No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates
by ANC Staff and The Fund for Animals

Posted on November 24, 2003

On November 18 the House Game and Fisheries Committee passed a joint
resolution (H.B. 1512) proposing to amend the state constitution to grant
residents of Pennsylvania the 'right' to hunt.

The decision has provoked strong protest from The Fund for Animals, a
national animal protection organization with 9,000 members and active
supporters in Pennsylvania.

"The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn't be used as a graffiti
wall for political rhetoric," The Fund's National Director, Heidi Prescott,
said.

"To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant." she said. "Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that 'right'
enshrined in the constitution."

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable - wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and additional
species to shoot.

"If one special interest group is allowed to use the state constitution for
its purposes, the floodgates will be opened for other groups to follow,"
said Prescott. "What's next? An amendment allowing the right to play golf or
go shopping?"

Only a handful of states across America have "right-to-hunt" amendments in
their constitutions. Most states have rejected such measures.

"Legislators in most states - even major hunting states - have had the
common sense to defeat bills granting constitutional status to sport
hunting," said Prescott. "The citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to add a
silly provision protecting a recreational hobby."

Sources
The Fund for Animals
www.fund.org
November 18 Press Release


--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

is this stuff for real? it is kind of frightening
"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
et...
No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates
by ANC Staff and The Fund for Animals

Posted on November 24, 2003

On November 18 the House Game and Fisheries Committee passed a joint
resolution (H.B. 1512) proposing to amend the state constitution to grant
residents of Pennsylvania the 'right' to hunt.

The decision has provoked strong protest from The Fund for Animals, a
national animal protection organization with 9,000 members and active
supporters in Pennsylvania.

"The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn't be used as a
graffiti
wall for political rhetoric," The Fund's National Director, Heidi
Prescott,
said.

"To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant." she said. "Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that 'right'
enshrined in the constitution."

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable - wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and
additional
species to shoot.

"If one special interest group is allowed to use the state constitution
for
its purposes, the floodgates will be opened for other groups to follow,"
said Prescott. "What's next? An amendment allowing the right to play golf
or
go shopping?"

Only a handful of states across America have "right-to-hunt" amendments in
their constitutions. Most states have rejected such measures.

"Legislators in most states - even major hunting states - have had the
common sense to defeat bills granting constitutional status to sport
hunting," said Prescott. "The citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to add
a
silly provision protecting a recreational hobby."

Sources
The Fund for Animals
www.fund.org
November 18 Press Release


--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishingis on the list
 

Eric Dreher wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:31:45 GMT, "Spoonplugger" wrote:


is this stuff for real? it is kind of frightening


Just remember this when you mark your ballot.

Personally, I feel no sympathy for anyone who votes for
Democrats, then complains about their rights to shoot,
hunt, or fish, being taken away.

Just MHO.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, you don't have a right to shoot,
hunt or fish. It is a privilege given to you by state and local laws.

pat

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

Amendment II

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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

On the other hand, I firmly believe in a citizen's right to hunt, fish, and
trap, within the parameters of state laws.

A state constitutional amendment isn't necessary to protect hunting,
fishing, or trapping rights. Constitutional amendments (either state or
national) should be left to the earth-shattering, universal concepts that
shape our governmental and social existence, not for pandering to a specific
constituency.


--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:29:05 -0600, pat gustafson
wrote:

Well, just to play devil's advocate, you don't have a right to shoot,
hunt or fish. It is a privilege given to you by state and local laws.

Technically you're correct about hunting and fishing.

But shooting is not a privilege. It's part of your Second
Amendment rights of firearm ownership.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

It doesn't say "state militia" either. Back in the days when it was written,
every able bodied man was considered able to fight and was considered as
being part of the "state"(local) militia.

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
Amendment II

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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

On the other hand, I firmly believe in a citizen's right to hunt, fish,
and
trap, within the parameters of state laws.

A state constitutional amendment isn't necessary to protect hunting,
fishing, or trapping rights. Constitutional amendments (either state or
national) should be left to the earth-shattering, universal concepts that
shape our governmental and social existence, not for pandering to a
specific
constituency.


--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:29:05 -0600, pat gustafson
wrote:

Well, just to play devil's advocate, you don't have a right to shoot,
hunt or fish. It is a privilege given to you by state and local laws.

Technically you're correct about hunting and fishing.

But shooting is not a privilege. It's part of your Second
Amendment rights of firearm ownership.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

The second part to that is your state has a right to being well armed to
prevent a tyrranical government from coming in and dis-arming it's citizens.
They are supposed to be able to defend it's citizens rights to keep and bear
arms. The states know that an armed population cannot be overthrown because
the citizens will come running to help(with the private firearms).

