Posted on 11/07/2016 5:00:24 PM PST by marktwain
The right to hunt is something early colonists took seriously. In England, the right to hunt was limited to the the King and landowners. Commoners did not have a right to hunt. In the American colonies, hunting was important for survival. Vermont included the right to hunt in its constitution in 1777. The right to hunt was considered for the United States Constitution, but ultimately was not explicitly included. It falls under the 10th Amendment.
Nineteen states have the right to hunt in their state constitutions. In the last 20 years, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming have passed amendments to protect the right. The language in Alaska’s Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to hunt, but reserves fish and wildlife for “common use”. There is case law that shows this as a protection of the right to hunt and fish.
This year, right to hunt amendments are up for a vote in Indiana and Kansas.
It is Question 1 on Indiana ballot. From ballotpedia.org:
Section 39.
(a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:
- (1) is a valued part of Indiana’s heritage; and
- (2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
- (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The people can hunt animals, we exclusively bear the right to hunt people - Hillary Clinton
As a landowner I have questions about this. It seems to broad. In all of my leases I reserve the right to hunt, not my tenants. If they, or others, wish to hunt on my land they must get my express, limited, written permission. I do this for a few reasons - one so they are not hosting hunters and making a profit, to have better control over who is considered an invitee on my property and to limit liability.
BTW, my state is not listed. I can the idea being good, as a counter to gun grabbers, but there are other issues that need to be addressed in less broad terms.
ping
So is concealed carry, a direct violation of the 2nd amendment
Likewise.
I post my properties. Only trusted (safety conscious) hunters allowed on.
I don’t believe in every buck-fevered yahoo having a “right” to shoot at anything that moves on any and every private property.
Idaho does have a permitless concealed carry. That went active July 1, 2016 for Idaho residents. There is a likely modification coming to rescind the residency requirement.
You are misunderstanding the purpose of right to hunt laws.
Such laws preclude animal right Nazis from prohibiting you from hunting on your own land or anywhere else. Also helps prohibit anti-hunters from harassing hunters.
Constitutional carry is always great news!
Good point.
Here we have road hunters, every year some idiot damages a piece of equipment or kills cattle or hurts someone because he thought he saw a deer go across a field and stopped his car to shoot it.
Purpose is null and void, the point is the law is vague. Often there are too many laws with good intentions that are turned around. I stand by my statement, I don’t want just any idiot with a gun hunting on my property. If an anti-hunter is on my property I can file trespassing charges.
Hunter or not - stay the Hell off my land. Period.
click on the ballot and read it. Trespassing laws are still in affect.
It is still far too vague. I oppose laws that are vague. I get the reason, but the law is bad law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
