Help please with this proposed amendment..............

What exactly does this proposed amendment to be voted on next week mean? It states that hunting and fishing is your constitutional right. Supposed to vote yes or no. Thanks.

It makes it harder for anti-hunters to infringe on our rights.

Think the correct vote is yes

Yes....and yes

Vote yes.......and vote often

Read a local editorial, where if it is passes as a constitutional right, it will give the government more and more control, with them passing more and more laws as they see fit..............this guy was against it. He said if anything has to do with "constitutional rights" the government can take away those rights as they see fit, or something to that extent.

As of now though, citizens don't have a "right" on the books to hunt. It would be harder to outlaw hunting if we had a constitutional right to hunt. If it weren't for the second amendment, gun ownership would have been outlawed long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottV

As of now though, citizens don't have a "right" on the books to hunt. It would be harder to outlaw hunting if we had a constitutional right to hunt. If it weren't for the second amendment, gun ownership would have been outlawed long ago.

---

Exactly right

I know this is a MS discussion............. But I just want to say Everyone of us were endowed by our creator the absolute right to partake in natures bounty in which he provided us..........

I understand the desire and probably the need nowaday's to qualify the right to hunt and fish..........The mere fact that something of such common sense needs to be clarified is just another display of the road our great country is headed down................

Lets don't turn this into a political debate and get this moved to Way Off Topic. Lets all just stick to the topic and go vote YES on this very important matter.

Good luck guys I know Tn passed this. And it gives us better ground to stand up to these tree hugging crazy fools..
Pete

speck's fault

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firebug2006

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

---

Thanks for posting, this is the exact article that I read.

Oh that Woukd be horrible,,,,lol.... I vote yes,,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firebug2006

There are some people legitimately concerned about the possible ramifications.
ROBERT W. NEILL Jr.: Be wary of a 'guarantee' to hunt and fish | Letters to the Editor | The Sun Herald

"While this amendment may sound good, it could very well open up a Pandora's box.Tinkering with the constitution often brings about unintended consequences. If this amendment passes and a constitutional right is established, it will be up to the courts to provide a remedy for any of the 3 million residents of the state who feel their "guarantee" to hunt and fish is being violated.
This may put pressure on public land managers to open unsuitable public lands and waters to hunting and fishing. Wildlife and marine regulators and the Legislature might be pressured to loosen regulations. Lawsuits could even conceivably impact private property owners."

---

That's what the Anti's want you to believe. I am voting yes. Some of the other states have had this amendment now for several years and its to protect us against the Anti's

If you read a artical or a editorial do a quick search of that person............ Most times you will discover groups or organizations the person belongs to that can give you a hint of the writers true motive..............I am pretty sure just from a very quick search Mr. Robert W. Neill Jr Is involved in some pretty left wing enviromental projects.................

A constitutional right to hunt does not gaurantee you an adequate place to hunt.................. If that were the case then every single person that hunts on WMA lands would be disenfranchised in relation to the people who hunt on private 10k acre clubs...................It just does not pass the common sense test.

Mr. Neills article is a scare tactic.........It is an attempt to make people think the woods are going to be choke full of 3 million new hunters............ And even if that turned out to be true thats not such a bad thing is it? that makes the sportsmans voice much more louder!

I didn't realize there were any Anti's.

I'm sure he means liberal tree huggers who don't want Bambi killed or white perch caught.

I was in and out in no time at all. Made my one mark on the ballot and was headed out to shop.