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
Amendment II

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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

On the other hand, I firmly believe in a citizen's right to hunt, fish,
and
trap, within the parameters of state laws.

A state constitutional amendment isn't necessary to protect hunting,
fishing, or trapping rights. Constitutional amendments (either state or
national) should be left to the earth-shattering, universal concepts that
shape our governmental and social existence, not for pandering to a
specific
constituency.


--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:29:05 -0600, pat gustafson
wrote:

Well, just to play devil's advocate, you don't have a right to shoot,
hunt or fish. It is a privilege given to you by state and local laws.

Technically you're correct about hunting and fishing.

But shooting is not a privilege. It's part of your Second
Amendment rights of firearm ownership.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

LOL! They come a running, throwing out their own rhetoric when someone tries
to head them off at the pass. I love it. I think they should call this move
pre-emptive democracy. They're trying to get a law in place before the
bleeding hearts can pass one banning it, and then the bleeding hearts come
out and say 'our' ideas and movement ('our' being the hunters and fisherman)
are silly and absurd. Maybe they should read some of their own PR before
they start casting stones. I love it when the Dems (most enviro types) get a
taste of their own medicine and find it sour to the palette. Reaping what
they've sewn IMHO....maybe they'll start actually coming up with ideas about
leading for a change instead of ideas that will get them elected and keep
them in power.


"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
et...
No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates
by ANC Staff and The Fund for Animals

Posted on November 24, 2003

On November 18 the House Game and Fisheries Committee passed a joint
resolution (H.B. 1512) proposing to amend the state constitution to grant
residents of Pennsylvania the 'right' to hunt.

The decision has provoked strong protest from The Fund for Animals, a
national animal protection organization with 9,000 members and active
supporters in Pennsylvania.

"The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn't be used as a
graffiti
wall for political rhetoric," The Fund's National Director, Heidi
Prescott,
said.

"To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant." she said. "Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that 'right'
enshrined in the constitution."

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable - wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and
additional
species to shoot.

"If one special interest group is allowed to use the state constitution
for
its purposes, the floodgates will be opened for other groups to follow,"
said Prescott. "What's next? An amendment allowing the right to play golf
or
go shopping?"

Only a handful of states across America have "right-to-hunt" amendments in
their constitutions. Most states have rejected such measures.

"Legislators in most states - even major hunting states - have had the
common sense to defeat bills granting constitutional status to sport
hunting," said Prescott. "The citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to add
a
silly provision protecting a recreational hobby."

Sources
The Fund for Animals
www.fund.org
November 18 Press Release


--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishingis on the list
 

Marty S. wrote:
Amendment II

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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

rant mode on

It's right there with the right to privacy and the right to an abortion
and the restriction on mentioning God anyplace there is government.

Seriously, just read it. The first part: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state,...." tells WHY they
put the second part in. It says that in order to KEEP a free state free,
you need a well regulated militia. Webster's 21st Century dictionary
defines "militia" as "an emergency citizen army". It wouldn't be much of
an army if all it had was paintball and bb guns.
The second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed." says that THE PEOPLE (not army or paramilitary or
sportsmen, etc.) have the right to keep and BEAR (defined as "carry",
not just own in a locked safe in your basement) weapons such as they
would need to protect themselves (from other individuals or an
overbearing out-of-control government or an invading army or even
terrorists). It says this right shall not be infringed. Websters defines
infringe as "violate" or "encroach". It could be argued that having to
jump through ANY hoops in order to carry a loaded weapon is an
encroachment on that right. Hoops such as conceal and carry classes,
waiting periods, etc. No, I am not saying that I think I should be able
to drive a tank through Washington, but I am saying that it sure looks
like the constitution says I should be able to do a lot more than I can now.
Whew.

rant mode off

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

Amen!

"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


Marty S. wrote:
Amendment II

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.


-------------------------------------------------
Where does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms if you
are
not a member of the state militia?

Where does it say you have the constitutional right to shoot?

rant mode on

It's right there with the right to privacy and the right to an abortion
and the restriction on mentioning God anyplace there is government.

Seriously, just read it. The first part: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state,...." tells WHY they
put the second part in. It says that in order to KEEP a free state free,
you need a well regulated militia. Webster's 21st Century dictionary
defines "militia" as "an emergency citizen army". It wouldn't be much of
an army if all it had was paintball and bb guns.
The second part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed." says that THE PEOPLE (not army or paramilitary or
sportsmen, etc.) have the right to keep and BEAR (defined as "carry",
not just own in a locked safe in your basement) weapons such as they
would need to protect themselves (from other individuals or an
overbearing out-of-control government or an invading army or even
terrorists). It says this right shall not be infringed. Websters defines
infringe as "violate" or "encroach". It could be argued that having to
jump through ANY hoops in order to carry a loaded weapon is an
encroachment on that right. Hoops such as conceal and carry classes,
waiting periods, etc. No, I am not saying that I think I should be able
to drive a tank through Washington, but I am saying that it sure looks
like the constitution says I should be able to do a lot more than I can
now.
Whew.

rant mode off

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...fis...
 

