was accepted as a tax revenue measure.perhaps...i always considered the National and Federal Firearms Acts to be a ruse the government enacted to provide succor to those who thought guns were responsible for organized crime violence...and of course, any attempt to rein in crime, valid or not, effective or not, must have an attendant tax...

but maybe i could be wrong...but i don't think so...

[The Reaper]

perhaps...i always considered the National and Federal Firearms Acts to be a ruse the government enacted to provide succor to those who thought guns were responsible for organized crime violence...and of course, any attempt to rein in crime, valid or not, effective or not, must have an attendant tax...

but maybe i could be wrong...but i don't think so...

If so, they chose the wrong case to make it on with Miller.

He was a good ole boy who happened to make whiskey, and got caught holding a short shotgun.

Hardly a gangster, or a member of organized crime.

TR

[lksteve]

If so, they chose the wrong case to make it on with Miller...Hardly a gangster, or a member of organized crime.agreed...but it seems to me, as a layman, that test cases often have little relevance to the statute being tested...

as for Zumbo, i never cared much for him...

[Bill Harsey]

Le poop hit Le spinner on this one.

Been tracking it since day one, Zumbo has done much good for the sporting world but forgot about the firearms community.

[HOLLiS]

Le poop hit Le spinner on this one.

Been tracking it since day one, Zumbo has done much good for the sporting world but forgot about the firearms community.


Same here, sort of like he got to big for his britches. Funny how some people accept the notion because they don't need it or use it, noone else should too.

[rubberneck]

As part of his mea culpa, Denny Hansen the editor of SWAT magazine has invited Zumbo (he accepted) to take a tactical carbine class with Pat Rogers and then write about the experience in SWAT magazine.

While he has done a lot of damage with his regrettable/idiotic comments hopefully he can be shown the light. Hopefully it would minimize the ability of the Brady bunch to hold him up as the poster child in the crusade against "assault weapons" if he was to write an article about just how wrong he was and how important ownership of said guns are to law abiding citizens.

[The Reaper]

As part of his mea culpa, Denny Hansen the editor of SWAT magazine has invited Zumbo (he accepted) to take a tactical carbine class with Pat Rogers and then write about the experience in SWAT magazine.

While he has done a lot of damage with his regrettable/idiotic comments hopefully he can be shown the light. Hopefully it would minimize the ability of the Brady bunch to hold him up as the poster child in the crusade against "assault weapons" if he was to write an article about just how wrong he was and how important ownership of said guns are to law abiding citizens.


I am not buying it.

Most people will say anything to get their jobs back.

I think he said what he believed, and will now say whatever it takes to get his livelihood back. He'll take the class, and talk the talk, but I will not believe that he means it.

TR

[rubberneck]

I don't think he has any shot at getting his career back. He might regain a sponsor or two, but for all intents and purposes he is done and rightfully so IMHO. I suppose there is the possibility that he really is delusional and still holds out hopes that all is not lost even though it is, but that delusion will die a very painful death in the coming months when he is shunned at every turn.

Frankly at this point I personally couldn't care less what he is trying to get out of it. I only care that he tries to mitigate the damage his big mouth caused even if he doesn't really mean it in his heart of hearts. He owes the rest of us that much.

[82ndtrooper]

As part of his mea culpa, Denny Hansen the editor of SWAT magazine has invited Zumbo (he accepted) to take a tactical carbine class with Pat Rogers and then write about the experience in SWAT magazine.

While he has done a lot of damage with his regrettable/idiotic comments hopefully he can be shown the light. Hopefully it would minimize the ability of the Brady bunch to hold him up as the poster child in the crusade against "assault weapons" if he was to write an article about just how wrong he was and how important ownership of said guns are to law abiding citizens.


Is this an indication that Pat Rogers and Denny Hansen are in favor of the general public, the people, owning AR15's, AK's, SKS, suppressors, high cap mags (Standard capacity) and foregrips, and lasers ?

I was once asked by a law enforcment officer "What do you need with high capacity mags" :rolleyes: This is disturbing on many levels. I relize that this is only one law enforcement officer, but his sarcastic remark and look of displeasure left me wondering if this is the general attitude towards the general public, the people, to own firearms that are as heavy and lethal as they carry. What was this officers agenda with the question ? Is he merely an "elitist" that envys the right of the people to own firearms that he should only sport?

