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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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