October 18, 2018

A Right to Hunt Amendment “Just Like The Second Amendment?”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A freelance outdoor writer and registered Maine guide, in his blog post at the Bangor Daily News, brings out some interesting points in support of a constitutional amendment billed as a guarantee of a Maine citizen’s right to hunt, trap and fish. In essence, he tells his readers that the legislative committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, who did not support the proposed constitutional amendment, caved into the demands of animal rights extremists and denied rural people the right to feed themselves and to make a living. All good points.

“I think many in the capitol area and urban enclaves see hunting and fishing as recreation or sport, and as such believe recreation and sport do not have the merit needed for constitutional tinkering. While that may be the case in Portland, Augusta or even Bangor, it most certainly is not the case for the people who live in the places the suburbanites come to recreate in.”<<<Read More>>>

Let’s look at a couple of issues brought up in the related article. The author brings up a good point when he writes: “…many in the capitol area and urban enclaves see hunting and fishing as recreation or sport..,” and, “…you are more likely than not to find locals fishing for white perch…than those fishing for a trophy-sized trout.”

Both points ever so true, but why? At least some of that blame can be placed squarely on the media, and I don’t mean the mainstream media necessarily. The major number of so-called outdoor writers bombard everyone through most forms of media with trophy hunting this and trophy fishing that. Is it any wonder the urban dweller only knows hunting and fishing as a trophy collection activity? It is always a breath of fresh air when writers, like the one at center stage, tells more of the truth of what hunting, trapping, and fishing are all about. And let’s not forget that surveys of hunters repeatedly state that the main reason for hunting is for food…NOT trophies.

The author points out that he believes the IFW Legislative Committee buckled to the pressures of the radical Left’s animal rights groups in turning their noses up at this proposal – “…you chose to serve the interests of anti-hunting, extremist organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States and WildWatch Maine…” 

The other day I wrote a piece in reference to the Committee’s rejection of the proposed amendment. In that piece, I point out what the chairman of the Committee said about his fear of what people might think if the proposal passed the Legislature and went to the voters and was defeated. He said it “would have a seriously negative impact.” We must ask ourselves the question as to how many other ballot initiatives, or even proposed bills, are given the same scrutiny, rooted in fear of reprisals and “negative impact.” It should alert readers that the author of the subject piece was precise when he said that the Committee, “chose to serve the interests of anti-hunting” organizations, for surely they did.

So let’s not go from the frying pan and into the fire! Regular readers here know that I have not had much support for the constitutional amendments for the right to hunt and fish in Maine due to the language of each proposal. It just doesn’t go far enough. In fact, the language suggests several things but does not guarantee anything. It might slow down the onslaught of anti-hunting law proposal but certainly will not end them. In addition, we see that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t and won’t support this proposal and certainly would not support an amendment that should contain strong enough language that requires MDIFW to manage game species for the purpose of surplus harvest. LD 11 is the best written so far, but it’s just not enough. As the language gets tougher, the support by politicians dwindles. That should tell us something.

Consider when the writer states, “The text of the legislative document was concise, plainly written and made provisions to ensure that regulation and game law enforcement would not be compromised – much like the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. Gun owners must still abide by firearm laws, ordinances and regulations enacted by governments as allowed by the second amendment.”

It is impossible to have a legislative document that is “concise, plainly written,” that, on the one hand, guarantees anyone the right to anything, while at the same time makes provisions for regulations to limit that right. The author wants his readers to believe LD 11, the constitutional amendment for the right to hunt, trap, and fish in Maine, is “much like the Second Amendment.” Yikes. Isn’t what is wrong with the Second Amendment is that everyone has attacked it and turned it into something it was never intended to be?

I’m also not sure I understand what the author means when he says that the laws, ordinances, and regulations enacted by governments are “allowed by the second amendment.” The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, as written did NOT provide government to bastardize them into useless overregulated documents. We allowed government and their posses of useful idiots to trample all over the Second Amendment buying into the propaganda that such limitations of a natural right are reasonable.

How much more precise can a Bill of Right be to state, with no other qualifiers, that “the right of the people,” to keep and bear arms, “shall not be infringed?”

I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here but as a citizen subject of the U.S. Corporation you DO NOT have a right to keep and bear arms “that shall not be infringed.” The Government and all useful idiots have mocked, spit on, trampled, changed, misinterpreted and utterly destroyed a right of the people, not like any other right, and as such keeping and bearing an arm has become a government-meted right that you can take advantage of if you follow their rules and regulations that severely limit what you can do and guarantees THEIR control over you.

I have to ask, therefore, why would we want a constitutional amendment to hunt, trap and fish if that right was “much like” the Second Amendment?

The author laments of his fears of being able to feed his family and support his livelihood as a Maine guide. I’m just not very sure LD 11 would take care of his fears. When we examine what has become of our Second Amendment is there any reason to believe that a watered down amendment at the onset, promoted as a guaranteed right, will last?

Not that it actually matters now, as more than likely the rejected-by-committee proposal will never see the floor of the Legislature, but we have to ask ourselves whether it is better to fight for the best wording in an amendment that actually has some teeth, and risk losing, or to fight for a watered down quasi-right that in the end will cause us to lose anyway?

Share