While I think that hunting should be legal in Kansas, ensuring this through constitutional amendment strikes me as dangerous. It seems to me like something that would advance the dilution of the idea of rights, and as such necessarily devalue the fundamental rights already guaranteed by our constitutions.
Much better to handle efforts to preserve the legality of hunting legislatively. This seems pretty basic to me, and yet this thing flew through the Kansas House of Representatives almost unopposed. I'm hoping that the Kansas Senate will display a little more wisdom, but I'm not terribly optimistic about it.
quote:The NRA’s Jordan Austin said the amendment would protect hunters against “politically motivated bans on bow hunting or hunting with hounds.”
But the wording of the amendment specifically is "The people have a right to hunt, fish and trap and harvest game, subject to reasonable regulations approved by the state legislature."
Wouldn't the state legislature still be allowed to ban all bow hunting, provided that this was determined eventually to be a "reasonable regulation?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Christopher Tymeson, chief legal counsel with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, however, said an election on the amendment could backfire. ... He also said that elevating the rights of hunting and fishing to a constitutional right could interfere with rules to manage natural resources and enforce such laws such as the inspection of bag limits.
posted
For one thing, it would seem to make hunting and fishing licenses available only to those who can afford to pay for them, and thus (under existing precedent) inherently discriminatory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hunter: The Constitution says I can hunt, and you can't stop me.
Police: But sir...
Hunter: It says you can't make a law to stop me. So give me back my gun, I'm not done huntin yet.
Police: That gun is a rapid fire automatic weapon with armor piercing shells and a fully functional grenade launcher with 20 frag and 20 incendiary grenades.
Hunter: The constitution says you can't limit my choice of weapon. If I want a bow, I get a bow. If I want dynamite, I get dynamite. That's how I go fishin.
Police: But sir, it doesn't say you can hunt anything....
Hunter: It doesn't say you can stop me from hunting anything. If I want to hunt deer, I'll hunt deer. If I want to hunt kittens, I'll hunt kittens. If I want to hunt freakin Bald Eagles, I'll hunt freakin Bald Eagles, and you can't make a law to stop me.
Police: But sir, this is private property.......
Hunter: Its in the constitution. You can't limit where I go huntin, cause that violates my right to hunt.
Police: But sir, this is a private school.
Hunter: And I'm huntin 6th graders. What's it to ya. Its not like they are anyones property.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a stupid amendment. If this is the actual wording, it doesn't even *mean* anything:
quote:Under HCR 5037, “The people have a right to hunt, fish and trap and harvest game, subject to reasonable regulations approved by the state legislature.”
You know what the worst thing is? If this gets through the senate and goes up in November, it will pass. I can already hear the TV and radio ads:
"Protect your rights to hunt and fish. This November, vote YES on Amendment X."
And no one will read the actual text of the amendment or think it through or consider the consequences. They'll just go: "Yeah, I have a right to hunt and fish! I'll vote yes!"
And once again we will have a constitutional amendment that at best is toothless and at worst has some hidden agenda in the legalize that I can't make out and it will take a 2/3 majority to UNdo it in the future.
You have to read the E-Mail, and the Snopes article.
Its about a guy in Kansas who went dear hunting with nothing but a rope.
If this amendment passes, such procedures would be constitutionally valid, but would ruin you personal constitution.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen that video where the deer beats the heck out of the man a few times, but all the deer I ever encounter run like wussies whenever anything happens around them. I think it is an evolutionary thing: the hunters around here are incredibly good shots. The deer that survive are by nature the most paranoid and suspicious and jumpy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is Kansas, and I'm frankly surprised anyone feels the need to bring forth such an amendment. I'd honestly be less surprised (but more concerned) if someone introduced an amendment to ban hunting and trapping... Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...a constitutional amendment that at best is toothless and at worst has some hidden agenda in the legalese..."
Nothing hidden. Just gives the NRA the ability to sue in Court to press their claim that bringing handguns into schools and churches is a protected right "cuz ya never know when ya might wanna have squirrel for lunch or need rabbit fur to make mittens." Then there are the rats and spiders and flies and skeeters. Obviously ya need an assault rifle to deal with those.
Plus there are a LOT of farmers&ranchers and recreational property owners who have banned all hunters from their property -- even though the owners themselves shoot&trap critters as unwanted varmints -- cuz of bad experiences with boozehounds-with-guns wounding livestock or pets, damaging their homes/cars/etc, or hitting too close to one of their kids. Similarly folks with streams and ponds and little lakes on their property have gotten tired of picking up litter and getting cut up on rusted cans cuz some idiots think that the owner's land is a garbage dump, tired of getting cut up on broken bottles while wading cuz some drunken buffoons think that it's great fun to watch glass shatter on rocks. And guess what the amendment can also be used to challenge...
posted
aspectre, please start sourcing these outrageous claims you make.
