Constitutional Amendment needs Support

[Butch Butler]

The amendment to hunt and fish needs everyones support.For those more knowledgeable with amendments I would like some clarity.The way I understand it is if you vote in the Governors race and dont vote Yes on the amendment its the same as a no vote.It was explained to me like this,if 10000 people vote for Governor it will take 5001 to pass the amendment so if you dont vote for it as far as the numbers are concerned you voted against it.
If this is not the way it is will someone please clarify it.
Thanks,
Butch

[n24wheel]

Yes you are correct. It has the be a simple majority of votes that vote in the Governors race. If 100,000 people vote in the Governors race you will need 50,001 yes votes for the amendment to pass. If the Yes vote, in this case, is 49,999 and the No vote is only 1 the amendment will fail because you need the simple majority of all the votes in the total that vote for the Governor.

[redbarron06]

All over it. Got signs, decals, and cards to hand out to all of my co-workers.

[johnharris]

A constitutional amendment to establish a right subject to the vagueness of government perception of reasonableness only constitutional empowers the government to infringe the right it seeks to declare.

[C. Richard Archie]

John,

Does the Legislature not have the same oversite ability now?

[Butch Butler]

We might have been better off if it never was put on the ballot but now that it has I am more worried about what doors it will open if it fails.
Butch

[johnharris]

[Sky King]

[johnharris]

Sam, I think you sense my concerns.

[Sky King]

[johnharris]

I understand the concerns that failing to take some action might result in a risk to the "right" to hunt and fish. However, if its a right then it will stand independent of the constitution. If its a privilege, then its subject to "reasonable regulation." The proposed amendment does not prohibit the infringement of an existing right, it takes whatever the capacity is now and reduces it to nothing more than a privilege subject to full and exhaustive regulation by the state at whatever level it deems reasonable.

If anything needs to be done, it needs to be an amendment that fully recognizes a right.

[Sky King]

[n24wheel]

I do not completely agree. Hunting as it is now is only a priviledge that can be taken completely away by the legislature or even a lawsuit. Although we probably will not see it in our life time it is possible that it can be taken away in the future. If it is constitutionally a right, even with possible restrictions, then in later on it still cannot be taken completely away. More and more places are being sued by only one individual, especially on public lands where the land managers sometimes loose. Most recently in Michigan a Doctor sued the Forest Service because they have more "hunting areas" than "quiet places". The first court threw it out but the appeals court overturned the ruling. Now if it stands all Forest Service land and BLM lands will have to give equal share of hunting and "quiet space" lands. This could eventually be the loss of millions of huntable land. This is one reason why several states have passed hunting amendments to their constitution. Would a court rule a right over a "quiet place" or not is another question. but if the state had made it a "RIGHT" then the appeals court probably would not have overturned the first court.

I would recommend and will be voting YES on adding hunting as a constitutional amendment. Even if restrictions can apply it would make it harder to add anti-hunting amendments. Much harder than adding restrictions to a "priviledge" as hunting is now. The Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mention hunting so I believe we need to add it at the state level. Again even with restrictions it is still better than only a priviledge.

[n24wheel]

This isn't exactly the same but if the Supreme Court had declared that the 2nd Amendment was a "Priviledge" (as hunting is in Tennessee right now) then the below case would have turned out different. Even though Tennessee's amendment has restrictions I think that it being a Right in the state constitution would help. Even with a strict right you can still have restrictions (AKA hunting on private property you do not own)





Wisconsin Court Finds State Carry Ban Unconstitutional
Friday, October 15, 2010

In a ruling that is likely to renew the debate over Wisconsin's laws on carrying firearms, a county trial court has found that a state statute's total ban on carrying concealed weapons violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling, issued Oct. 12 by Judge Jon M. Counsell of the Clark County Circuit Court, dismissed an indictment against Joshua Schultz, who had been arrested for carrying a knife in his waistband, covered by his shirt.

Judge Counsell's opinion found that since the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right, any restrictions on that right must pass the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" test. That means the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and must be the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

While Judge Counsell agreed that there is a compelling interest in protecting public safety, he also found that the law is (as the Wisconsin Supreme Court has said) "exceptionally restrictive." He also noted that 48 states now have less restrictive laws than Wisconsin's, yet "there have been no shootouts in town squares, no mass vigilante shootings or other violent outbreaks attributable to allowed concealed carry."

Judge Counsell also rejected the argument that concealed carry can be prohibited since open carry is allowed; in support of that argument, he pointed to recent incidents in Wisconsin where people openly carrying firearms have been arrested for "disorderly conduct"--even though the state attorney general has advised agencies against bringing such charges.

This week's opinion is only the latest in a series that have created great uncertainty about the law among Wisconsin gun owners. In the 2003 case of State v. Hamdan, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that individuals charged with violating the carry ban can use the state constitution's protection for the right to keep and bear arms as a defense. The court held that convenience store owner Munir Hamdan, who had been repeatedly robbed and attacked in his store in a high-crime neighborhood, was entitled to raise that defense.

But just three years later, the court ruled in the case of State v. Fisher that a tavern owner in a safer area was not entitled to raise the defense when arrested for carrying firearms in his vehicle. On the other hand, NRA-ILA supported the successful defense of pizza delivery driver Andres Vegas, who used a gun for self-defense after being the victim of multiple robberies. (For more information on that case, see http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=003)

Anticipating the confusion that its rulings might cause, even the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in the Hamdan case) urged the legislature to take action to create a permit system. And in fact, the legislature has passed Right-to-Carry twice, but each time, the bills were vetoed by anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle.

While the state may still appeal the court's decision in the Schultz case, the case should nonetheless remind all Wisconsin gun owners of the importance of this year's governor's race. Only by electing a pro-Second Amendment governor will the people of Wisconsin finally have the chance to clear up the confusion left by all of these rulings, and protect the Right to Carry once and for all.

[n24wheel]

Today in Virgina "Friends of Animals" filed an injunction to stop a deer hunt and replace it with increasing the Coyote Population.

Another state anti-hunting groups want hunting replaced with birth control on game animals at tax payer expense.

I do agree I would like the "Right" on our ballot to go further but even a "limited" right (which is contradictory) is better than a simple priviledge as hunting is now.

In TN's constitution was basically have a limited right to keep and bear arms because of the "view to reduce crime" that was added. Even though it is "limited" as written if it was not there at all we most likely would not have a carry program in Tennessee.

From the US Sportsman Alliance:

States Ballot Issues Look to Provide Sportsman Protections
Four States Have Pro-Hunting and Fishing Constitutional Amendments on the Ballot in November
10/6/10

Sportsmen in several states will have the opportunity this November to vote on constitutional amendments to protect their right to hunt, trap, and fish, from attacks by animal rights activists.

Four states will have these amendments on the ballot on November 2: Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Each amendment is designed to provide state constitutional protection for the right to hunt and fish. They have been drafted to head off possible attacks by animal rights/anti-hunting groups that could parachute in to various states at any time with campaign aimed at curtailing traditional sportsmen’s activities.

Sportsmen in each state should take the time to review these amendments which can be done by clicking on appropriate link below:

•Proposition 109 in Arizona

•Issue #1 in Arkansas

•Amendment #1 in South Carolina

•The Amendment in Tennessee