Before any LEO's get their panties in a knot, I'm wondering how they really feel about me or you owning an AR15, and AK, and SKS and a Benelli M1 Tactical with an 18" barrel, extended shot shell tube, and ported barrel ?

[rubberneck]

Is this an indication that Pat Rogers and Denny Hansen are in favor of the general public, the people, owning AR15's, AK's, SKS, suppressors, high cap mags (Standard capacity) and foregrips, and lasers ?




Both men are. If you want to see how they really feel about the subject both men post over on the 10-8 forums under their real names and both have weighed in on the issue. Both offer tactical carbine classes to civilians.

[lksteve]

I am not buying it.+1

I think he said what he believed, and will now say whatever it takes to get his livelihood back. He'll take the class, and talk the talk, but I will not believe that he means it.generally, if it comes out of someone's mouth, it's been on their mind...

i agree with Zumbo in so much as assault rifles do not make good hunting rifles...as mentioned earlier, the 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting arms or the right to hunt or any of that...it is about the militia...

there are many among those who consider themselves to be 2nd Amendment supporters that don't get it...sad to say, but it seems Zumbo is one of them...

[kachingchingpow]

What an idiot. I have one of his cookbooks upstairs. I wonder if I should send it to the Hitlery 2008 campaign HQ.

I know very few hunters these days that share the view of us vs. them when it comes to hunting rifle vs. assault rifle. I knew a few older folks that did at one time. Some older guys that never really sat down and thought about why the 2nd ammendment was written, and that it is *not* intended to protect hunters. I usually don't choose to hunt with them, because they're generally not the right tool for the job. That's not to say they don't have a very legitimate purpose though. Zumbo goes to show that there are still a lot of misguided sheep out there.

[Defender968]

As an LEO I have no qualms about you or the general public for that manner owning AR15s, AK47s, assault weapons in general or hi-capacity mags for their hand guns. Your general law abiding citizen owning these weapons has little bearing on my job or life so long as they own them responsibly (i.e. don't let children have free access, make sure they're secure, and notify me if you've got any weapon in the car if I pull you over). The reality is a .22 derringer can kill me just as quick as an AK47 or high capacity handgun so why say one is bad but not the other?

The real issue is the criminals who own firearms assault weapon or otherwise, for the sole purpose of using them in their criminal endeavors. We already have laws prohibiting many criminals from owning or possessing firearms, we simply need to enforce them more stringently, not ban everyone from having them, which won't stop the criminals from having them, and will not even keep the general public from having them, it will just make them more expensive.

[Peregrino]

I agree with Zumbo in so much as assault rifles do not make good hunting rifles...as mentioned earlier, the 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting arms or the right to hunt or any of that...it is about the militia...

there are many among those who consider themselves to be 2nd Amendment supporters that don't get it...sad to say, but it seems Zumbo is one of them...

Depends on what you're hunting. I'm going to try to work a deal to go coyote hunting with my SPR (don't care if TR does think a 20" barrel is cheating :p ). I figure with the right SureFire accessories it'll be ideal for the job (and a good proof of concept test). Course I'll have to consider bullet choices; I'm not sure the usual 77gr Matchkings are appropriate.

As for Zumbo - he's shot his wad. I'm with everybody else. He'll have a real hard time convincing anyone that he understands or supports the 2nd Ammendment. Doesn't really matter what his protestations are now that he's shown his colors. Integrity is like virginity; you've either got it or you don't. If you don't, nobody wants to hear the excuses. My .02 - Peregrino

[Aoresteen]

That is exactly what Miller vs. US determined.

Military type weapons are protected, sawed off shotguns, which were not in use by the military were not.

The legality of regulating automatic weapons is a puzzler. I believe it was accepted as a tax revenue measure.

TR
The problem with the Miller case was:

1. Miller was dead when his case was heard at the Supreme Court and no one represented his side. Nothing the Gov't presented was ever challendged by a legal team.

2. Sawed off shotguns WERE military weapons. Short barreled shotguns were used a lot in the trenches of WWI but no one presented that to the court.

I'd love to see the case challenged somehow.

As for hunters, I just re-read the 2nd Admendment and could not find the word "hunter" in it anywhere. Did I miss it?

