October 18, 2019

Political Militancy No Way To Govern

David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine pens an article in the September 2018 edition of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine News, called, “Political Militancy No Way to Govern.” I applaud his words and his effort. However…

The article mostly focuses on the efforts of three Maine legislators who have chosen to target the Kittery Trading Post to force them to stop selling “assault-style” weapons and to raise the age to 21 to be able to purchase what is called a “long gun.”

Of these three legislators and others nationally, Trahan writes: “For many reasons these Legislators, and others at the national level, like Maxine Waters, have stepped over a serious ethical line. As a past State Senator and Representative, I understand elected Legislators have exceptional power to change laws that could negatively impact a business or organization they don’t agree with – like Kittery Trading Post.

“When three Maine lawmakers and their followers decided to target one company, instead of introducing a policy change through legislation (a Legislator’s job) that would have rightly affected all similar Maine companies, they become “political militants”, not policy makers.”

Let’s turn the clock back just a wee bit shall we?

Last year Maine passed LD 557, a law that inequitably targets hunters and fishermen if they are caught destroying property. No other group or individuals are included in this doling out of unjustifiable increased punishment. I believe the correct terminology that represents such unlawful targeting of one group or individual over another is “unconstitutional animus.”

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine was a major promoter of this law which makes little sense when you consider the words of David Trahan against the three Maine legislators who he feels have “crossed a serious ethical line” by targeting Kittery Trading Post.

Perhaps Trahan, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and the Maine¬†Legislature went further in the destruction of due process than the three Maine legislators targeting Kittery Trading Post. What the three legislators did may have crossed a perceived ethical boundary, what Maine and the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine did was, in my opinion, a direct violation of individual rights and that of due process.

Simply taking the action of “policy change” have never guaranteed that passed laws are not in violation of a person’s rights. Such is the case involving LD 557.

My call is to the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine to seek to repeal LD 557, especially in view of the facts of the statement made in the article written by the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

Passage of and the promotion of LD 557 was nothing more than just another form of political militancy, which we have read is “no way to govern.” SAM should practice what they preach.

 

Share

Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishing
licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

 

Share