|
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter