US District judge finds no 2nd Am protection for hunting

[Malamute]

Which shouldnt surprise anyone, because that's not what the primary reason the 2nd was for, though some of the background information is interesting. It seems that Pennsylvania wanted to include hunting and fishing in a Bill of Rights.

Blog post here,

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.co ... nting.html

be sure to follow the link in the text (I'll make it easy)

http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/06/19/no- ... r-hunting/

and read John Richardsons comments on 6-21 @ 12:22 pm. His link is interesting reading, note section 7 and 8.

As usual, the comments/discussion are some of the best parts of blogs. I guess some people don't read the comments.

[FWiedner]

Maybe it's not the point being made, but why would acknowledging a right to hunt and fish be in any way contingent on the Second Amendment?

That's like saying that a citizen doesn't necessarily have the right to keep and bear arms because it's not supported by the First Amendment.

Exercising one right is not be contingent upon being 'permitted' to exercise another.

While The Founders understood that arms had to be in private hands to serve any anticipated militia reqirement, they made the specific point that such was not the only consideration, and I'm going to disagree straight out with the idea that a part of the considered intent of the Second Amendment was not to preserve the ability to hunt, because at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified that is exactly how a great many American citizens put food on their table.

While hunting is now considered more a quaint tradition rather than necessity, the preservation of that utility was absolutely a part of the considered original intent of The Founders. It falls under the category of protecting life and limb. Survival means eating on a regular basis as much as it does being able to keep the wolf from your door.

When the sophmoric comment "It ain't about duck hunting..." starts getting waved around, one would be more correct in stating that "It's not JUST about duck hunting..."

JMO.

[Old Ironsights]

The Judge is absolutely correct. Hunting is a social/State privelege based upon common law and NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Am has NOTHING to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with having the uninfringed Right to "repel boarders", be they foreign invaders, common thugs or the .gov (but I repear myself..)

Hunting is a 10th Am/States Rights issue (even on "federal" lands...) not a Constitutional one.

As far as PA wanting to add hunting/fishing Rights to THEIR Constitution? I agree 1000%. ... just don't try to use the 2nd Am as a cornerstone. It's not applicable.

[FWiedner]

Not every 'Constitutional' right is enumerated in the document.

[Old Ironsights]

Not every 'Constitutional' right is enumerated in the document.

Yep. Those Rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Pretty simple, actually.

The "Right to Hunt" trumps neither Property Rights ("Life Liberty and Property"("pursuit of happiness")) nor States Rights.

(Now, ask me about what I think about hunting on YOUR personally held property...)

[Centennial]

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~If you er on the side of freedom, liberty, common law, the mood & events of the times it was written down; It is easy to determine the intent of the 9th Amendment.
If you er even a little bit on the side of a Progressive/leftie everything then becomes grey, ambiguous, and you open yourself to all kinds of traps, compromises, and dictatorships.~

[Old Ironsights]

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people...

Definately a better argument than RKBA...

[AJMD429]

This could actually be a GOOD thing, as so often, we are told that EBR's or whatever the latest Boogey-Gun is, are "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes" or "you don't need a ____ to go hunting"...

That, coupled with the vast majority of NRA members still being recreational shooters and hunters, who don't want to appear "politically incorrect", has resulted in many gun laws unsuccessfully challenged because the guns in question were not typically used for 'hunting', and the outcry from the 'sporting community' was minimal-to-none, so the bad law got passed. The 1986 'Machine Gun Ban' is a classic example.

As a libertarian, I do agree though, that merely because a right is not "enumerated" in the Constitution does NOT mean it is not a fundamental right. Certainly the 'Left' knows that, as they invent preposterous 'rights' all the time, like you have the 'right' to be gay [which libertarians, along with most people, support], but then they extend that to mean that employers can't fire gays, which sounds ok on the surface, but when they are really fired due to incompetence or dishonesty, they allege their employer is just firing them because of their gay-ness, and since that is a 'right', that the employer isn't allowed to do it. THAT is so wrong, but they do it regarding gender, age, 'orientation', religion, and so on. Too bad they don't say that any time a CCW-holder is fired (for any reason), that the employer has to re-hire them and apologize for discriminating against them for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Hopefully, the forces of Liberty will prevail in the court of public opinion.

[Malamute]

Several good comments. I'm curious to see if it enters the general discussion on guns and gun control. Many suggest that some guns are too scary for common people to own, and have no sporting purpose, which we know isn't really a valid part of the discussion. The other side of that coin, hopefully it will in fact wake some people up and get them on board with not choosing "good" guns over "bad" guns when the talk of controls comes up. Throwing some under the bus to supposedly keep the "good" ones isn't realistically going to appease anyone.

[cshold]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/ ... el-waldman

[AJMD429]

. . . hopefully it will in fact wake some people up and get them on board with not choosing "good" guns over "bad" guns when the talk of controls comes up. Throwing some under the bus to supposedly keep the "good" ones isn't realistically going to appease anyone.

Not to start another madman4570 vs. OI and AJ feud, but one of the problems is that as 'conservatives', many of have already endorsed the same "good guns vs. bad guns" concept when it comes to "good drugs vs. bad drugs", and that has damaged our credibility as well as set some dangerous legal precedents.

