Tennessee SJR 44 Update

[Tim Nunan]

Friday, May 06, 2005

SJR 44, a resolution intended to establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, is currently being considered on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the provisions of the current resolution do little to protect sportsmen from future attacks initiated by radical animal "rights" organizations. Your NRA is working to see that the language is substantially strengthened to protect, for instance, the hunting of "traditional species" by "traditional means and methods." This will guard against politically-motivated bans on the hunting of animals such as dove and bear, as we’ve seen in other states. It will also protect against bans on specific types of hunting, such as bow hunting. This specific protection is critical in light of the fact that radical anti-hunting organizations have made a bow hunting ban their top priority as part of their plan to eliminate hunting one method at a time. The first step in strengthening the language of the Resolution is the adoption of Senator Mark Norris’(R-32) floor amendment the afternoon of Monday, May 9. It is critical that you call your State Senator before Monday afternoon and respectfully request that he or she "please vote for the Norris floor amendment to SJR 44" because Tennessee needs a meaningful individual right to hunt and fish. NRA is committed to continuing efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that protects the rights of individual sportsmen for generations to come, while also recognizing the state’s responsibility to manage game populations through laws and regulations driven by science, not anti-hunting politics.
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislatio ... px?ID=1565

[johnharris]

Tim makes several excellent points. Senator Jackson's proposed constitutional amendment may seem extreme to some but probably no more extreme than the concerns which caused the Founding Fathers to include the Second Amendment when at that place and time no one realistically questioned the individual right to keep and bear arms suitable for modern military purposes. Over time, that common conception has come under attack by numerous "forward thinking" individuals and groups who assert that there is no need for anyone to own firearms much less firearms suitable for military purposes.

We may take it for granted - take for granted the right to hunt and fish. We may even hear the opposition proclaim no opposition to the right and therefore there is no "need" for the amendment. Compare this issue to the genesis of the Second Amendment and the need to protect the right to hunt and fish - constitutionally - cannot be understated. Not only the opposition but our very government (read that TWRA) may be the largest threat in the future to this right which we take for granted now.

Why, perhaps I could strike the phrase, "in the future" because for many Tennesseans TWRA currently places the right into jeopardy. Rapidly increasing rates, restricted seasons, bag limits, etc., all of these may be deemed infringements by some. Go back 50 or 100 years and our grandparents and great grandparents would have had no comprehension of hunting seasons in the context of criminal prosecution. If they needed meat - they shot it. Do that now and you are a criminal. When did that happen?

[Tim Nunan]

Reviewing all the amendments it seems as though this resolution has been "watered down" to be almost worthless. Rather than just affirming the right to hunt and fish it is qualified by stating that the state and agencies can regulate; like regulate it out of existence? ::shakes head::

[BulletBillSR]

[RNMEDIC]

[johnharris]

[RNMEDIC]