[HOLLiS]

Every generation that served in the military came home with a good respect for the firearm they were issued. Military surplus has provided the bases for hunting in American for generations. Look at all the cartridges that are based on the venerable 30-06 military round.

The Issue is not hunting, though some hunting purest will add their voice anti-gun voice on what should not be tolerated as a hunting arm, it is ownership of firearms that is at stake. The ability to define who needs what, when and where for other people. If a firearm is being used lawfully, what does it mater what it's configuration is?


Zumbo felt that he could define for a new generation of hunters what they should or should not carry. He fell into the trap of defining for others what they can own. It is none of his business what I own. Surplus military firearms have provided a excellent value for hunters. Every hunting firearm probably has a military heritage or is based on some military design. Every varmint rifle has a link to it's military sniper equivilient along with every hand gun to its own history.

The goal is simple, to remove firearms from society, the faux reasons are only to make it more palatable for some, even other gun owners to accept it. Every Firearm is a assault weapon or every firearm is not a assault weapon, it is in the hands of the user that decides that, not the configuration or design.

[longrange1947]

as mentioned earlier, the 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting arms or the right to hunt or any of that...it is about the militia...

there are many among those who consider themselves to be 2nd Amendment supporters that don't get it...sad to say, but it seems Zumbo is one of them...

I hate to tell you but that has nothing to do with arming the militia. Try reading the Constitution and you will find that the militia is armed in the main body.

ARTICLE I, Section 8, Clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.... " :munchin

WHY should they arm the militia twice?

My two cents.

[Pete]

Organized or Unorganized Militia?

Pete

[Sionnach]

The real issue is the criminals who own firearms assault weapon or otherwise, for the sole purpose of using them in their criminal endeavors. We already have laws prohibiting many criminals from owning or possessing firearms, we simply need to enforce them more stringently, not ban everyone from having them, which won't stop the criminals from having them, and will not even keep the general public from having them, it will just make them more expensive.

This is something that the anti-gun crowd fails to understand. It's a simple principle--if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. The socialists, anti-gun, and statists in our country have a serious deficiency of critical thinking skills.

Nice post, Defender.

[CoLawman]

That is exactly what Miller vs. US determined.

Military type weapons are protected, sawed off shotguns, which were not in use by the military were not.

The legality of regulating automatic weapons is a puzzler. I believe it was accepted as a tax revenue measure.

TR

I have to disagree that Miller v. US determined that military weapons are protected. What Miller v. US determined was the protection of the "state militia." Since state militias are not armed with private weapons, the protection of privately owned weapons is not protected under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court even stated that this was the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Case law since Miller v. US has relied upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the the Second Amendment. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has defined the Second Amendment and your contemporary right to bear arms is no longer protected.

New Courts can alter this, but for now.........your gun ownership is a privelige and not a right! If you do not believe me, then explain the Brady Bill becoming law!

:munchin

[Team Sergeant]

Jim Zumbo, renowned hunter and supposed 2nd Amendment supporter has lost his television show, his Remington sponsorship, his radio show, and other sponsors have announced that they are dropping him. Outdoor Life magazine also dropped his as their editorial writer. A position he has held since his first writing in 1962.
[/url]


Never heard of him.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Bye bye jim

Team Sergeant

[The Reaper]

I have to disagree that Miller v. US determined that military weapons are protected. What Miller v. US determined was the protection of the "state militia." Since state militias are not armed with private weapons, the protection of privately owned weapons is not protected under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court even stated that this was the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Case law since Miller v. US has relied upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the the Second Amendment. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has defined the Second Amendment and your contemporary right to bear arms is no longer protected.

New Courts can alter this, but for now.........your gun ownership is a privelige and not a right! If you do not believe me, then explain the Brady Bill becoming law!

:munchin

IIRC, if you read the case as argued in the SCOTUS (which must have been difficult, since Miller was dead and had no representation there), the case as presented by Miller's defense (against being arrested in possession of a short shotgun) was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 (actually a Tax Act) was illegal as it violated the 2nd Amendment rights of Miller to possess firearms (in this case, a shotgun with a barrel under 18").

The government presented the argument that Miller's shotgun was not protected as the military did not use shotguns under 18" and Miller had no right to possess one, as a member of the militia or otherwise without having the appropriate paperwork and tax stamps.

Like it or not, the SCOTUS found for the government.

