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