NEWTOWN, Conn. — With the U.S. Supreme Court slated to hear arguments today in the United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, the National Shooting Sports Foundation encourages the court to support the First Amendment rights of all media to show images of hunting and fishing.

The case centers around a 1999 federal statute used to prosecute a Virginia man on animal cruelty-related charges that because it is so broadly written could similarly be used to prosecute anyone who publishes images of hunting or to prosecute retailers for stocking and selling books, DVDs or art depicting hunting scenes.

"The National Shooting Sports Foundation and its over 4,500 member companies oppose animal cruelty, which is illegal in every state, and stress that hunting scenes are not representative of criminal behavior. Hunting is a legitimate, licensed activity, and responsible hunters respect the animals they pursue and utilize," said Steve Sanetti, president of NSSF. "Such images assist novices with basic hunting and field dressing techniques and provide education about wildlife conservation and safe and ethical hunting."

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife has collaborated with Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) in an effort to assist with the processing costs associated with donating venison to a food bank.

A $100,000 subsidy grant has been awarded to FHFH to help pay the processing fee on donated venison. The grant money is to be matched with funds generated or collected by FHFH. The ODNR Division of Wildlife is again subsidizing this year's FHFH operation as an additional deer management tool, helping wildlife managers encourage hunters to kill more does.

Please read this carefully. We have never needed your help more than we need it now!

Dear Friend,

Last year, in a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly proclaimed that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Not a collective right. Not a right of the "militia." A right of each American citizen.

You might think that would have ended the debate, but it didn't. Even after this decision, local governments around the country pretended that the protection of individual Second Amendment rights applied only to the federal government, not to the states or cities.

This is one reason why cities like Cleveland and Chicago continue to infringe individual rights with draconian gun bans and unreasonable regulations aimed squarely at law-abiding citizens.

As is so often the case, the only way to fight against such unconstitutional behavior is to file a lawsuit and win.

That's why now, a little more than one year later, America's highest court has again taken up a Second Amendment case.