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

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.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

Each state has the right to have a well regulated militia for securty of
staying a free state. In turn they have the duty along with the citizens of
such state to defend themselves from the federal government from coming in
and taking away the arms of the people of that state.
It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and bear
arms.

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

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.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

The militia in the Founding Fathers time referred to all able bodied men up
to age 45 or so.
Bill


"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

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.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

It doesn't say that. You, of course, have the right to make whatever
interpretation of the words that you care to. And, I would be amongst the
first people to line up to defend your right to say what you want. But the
words don't say anything like what you think they do.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Steve Erwin" wrote in message
...
Each state has the right to have a well regulated militia for securty of
staying a free state. In turn they have the duty along with the citizens
of
such state to defend themselves from the federal government from coming in
and taking away the arms of the people of that state.
It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The word is "infringed", not encroached. And the concept of "shall not
be
infringed" directly relates to the right to keep and bear arms in the
context of the preceding phrase in that sentence -- "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." The right
to
keep and bear arms is not a separated from the concept of a well
regulated
militia -- it isn't a separate constitutitonal right. It goes hand in
hand
with the concept of a well regulated militia. I agree with the Second
Amendment -- if you are in a well regulated militia, the Constitution
gives
you the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

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.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Henry Hefner" wrote in message
...


pat gustafson wrote:
J Buck wrote:

It could be argued that having to jump through ANY hoops in order
to
carry a loaded weapon is an encroachment on that right. Hoops such
as
conceal and carry classes, waiting periods, etc.

A very well-written post, Henry

Of course, that's where the well regulated comes into play.


I agree that for the "emergency citizen army", i.e. militia to be
effective and not just a mob, it would need to be well regulated, but
it
says plainly that the right of the people (that's you and me) to
have
and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon. I can put it in
DIFFERENT words, but not much simpler ones than the original.

***** I realize that this topic has gotten too far away from topic for
this newsgroup and I apologize. I just felt I had to defend my
beliefs.
If anyone wants to fuss at me for my posts "off usenet", my email
is a good one, just one I usually only check
once
a week or so cause it catches a lot of spam. I will try to check it
more
often in the next few days. I enjoy this newsgroup and don't want to
be
"out-of-bounds" *****

Henry "Ornery" Hefner

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

The exact quote is: "Mr. GEORGE MASON: Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has
asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if
we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by
our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the
whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the
militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration,
the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low,
and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes
of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people..."
(quoted from "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution" is a five-volume collection compiled by
Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century, volume 3 (I think), page
245-6.)

****************************
The actual context of Mason's quote appears to be during a discussion about
the complexion of the militia in a national vs. state context and if all
classes of society would be drawn upon to serve in the military under the
concept of a national military. This wasn't a discussion about the Second
Amendment, as far as I can tell from the references I've found so far.



--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:45 -0600, "Steve Erwin"
wrote:

It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason

I figure one of the framers knew far better than anyone here
just exactly what that amendment means.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

... and, regardless of whether or not this quote concerns the Second
Amendment, George Mason didn't even sign the Constitution.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:45 -0600, "Steve Erwin"
wrote:

It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason

I figure one of the framers knew far better than anyone here
just exactly what that amendment means.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ...
 

Sorry Group; I apologize for the multiple off-topic messages.

Done.

--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Marty S." wrote in message
...
The exact quote is: "Mr. GEORGE MASON: Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has
asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and
if
we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c.,
by
our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the
whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be
the
militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration,
the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and
low,
and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle
classes
of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people..."
(quoted from "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution" is a five-volume collection compiled by
Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century, volume 3 (I think), page
245-6.)

****************************
The actual context of Mason's quote appears to be during a discussion
about
the complexion of the militia in a national vs. state context and if all
classes of society would be drawn upon to serve in the military under the
concept of a national military. This wasn't a discussion about the Second
Amendment, as far as I can tell from the references I've found so far.



--
Marty S.
Baltimore, MD USA


"Eric Dreher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:52:45 -0600, "Steve Erwin"
wrote:

It is plain as day that the militia AND the PEOPLE of that state has
the
right to keep and bear arms. Very simple, I have the right to keep and
bear
arms.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason

I figure one of the framers knew far better than anyone here
just exactly what that amendment means.


