40-year-AZ-hunter

Thanks to a great guy! Jake went out of his way to help me get these tires. I sure do owe you some of that good sipping whiskey! Surely one of the great guys on this site. Thanks Jake.

I tried to send you a message but your inbox is full. I'd like to buy the scope and rings if you can just hold them for me until I can have someone pick them up in Tucson or Marana. It will probably be a while as I'm in Flagstaff, but I can send you the funds right away. Thanks, Bruce

Site says you can not receive any new messages.

Depending on how you feel about the requirement for background checks between private parties, the "compromise" bill put together for discussion in the US Senate next week will limit the ability to buy and sell firearms thru CWT and other forums, etc. The bill says in part that any sale that results from any posting online or in a publication will be subject to a background check. Here is the exact language. Pay close attention to (. "it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs- "(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or "( pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm." Here is the link. http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 .

Just happens to carry his new, in the box, rifle with him on business trips so he can sell it while he is gone. Ummmm

Crab0811 - Sent you a private message yesterday.

Don't hold your breath.

Careful !

Depending on how you feel about the requirement for background checks between private parties, the "compromise" bill put together for discussion in the US Senate next week will limit the ability to buy and sell firearms thru CWT and other forums, etc. The bill says in part that any sale that results from any posting online or in a publication will be subject to a background check. Here is the exact language. Pay close attention to (. "it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs- "(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or "( pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm." Here is the link. http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968 Basically it means that if you want to sell a firearm, you have no way to advertise that fact unless you want to have an FFL do a background check on the buyer with the attendent form and record kept with the dealer until he goes out of business at which time the records are sent to the ATF. Youj also can not put out a "want" (intend to acquire).

Sent you a PM.

Be careful paying up guys. There's a lot of chatter from the MSM now, but the public's attention can only be held on this tragedy for so long and once it dies out, there will be a lot of resistance to new gun control. Even Dem Senator Joe Manchin from W. VA. is backpedling on his "supportive" statements on gun control of a few days ago. S&W stock and Ruger stock dropped a bunch yesterday on the hysteria and today after some reflection the stocks have gained back most of what they lost. Just my opinion.

Earlier Mark Vs in 257 from Germany were 24" as were many of the earlier Japanese rifles with wood stocks.

+1 on shelter dogs. Mine have been all "rescues" for the past 25 years. It makes you feel great and (while I know it's irrational) they do seem to act like they know you saved their life.

Hi Danny, I'll take the 3 boxes. Sent you a PM. Thanks. Bruce

I have the Leica 12x50s and use a tripod adaptor made by Jim White. Screws in the front stud in place of the normal cap.

Wow, Snort. As I remember it you excoriated the rest of us (in your first post on CWT) for our opposition to HB 2072 on this forum. On 3/9/12 in what I think was your first post you wrote "OK, people these blog posts are getting out of hand. First, you have taken it upon yourself to determine who and what groups have the wildlife and sportsmens best interest in mind. You all are self proclaimed champions of the Arizona Sportsmen and their voice. What makes you different than AZSFW? You claim to be the majority voice of sportsmen in the state. Between all 20 or so of you that are active participants in the Political Discussion Blog topic of this site, you represent .0037643% of the membership of Coueswhitetail.com. Ill let you figure out what that equates to on a statewide level." You NEVER said you were opposed to HB 2072, only the way it was introduced. I offered to discuss the issue with you over the phone so you would not have to get "carpel tunnel" as you warned us about and you said " I will send you a PM ". Not only did you not ever send it, you did not reply when I sent you two different PMs with my phone number offering to discuss the issue. Pete C. (who you seem to know alot about) has accused me of "hiding behind a keyboard". Well, we know nothing about your proclivities and loyalties. Now you are defending Mr. Johnson and claiming you were against HB 2072. Perhaps so, but you never revealed that while the battle was being waged. Instead you criticized those who were fighting the good fight. The fact that you are now defending Mr. Johnson does not give me confidence. Bruce

