Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-14-10 03:05 AM
Original message |
Hunting and Fishing amendment |
|
On the Arkansas ballot: "Amending the Arkansas Constitution to provide for a constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife"
What the heck is the motive behind this? Since Arkansans have always had these rights, provided they follow the rules, I don't see the compelling need to write it into the state constitution, unless there is some ulterior motive behind it (like legalizing the use of inhumane traps or methods for "harvesting" wildlife). Can someone explain what this is all about?
|
SteveM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-18-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Can't say about Arkansas, but many states have taken similar actions... |
|
to give fishing and (most especially) hunting a stronger status than regular legislative acts and regulations, all in an attempt to thwart anti-hunting special interest groups who use legislative means to restrict (most often) hunting. In effect, if an anti-hunting group wanted to "ban" hunting, they would have to go the constitutional right in a given state, a tougher tow to hoe.
Note: hunting, unlike the right to keep and bear arms, does not enjoy constitutional protection at the federal level. It can at the state level.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 10:10 PM
Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
wclarkfan_1978
(50 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-18-11 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
Hestia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-25-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I voted against it, why should hunting & fishing get some sort of protective status? |
robt6750
(50 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-27-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
Bryn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-28-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I was told that it was meant to lure in more voters. |
|
Republicans' trick because those voters tend to be R.
|
dem3550
(50 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-25-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
sinkingfeeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-29-10 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
PRYORcommitment
(5 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-29-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Watch Former U.S. Attorney Iglesias rip into Tim Griffin http://bit.ly/bzpx5z |
|
Votes like these are just soft balls for progressives like Joyce Elliott. A constitutional amendment that essentially does nothing, but provides plenty of cover for pushing back against NRA loons.
|
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-28-11 09:40 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I mean...what is this doing here? Isn't it a mute point?
Most of the time if I see something I don't understand I skip it and move on, this time I voted against it.
|
Hestia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Hi Don't - boy we are a quiet bunch. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun Sep 28th 2025, 04:10 AM
Response to Original message |