-------------------------------------------------
"Government's view of the economy could be summed
up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it
stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishingis on the list
 

I'm sorry, but the republicans are taking way more rights away from us right now
than the democrats could have ever dreamed.....

DMCA, Patriot Act, etc....

SimRacer wrote:

LOL! They come a running, throwing out their own rhetoric when someone tries
to head them off at the pass. I love it. I think they should call this move
pre-emptive democracy. They're trying to get a law in place before the
bleeding hearts can pass one banning it, and then the bleeding hearts come
out and say 'our' ideas and movement ('our' being the hunters and fisherman)
are silly and absurd. Maybe they should read some of their own PR before
they start casting stones. I love it when the Dems (most enviro types) get a
taste of their own medicine and find it sour to the palette. Reaping what
they've sewn IMHO....maybe they'll start actually coming up with ideas about
leading for a change instead of ideas that will get them elected and keep
them in power.

"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
et...
No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates
by ANC Staff and The Fund for Animals

Posted on November 24, 2003

On November 18 the House Game and Fisheries Committee passed a joint
resolution (H.B. 1512) proposing to amend the state constitution to grant
residents of Pennsylvania the 'right' to hunt.

The decision has provoked strong protest from The Fund for Animals, a
national animal protection organization with 9,000 members and active
supporters in Pennsylvania.

"The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn't be used as a
graffiti
wall for political rhetoric," The Fund's National Director, Heidi
Prescott,
said.

"To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant." she said. "Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that 'right'
enshrined in the constitution."

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable - wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and
additional
species to shoot.

"If one special interest group is allowed to use the state constitution
for
its purposes, the floodgates will be opened for other groups to follow,"
said Prescott. "What's next? An amendment allowing the right to play golf
or
go shopping?"

Only a handful of states across America have "right-to-hunt" amendments in
their constitutions. Most states have rejected such measures.

"Legislators in most states - even major hunting states - have had the
common sense to defeat bills granting constitutional status to sport
hunting," said Prescott. "The citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to add
a
silly provision protecting a recreational hobby."

Sources
The Fund for Animals
www.fund.org
November 18 Press Release


--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net

No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates ... fishing is on the list
 

Yeah, like the right to die at the hands of terrorists invaders. Dream on!

Bob Rickard


"Rich Conley" wrote in message
.. .
I'm sorry, but the republicans are taking way more rights away from us
right now
than the democrats could have ever dreamed.....

DMCA, Patriot Act, etc....

SimRacer wrote:

LOL! They come a running, throwing out their own rhetoric when someone
tries
to head them off at the pass. I love it. I think they should call this
move
pre-emptive democracy. They're trying to get a law in place before the
bleeding hearts can pass one banning it, and then the bleeding hearts
come
out and say 'our' ideas and movement ('our' being the hunters and
fisherman)
are silly and absurd. Maybe they should read some of their own PR before
they start casting stones. I love it when the Dems (most enviro types)
get a
taste of their own medicine and find it sour to the palette. Reaping
what
they've sewn IMHO....maybe they'll start actually coming up with ideas
about
leading for a change instead of ideas that will get them elected and
keep
them in power.

"Outdoors Magazine" wrote in message
et...
No Constitutional 'Right' To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates
by ANC Staff and The Fund for Animals

Posted on November 24, 2003

On November 18 the House Game and Fisheries Committee passed a joint
resolution (H.B. 1512) proposing to amend the state constitution to
grant
residents of Pennsylvania the 'right' to hunt.

The decision has provoked strong protest from The Fund for Animals, a
national animal protection organization with 9,000 members and active
supporters in Pennsylvania.

"The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn't be used as a
graffiti
wall for political rhetoric," The Fund's National Director, Heidi
Prescott,
said.

"To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits
such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant." she said. "Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that
'right'
enshrined in the constitution."

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable - wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and
additional
species to shoot.

"If one special interest group is allowed to use the state
constitution
for
its purposes, the floodgates will be opened for other groups to
follow,"
said Prescott. "What's next? An amendment allowing the right to play
golf
or
go shopping?"

Only a handful of states across America have "right-to-hunt"
amendments in
their constitutions. Most states have rejected such measures.

"Legislators in most states - even major hunting states - have had the
common sense to defeat bills granting constitutional status to sport
hunting," said Prescott. "The citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to
add
a
silly provision protecting a recreational hobby."

Sources
The Fund for Animals
www.fund.org
November 18 Press Release


--
James Ehlers

Outdoors Magazine
www.outdoorsmagazine.net