Allen, The trouble is, our representatives have NOTHING to say about whether this happens or not. It is solely up to the President. The President can declare areas to be National Monuments. In an ironic way, this is more likely to happen if Obama is defeated in November. He then will feel no repercussions from controversial actions. That is exactly how we got many of the monuments in Arizona right at the end of President Clintons second term. His secretary of the interior, Bruce Babbitt was instrumental in gettting Clinton to declare the Grand Canyon Parashant (strip), Ironwood, etc as well as some in other states right at the end of his term. It was even litigated in the courts and found that he did indeed have the authority. Prior to the designation on the strip, Babbitt held public meetings in AZ about the idea. I went to one in Flagstaff in 2000. There was considerable opposition to the idea. When the designation came out, it included an even bigger area than had been discussed in the meeting. They just went for broke. While it takes Congressional action to designate Wilderness or National Parks, it only takes the President's signature to designate National Monuments. The law that gave him the authority was originally believed to be for small areas of exceptionally unique characteristics. The nature mystics have found that liberal Presidents can us it to designate ever bigger "regular" areas and put them under the more severe management that goes along with the designation. Bruce

May depend on how the survey was worded. The ABA survey was very neutral. It gave a link to the AZSFW and AWF positions without any leaning. I wonder if the ADA survey gave just unbiased views of both sides? It's pretty easy to slant a survey if that is desired. I never saw what ADA actually asked and how they asked it. Bruce

In my humble opinion, WCC needs to quickly undo the merger with AZSFWC to regain the respect it once had. Welcome back Snort. Do you have any first-hand knowledge about the status of the concept behind 2072? By the way, I never got your PM from 3/9/12 and never heard from you when I sent you my phone number a day later. I was trying hard to avoid "carpal tunnel" as you advised. Be well. Bruce

If you missed it or just want to see it again, here is a link to one version of the 3TV piece. They actually ran a couple slightly different versions on TV. http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hunters-fear-dead-House-bill-could-resurface-145022235.html Bruce PS. Sorry, I just saw that Chef posted about the same time!

Well, that would certainly be good news....but, is this the same Pete C. that wrote the letter a few weeks ago saying "Kill HB 2072" then continued to advocate for the "concept" which was being pushed while we all knew that the number "2072" was already dead? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I'd like to see an email blast from AZSFW (like all those they have sent out pushing it) to everyone on their mailing list that makes it clear that they are dropping the concept FOREVER. Anything short of that will be suspect in my mind. I personally have no trust in anyone that has been pushing this thing. Bruce

It's not only on their website, I got it in an email. I assume they are sending it to their email lists. Looks like they are finally taking a proactive stance! Bruce

They just ran it again on the 10PM news but it had different clips and quotes. I bet they will run a segment tomorrow AM also. Great exposure guys! Bruce

I cant tell you guys how proud I am of the new friends I've made, some in person, some over the phone, some just here, while engaged in this process. Ryan has it right - the GOOD GUYS and GALS! All the efforts are sooooo appreciated! Bruce

I believe that the senario you paint of checkerboarded land is rare compared to all the public land in Arizona. We are not Utah where private land is plentiful. The rancher can only prevent access to the private portions and that requires extensive posting of the bounderies of each square in the checkerboard. Now, they can close roads on private land, but most stretches of checkerboard are not that far from edge to edge. Most of the checkerboard land along I40/railroad is open to anyone that signs in. I do have a solution for the "average joe" tho if it ever gets to be a bigger problem. Assuming the Commission is not in the pocket of some special interest group (wink, wink), the Commission can redraw unit bounderies and make separate units out of the areas that don't allow access. Then they merely have to cut the number of permits in those units to zero. Much like they did in all of 19b for antelope a couple years ago, but go further and redefine the unit bounderies to eliminate hunting all together on the offenders lands. Bruce