No, I do not like it, I do not think the Treasury should determine what weapons are legal for me to posess, and I consider the definition of the militia to be similar to what the Founding Fathers did when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

The Brady Bill was a piece of bad legislation, like the NFA/Tax Act of 1934, which
accomplished little good and was never heard in the SCOTUS for the right arguments.

I hope to see one more conservative Republican president appoint a couple of more conservatives to the SCOTUS and one day to see the Second Amendment either affirmed or reviewed along with the rest of the Amendments.

Given the evolution in our society, the media, and techology, why should we not put them all up for public review and referendum?

TR

[82ndtrooper]

I have to disagree that Miller v. US determined that military weapons are protected. What Miller v. US determined was the protection of the "state militia." Since state militias are not armed with private weapons, the protection of privately owned weapons is not protected under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court even stated that this was the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Case law since Miller v. US has relied upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of the the Second Amendment. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has defined the Second Amendment and your contemporary right to bear arms is no longer protected.

New Courts can alter this, but for now.........your gun ownership is a privelige and not a right! If you do not believe me, then explain the Brady Bill becoming law!

:munchin


I'll explain the Brady Bill..................A Tyranny Government run by the Clintons.:rolleyes:

Miller vs USA had everything to do with a sawed off shotgun not being registered as an "AOW"

Militia or people ? The 2nd Amendment states, just after a comma "," the" right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" Not only the militia, which is still a debate today by the anti-gun crowd, hence the book "A Well regulated Militia" that is 520 pages to debunk one sentence of the 2nd Amendment writing. :rolleyes: The comma "," in the enlish language clearly is a subsitute for the word "and"

The Brady Bill is only good as so far as it established an national criminal investigative check for the purchase of firearms, hence somewhat of a privilege, but possibly necessary in contemporary times. an AWB on the other hand is merely a tyrranical move to limit the types of firearms to be purchased. Who is to decide for me that an AR15 is not a firearm that I should own ? Bill Clinton ? Hillary ?

The term "Assault Weapon" was coined by these same lame ass sheep and most use it today to describe any firearm that merely looks "Spooky" with little to do of the reality of lethality or legality. I own an 870 "Breecher" and had to pay a lame $5 to have it registered after the BATFE ran their background check, their finger print matches, and photo. What a croc ! If I had it my trunk and the police had reason to search my trunk, suddenly it's this "Demonic" weapon that would be photographed for the news. Bull shit.

Ironically, they, the Clintons, certainly didn't mind H&K MP5K's and G3's on the premisis of the White House lawn and roof top. Again proving that only they know who is worth protecting while at the same time stripping that right away from the citizens.

[HOLLiS]

"Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982) In 1982, a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported upon their findings.
The report was written by noted Second Amendment legal scholars (Stephen Halbrook) and David Hardy who are well known individual gun right advocates. This report included the following opinions:
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.[63]

Concluded that seventy-five percent of BATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.[64] "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Very interesting read on the 2nd amendment.

[82ndtrooper]

Neither Miller, his co-defendant Frank Layton, nor their attorney, appeared before the Supreme Court (Miller had died before the case could be heard); the Justice Department attorneys presented their case without any opposition from the appellants. The court could not say that the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment, because no case was presented in support of that position, and reinstated the indictment against Miller and Layton.[86]

U.S. v. Miller was remanded to the lower court to resume the process of prosecuting the defendants under the reinstated indictment. Miller was deceased by this time, and Layton pleaded guilty to the firearms charges for which the two had been indicted.

Supporters of the individual rights model read Miller to support the right of individuals privately to possess and bear their own firearms, while supporters of the States' right model read Miller as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment exists specifically to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia.
Wikopedia/2nd Amendment.

I agree with TR, the 1934 firearms act was a "Tax revenue" scheme that simply did not work for the U.S. Government. Only ten sawed off shotguns were actually registered prior to the year 1945 (IIRC) At that time the tax stamp still cost $200 for a $10 gun. It was regulated to the point of what I like call "Deep Pocket revenue"

At least today the tax stamp is still $200 for a firearm and suppressor and only $5 for an AOW. I hope they dont read this, they may want to increase it based on the number of years and with an inflationary index increase. :eek:

Perhaps Miller should have just been able to register his shotgun and been left alone. No harm, No foul eh ?