Need some legal info


PDA






Warren
September 17, 2004, 12:47 AM
Inexplicably The Wife received a photo of a pair of politicians running for POTUS and VPOTUS in the mail.

If she allows me too I'll take the photo and put some holes in it, in a safe manner of course.

What I was wondering is it still legal to use pictures of people as a target?

I know there was some controversy when someone used a picture of Hitler as a target. So I need to know what the law on that sort of thing is.


Thank you,

H2L

If you enjoyed reading about "Need some legal info" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Graystar
September 17, 2004, 01:20 AM
Depends on the state. In Mass...no. Dunno about cali. The guys at the range should know.

Old Fuff
September 17, 2004, 09:18 AM
I would advise you not to shoot up the pictures - especially at a public range. Someone could get the idea that you were threatening the candidates in question, and the next thing you’d know the Secret Service would be hammering on your door. What happened after that could be big trouble. Shooting at printed targets that depict universally despised individuals such as Hitler is O.K.

Chipperman
September 17, 2004, 01:25 PM
It is perfectly legal for individuals to shoot pictures of people in MA. This is a law that is often misunderstood.

The law actually says that MA Gun Clubs that have their own FFL cannot allow shooting of targets that resemble human forms. There are only a few Gun Clubs in MA that have their own FFL's, so the law does not affect very many people.

answerguy
September 17, 2004, 01:44 PM
I don't think it helps your candidate win an election to have someone shooting up a photo of his opponent. Makes us all look bad.

geekWithA.45
September 17, 2004, 02:13 PM
Shooting at printed targets that depict universally despised individuals

You mean the candidate in question doesn't fit this category? :neener:

Warren
September 18, 2004, 01:00 AM
Just to be safe I won't put holes in it in public.

joab
September 18, 2004, 01:18 AM
As far as I know, Im pretty sure I read it somewhere, but I may be wrong. Cali does not allow targets depicting humans
Your pic could very well get you into a whole lot of trouble especially if the RO disagrees with your political views

Stebalo
September 18, 2004, 03:46 AM
Many ranges specifically ban political targets. There are stories floating around of secret service agents making visits at ranges after such activity occured. They don't take it lightly. I wouldn't do it. Use it as a dart board at home.

Mark in California
September 18, 2004, 04:00 AM
Federal law does not allow you to shoot at pictures or otherwise anyone under the protection of the Secret Service. I know for a fact the Secret Service would not be amused, and would consider you as a threat. If reported, you can expect a visit from a Secret Service Agent, with a warrent for your arreast. I have seen Secret Service Agents show up to investigate someone for threatening the wife of the President, and the Federal Code removes all privacy protections (State and Federal) from anyone who would in any way threaten the President, Vice President, their families, and anyone running for the above jobs who has Secret Service protection.

Waitone
September 19, 2004, 11:36 AM
Not that I disagree with the idea of not using images of politicians for target practice. SS has a really tough job and there are far too many nutcases out there. I think it entirely justified to ban shooting at images.

That said, in the good ol' days it was images of a diety that was banned.

Interesting that we have move from baning images of diety to banning the abuse of images of politicians.

I wonder if maybe some kind of psychological transferrence just took place.

Hawkmoon
September 19, 2004, 08:38 PM
That said, in the good ol' days it was images of a diety that was banned.

Interesting that we have move from baning images of diety to banning the abuse of images of politicians.

I wonder if maybe some kind of psychological transferrence just took place.
Probably not.

Biblically, it was worshipping of "graven" images that was proscribed. I suspect most politicians and candidates would be only to happy to have their images worshipped, and I doubt the Secret Service would have a problem with it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Need some legal info" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!