United States Hunter's Rescources

Air Travel with Black Powder is Absolutely Prohibited: What You Need to Know



Black powder is a Class 1.10, Packing Group II, number UN0027 “Explosive”. Air travel with black powder in your checked luggage is prohibited. Carriage on a plane is not one single offense. Rather, it constitutes multiple offenses and subjects the sportsman to multiple separate civil penalties (15 to be exact) that can each be substantial. The following is a partial quote from a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty received by a hunter when his luggage was found to contain one container of Jim Shockey’s Gold Premium Grade Black Powder Replacement:

By reason of the above, you violated the following Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations):

1. Section 171.2(a) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation in commerce when the hazardous material was not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled, and in condition for shipment as required or authorized by applicable requirements of this subchapter.

2. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the proper shipping name prescribed for the material in Column 2 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

3. Sections 172.200(a) and 172.202(a)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the hazard class or division prescribed for the material as shown in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

4. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(3) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the identification number prescribed for the material as shown in Column 4 of the § 172.101 Table, in the manner required by this subpart.

5. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(4) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the packing grouping, in Roman numerals, prescribed for the material in Column 5 of the § 172.101 Table, if any, of the material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

6. Sections 172.200(a) and Section 172.202(a)(5) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to describe the hazardous material on the shipping papers, including the total quantity (by net or gross mass, capacity, or as otherwise appropriate), including the unit of measurement, of the hazardous material covered by the description, in the manner required by this subpart.

7. Sections 172.204(a) or (c)(1) in that you offered a hazardous material for transportation and failed to certify that the material was offered for transportation in accordance with this subchapter by printing on the shipping paper containing the required shipping description one of the certifications set forth in this part.

8. Section 172.204(c)(2) in that you offered a hazardous material to an aircraft operator for transportation by air and failed to provide two copies of the certification required in this section.

9. Section 172.204(c)(3) in that you offered for transportation by air a hazardous material authorized for air transportation and failed to add the certification required in this section the following statement:

“I declare that all of the applicable air transport requirements have been met.”

10. Section 172.301(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in a non-bulk packaging and failed to mark the package with the proper shipping name and identification number (preceded by “UN” or “NA”, as appropriate) for the material as shown in the § 172.101 Table.

11. Section 172.400(a) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material in one of the packages or containment devices listed in this subpart and failed to label the package or containment device with the labels specified for the material in the § 172.101 Table and in this subpart.

12. Section 172.600(c) in that you offered for transportation a hazardous material and failed to make the emergency response information immediately available for use at all times the hazardous material was present, and failed to make such information, including an emergency response telephone number, immediately available to any government agency responding to an incident involving hazardous material or conducting an investigation which involves a hazardous material.

13. Section 172.21(a) in that you offered for transportation materials designated “Forbidden” in Column 3 of the § 172.101 Table.

14. Section 173.21(b) in that you offered for transportation forbidden explosives as defined in § 173.54 of this part.

15. Section 173.54(a) in that you offered for transportation an explosive that had not been approved in accordance with § 173.56 of this subpart.

In accordance with Section 5123(a) of Chapter 51, Title 49 of the United States Code of Transportation, 49 U.S.C§ 5123, [name of violator] is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $250, nor greater than $50,000 ($100,000 if death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage results), for each violation of the regulations.

 

Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
02/13/2005

The US Department of Justice has made available a 93 page Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General fully analyzing and confirming that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution secures an individual right, not a right of the state. It is entitled, WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. The internal opinion is addressed to the Attorney General and fully analyzes the private, individual right issue. This furthers the position of the Department first taken when Bush took office.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides: "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 memorandum opinion of the Assistant Attorney General explains, "[y]ou (the Attorney General) have asked for the opinion of this Office on one aspect of the right secured by this Second Amendment. Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally. This memorandum memorializes and expands upon advice that this Office provided to you on this question in 2001…. Most recently, in a 2001 memorandum to US Attorneys, you endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protects a "right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms…. As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a state or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units..."

 

Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
02/13/2005

The US Department of Justice has made available a 93 page Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General fully analyzing and confirming that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution secures an individual right, not a right of the state. It is entitled, WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. The internal opinion is addressed to the Attorney General and fully analyzes the private, individual right issue. This furthers the position of the Department first taken when Bush took office.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution provides: "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 memorandum opinion of the Assistant Attorney General explains, "[y]ou (the Attorney General) have asked for the opinion of this Office on one aspect of the right secured by this Second Amendment. Specifically, you have asked us to address the question whether the right secured by the Second Amendment belongs only to the states, only to persons serving in state-organized militia units like the National Guard, or to individuals generally. This memorandum memorializes and expands upon advice that this Office provided to you on this question in 2001…. Most recently, in a 2001 memorandum to US Attorneys, you endorsed the view that the Second Amendment protects a "right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms…. As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a state or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units..."

Another Famous Bear Enthusiast Eaten
01/15/2004

One of Russia’s best known bear researchers/observers, Vitaly Nikolayenko, was found half eaten in Kamchatka. A large swath of orange pepper spray at the scene of the mauling indicates that he tried to defend himself without success. An unfired flare gun was lying next to his half consumed body as well as a six and a half-inch wide paw prints from a medium-sized male bear. Tracks also indicate Vitaly may have been tracking and photographing another large male bear. His camera was found broken and bloody nearby.

Vitaly was a senior ranger on the Kronotsky Wildlife Reserve. He was a self-educated researcher/observer and photographer who has spent twenty-five years living with and documenting the behavior of brown bears in Kamchatka. He was probably one of the most experienced bear enthusiasts in the world. He reportedly had documented encountering an average of 800 bear a year. We do not know if he ever had to resort to pepper spray before. Regardless, it did not work adequately. 

This mauling occurred just two months after bear researcher/observer Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed and eaten by a brown bear in Alaska.

 
 

Wildlife Watchers Are Aging the Most
08/15/2003

Still another comparison is insightful. The antis and doomsayers would have you believe that hunting recruitment is too low and that hunters are aging and dieing off. When the Survey results were first announced, Heidi Prescott, the National Director of the Fund for Animals commented in a press release, “The End of Hunting is in Sight.” She said that “[t]hese are long term trends, not just a blip in the numbers, and we’re delighted to see that more and more people are trading their guns for cameras…The end of hunting is no more than a generation away.” 

The truth is that wildlife watching is far worse off. There are a lower percentage of young wildlife watchers than hunters. Only thirteen percent (13%) of wildlife watchers are in the 25-34 age groups while nineteen percent (19%) of the hunters and the anglers are in that class.

Wildlife watchers are older. Nineteen percent (19%) of wildlife watchers are sixty-five years of age or older, while only seven percent (7%) of hunters and eight percent (8%) of anglers are in that class. Adding the three age groups 45-54, 55-64, and 65 and over, is really revealing. More than half of wildlife watchers, fifty-seven percent (57%), are in the 45 and above age classes. Only forty percent (40%) of the hunters and forty-two percent (42%) of the anglers were forty-five and over in 2001. What is even more remarkable is how much older wildlife watchers would be if sixty-two percent of hunters and fifty-eight percent of anglers were not wildlife watchers, thus lowering the age percentages because of their inclusion. The younger hunters among wildlife watchers make them appear more youthful than they would otherwise be.

That having been said, the antis want to eliminate wildlife watching too. They want to eliminate all dominion and interference with wildlife and animal life. They want to close zoos, circuses, parks, and access to land. Their strategy is to divide to vanquish. Perhaps hunters are actually fortunate that wildlife watchers enjoy wildlife too.

Take solace in the fact that there are 45 million people in the U.S. that have hunted and 111 million people who have fished as anglers, which is 115 million when those who fished for the first time in 2001 are included. Nevertheless, hunters and anglers are minorities. No one and no organization will ever change our minority status, yet we are not alone. Minorities are the norm for nearly every activity. We are a big one. 