[TomD]

. . . hopefully it will in fact wake some people up and get them on board with not choosing "good" guns over "bad" guns when the talk of controls comes up. Throwing some under the bus to supposedly keep the "good" ones isn't realistically going to appease anyone.

Not to start another madman4570 vs. OI and AJ feud, but one of the problems is that as 'conservatives', many of have already endorsed the same "good guns vs. bad guns" concept when it comes to "good drugs vs. bad drugs", and that has damaged our credibility as well as set some dangerous legal precedents.

Does it anywhere say the right to keep and bear guns? The idea that there are good arms and bad arms is virtually universally accepted so why should it not apply to drugs. In the case of arms you can't have sarin gas, nukes, or many other arms considered military only. Many gun types remain heavily restricted. Short barrel shotguns, quiet guns, "cop killer" bullets, etc... The US bans many guns, or ways of marketing guns, that even Canada allows. We can get an 8" shotgun (who knows why people want them), for just showing up. When you ban guns Canada allows you have some navel gazing to do.

And in addition to that, you can't sell dangerous drugs that do not meet quality, or efficacy standards, in theory. Same thing with guns/arms, if they were made of pot metal, you would soon find a regulatory regime to take them off the market. All recreational drugs are dangerous by definition since they are not FDA approved, do not meet any manufacturing standards, and routinely kill or maim people. Even those with considerable expertise who follow best practices.

I get that you want all recreational drugs, no mater what legalized. You just can't use the argument that there is some special thing about the way guns are sold that has already set a standard you can rely on. And anyway, the framers said squat about drugs.

[horsesoldier03]

I love to hunt, but I will give up hunting before I give up my gun rights. I prefer to keep Hunting and the 2nd Amendment separate and agree with the judge. If the 2nd amendment was ever allowed to be associated as securing our hunting rights, the anti-gunners may quickly lose sight that it also secures our right/obligation to protect ourselves, family and country.

Soon the argument may shift to, if the 2nd Amendment is for hunting, why do we need assault rifles and defensive oriented weapons?

[Malamute]

I love to hunt, but I will give up hunting before I give up my gun rights. I prefer to keep Hunting and the 2nd Amendment separate and agree with the judge. If the 2nd amendment was ever allowed to be associated as securing our hunting rights, the anti-gunners may quickly lose sight that it also secures our right/obligation to protect ourselves, family and country.

Soon the argument may shift to, if the 2nd Amendment is for hunting, why do we need assault rifles and defensive oriented weapons?

That is exactly how it has been attempted to be framed in many recent discussions, and why I felt it important and interesting that the decision came as it did. The erroneous and misleading comment by former Gen McChrystal comes to mind, wherein he declared the 5.56/223 to be too powerful for deer hunting, it was a particularly devastating round meant only for warfare and civilians had no reason to posses a gun so chambered.

The long term requirements under the Gun Control Act of '68 also uses the erroneous and false standard of being" suitable for sporting purposes" for criteria to import guns. This recent ruling should be used to have that clause thrown out on its ear.

[AJMD429]

I get that you want all recreational drugs, no mater what legalized. You just can't use the argument that there is some special thing about the way guns are sold that has already set a standard you can rely on. And anyway, the framers said squat about drugs.

Well, they said "squat" about a lot of things, other than the ninth and tenth amendments, which aren't all that difficult to interpret.

As far as the 'commonly accepted' regulations about guns, such as machine-gun bans, and so on, we ARE seeing how they set precedents that enable semi-auto bans, then when those don't work, they want to ban 'military' chambered firearms, then ones that aren't accurate enough to be good for target shooting, then the ones that are accurate are called 'sniper' guns, and so on. We ARE seeing how there is not clear line between 'good' guns and 'bad' guns, and it is causing problems legislatively.

There is at least a fairly clear delineation between 'weapons of mass destruction' like nerve gas, nukes, and weaponized anthrax, vs. the hand or shoulder-fired firearms. And yes, there is a similar distinction between drugs that endanger other/innocent parties (such as most antibiotics, if carelessly used), and drugs that are just 'scary' (like pot or mushrooms or that sort of stuff), and drugs that are potent and dangerous, but not particularly likely to harm others (LSD, heroin, etc.).

Anyway, my intent was not to drift the thread to 'drugs' - we have enough problems with GUN regulations... I just think we'd be wise to keep in mind the example before us as the government does so many counterproductive and questionably-legal things under the umbrella of the 'War on Drugs'.

When it becomes the SAME logic, and parallel laws and legal reasoning, only it is the 'War on Guns', don't say I didn't warn you.

Freedom and Liberty is not something you can just take bits and pieces of that suit you; you are either a free person or a 'subject', and the fact that some of us only have a handful of freedoms WE care about, and ones WE are willing to fight for, is a far bigger problem than the anti-freedom tyrants we all face. If those who want freedom were man-enough and willing to have the responsibility to EARN that freedom, they wouldn't spend half their time thinking of things their neighbor does that they want to outlaw. If you can't accept the fact that your neighbor uses pot instead of booze to relax on Friday, then don't be surprised when he doesn't like the fact that you own firearms.