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