 

Congressional Caucus Creating Task Forces
10/02/2001

The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus has grown to unprecedented size. It now has 330 members, 280 representatives in the House and 50 Senators. That is more than 60 percent of all of Congress, and it is bi-partisan. Its research and education-support organization, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), has also evolved since its formation a decade ago. To improve its effectiveness and service to the sportsmen’s community, specialized task forces are being established. The first was the Bowhunting Task Force co-chaired by Congressman Jim Barcia of Michigan and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. It was begun in February. The second that has been formed is the Waterfowl/Wetlands Task Force, which will address many of the pressing problems, including waterfowl and wetland habitat of interest to waterfowl hunters. It is co-chaired by Congressmen Mike Thompson and Chip Pickering. These task forces are designed to focus on select sportsmen’s issues and to better link those with common interests. At the recent Caucus and CSF annual banquet, Dallas Safari Club (a Bronze member of CSF), Houston Safari Club and Conservation Force (a Sustaining Member of CSF) together asked that the Caucus form an International task force to better consider, serve and represent those hunters and fishermen who travel the world over to hunt and fish. Other organizations that represent sportsmen who travel are expected to join in the request because of the unique needs and interests that are common to all. Undoubtedly such a task force would focus on laws and treaties such as the ESA and CITES, international governmental relations, international aid and related matters. If you support this idea, then make sure the organizations you belong to belong to the CSF and have them drop a note to the CSF requesting that an international task force be formed and to be a member of it. Address it to The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, 303 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003 or call 202-543-6850, fax 202-543-6853 or email: csf@sportsmens link.org. To find out more about the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus visit the Web site of its House Co-Chair, Congressman Saxby Chambliss (GA) at www.house. gov/chambliss/sports.html.

Invasive Species: A trend has begun that you can expect to hear a lot more about so this is a brief explanation of what is behind it. Its recent origin begins with the formation of the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group and their “Draft IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss due to Biological Invasion, October 1996. Then the Convention on Biological Diversity created a Task Force to deal with the issue. On February 3, 1999 President Clinton, by Executive Order 13112, established the Invasive Species Council composed of cabinet secretaries and federal agency members to prepare a national plan for dealing with invasive species. Most recently, the Animals Committee of CITES in June 1999 decided to lend their support to the effort of the others to control the trade of such alien species. This issue is here to stay and will be a new battleground for those involved with exotic or alien species that are perceived or can be represented to be invasive. This, of course, includes exotic or introduced game animals and fish. This means more federal and international regulations over state and local wildlife. It is just one of the many things Conservation Force monitors for your interest. We foresee a trend to strictly confine those species at the same time there will be growing ethics opposition to hunting them in those same confined and controlled spaces. The evolving definitions of which alien or exotic species are invasive will be important to some hunting interests. It is also more nationalization of wildlife management. The introduction of alien or exotic species generally arises from interstate and foreign commerce or trade that is traditionally within the the federal realm.


Old Growth Supports Fewer Species
10/02/2001

Extensive forests of uniform age or vegetative structure have dramatically fewer species than those with openings and aquatic habitats. For example: landscapes of unbroken mature forests have approximately 100 vertebrates; forest and early successional habitats, about 200; and forests with early successional and aquatic habitats, more than 300 vertebrates. (Reported in New Zealand area by USDA Forest Service personnel.)

 
 

Domestic Violence Law
10/02/2001

The Domestic Violence Law that makes it illegal for anyone who has ever been convicted of any misdemeanor or higher offense such as simple assault (threat of bodily harm) or disturbing the peace involving a family member is in the news again. Law enforcement agencies are trying to reform the Act passed last session to exclude themselves, law enforcement personnel. Up to 60,000 law enforcement personnel are alleged to be affected by the law! One can only imagine how many ordinary citizens have lost their right to bear arms, hunt with a firearm, or be in the same vehicle or household with a firearm (constructive possession). An un-fore-told penalty is being imposed on all of them after the fact.