Unless you have some specific reason for thinking that a state-enforced hunting easement isn't subject the takings clause, you're blowing smoke with the private property issue.
There are a dozen states that have created a constitutional right to hunt. Can you perhaps find one where the courts have upheld any of your parade of horribles? Can you point to any case where someone has pursued such ends in court based on a constitutional right to hunt?
Nothing in a state constitution overrides federal regulations such as endangered species or national park regulations.
I'm not particularly fond of the wording of the amendment myself. But that's not because I think it's going to override the rights of property owners or allow guns in school.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And guess what the amendment can also be used to challenge...
I don't see where the amendment would override private property rights or allow people to carry handguns into schools. I dunno what you're talking about.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, HERE is a link to actual bill wording (since Jake's link was to the Journal-World, which is always a bit biased, I wanted to find the bill itself)
I, like Tstorm, wondered why it would be necessary at all in my state.
I don't see that this bill changes anything in the current problems in our hunting situations. Most hunters in my area now are frustrated not by anti-hunting groups, but by state regulations (which is a long topic I won't go into here). It is the state that causes most of the problems with the system; and their outrages permit fees. (I own land -- if I wanted to shoot and kill a deer that walked up to my back door (or anywhere on my property) with my own gun and clean it for my own use, I would still have to pay for a permit and only be able to hunt within certain strict time guidelines)
With urbanization pushing and pushing on our wildlife now, there is an increasing problem with "too many animals for the space." I'm not a hunter myself, and truly if I had my druthers, I would run off the urbanization crowd, not the deer; but something does have to give one way or another.
But I digress ...
I don't understand why they think this is necessary.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Plus there are a LOT of farmers&ranchers and recreational property owners who have banned all hunters from their property -- even though the owners themselves shoot&trap critters as unwanted varmints -- cuz of bad experiences with boozehounds-with-guns wounding livestock or pets, damaging their homes/cars/etc, or hitting too close to one of their kids. Similarly folks with streams and ponds and little lakes on their property have gotten tired of picking up litter and getting cut up on rusted cans cuz some idiots think that the owner's land is a garbage dump, tired of getting cut up on broken bottles while wading cuz some drunken buffoons think that it's great fun to watch glass shatter on rocks.
I will agree with this part of aspectre's post. Hunting is not allowed on my land for just the reasons he has cited above. Bad hunters, who make a bad name for the group as a whole, and go out shooting at random while drinking alcohol, etc. can make life very miserable. One bullet almost struck my mother in my front yard.. and I have lost (in the past) two dogs to hunters that were just "looking for fun and something to shoot"
Although I do know many good, responsible hunters.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deer are more of a nuisance than wolves or mountain lions in this state. I have some friends who've poached deer before, just for this reason.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah--NE Kansas is absolutely lousy with deer*. Hunters aren't keeping up with the population, and while the mountain lions have moved back in, I their numbers don't yet seem to be high enough to make all that much of a dent in the population. Either there's going to be a massive explosion in the mountain lion population or the deer population is going to crash.
Or, you know, first one and then the other.
*I understand that wild turkeys are getting to be a nusiance too, but I'm not sure how widespread that is.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Yeah--NE Kansas is absolutely lousy with deer*. Hunters aren't keeping up with the population, and while the mountain lions have moved back in, I their numbers don't yet seem to be high enough to make all that much of a dent in the population. Either there's going to be a massive explosion in the mountain lion population or the deer population is going to crash.
*I understand that wild turkeys are getting to be a nusiance too, but I'm not sure how widespread that is.
Yes, both are becoming a problem.
But, from talking to a lot of my hunter friends, the problem isn't just the regulations and restrictions.
A bigger problem is that more and more landowners are selling out private leases to big-city fair weather hunters. They pay lots of money to reserve the land for their hunting only. Which is all well and good, except they rarely ever make the drive down from their cushy place in Kansas City (or St. Louis, or Dallas) to their private 'hunting' ground; so pretty much the deer are safe. And not much of a dent is ever made in the population.
And fewer parents are teaching their kids how to hunt; and fewer kids are interested in learning.
Like you said -- something's going to happen.
(sorry - got my tags messed up)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Aspectre - it took me a minute -- because you linked to Page 2 of that article, instead of the first page, so I was confused by it for a second until I realize I started in the middle...
However, this was interesting:
quote: studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.
I wonder where they are finding workplaces where you can take your gun to work, for this study?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So still no examples of a hunting amendment being used by a court to revoke private property rights. Moreover, this is an example of a legislature infringing on property rights without using such an amendment.
I'm sympathetic to something that used to be called "survival" be a protected right, but I don't see how it can be. "Right to life" can be paraphrased as "nobody has a right to kill you"; but "right to hunt"? Does that mean the government must provide you with a hunting preserve? That you can hunt on your own land? Does that include a postage-stamp sized front yard? Or is it someone else's land?
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
