Right to Hunt Constitutional Amendment

09jisaac said:

Because up until now, the state government had no legitimate claim to the wildlife. Anyone could have (if they pushed hard enough) took the government to court and claim that the government had no authority to pass such a law. Now that claim is dead, because the people gave them the authority.

And we can be denied the "right" because we just gave the government power to do it. It would be a hard to say that shooting an innocent deer for sport meets the definition of "conservation". Conservation: the act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation. So as long as it is protecting the species we want to hunt, the the law is valid, right?

As soon as an animal population drops somewhere in the state (it don't matter if it is thriving here) then they can ban hunting of that animal elsewhere and now we have no way to challenge that legitimacy. How many white tailed deer do you see in and around Louisville?

Click to expand...

Could you please tell me how one could argue that the state -- the supreme power -- does not have authority to pass a law or regulation? This would never work.

The amendment clearly states that we now have a "personal right" to hunt and fish by means of traditional methods (methods already in place). When someone has a right protected by the constitution it cannot be denied.

The state has ALWAYS had the ability to regulate and legislate any and all activities that are not protected by the Constitution, and the new amendment still allows them to regulate, but only in ways that will promote conservation while PROTECTING our right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

Before this amendment passed we had NO constitutional protections to harvest wildlife, and now we do have those protections. Before this amendment was passed the State could have COMPLETELY banned hunting and harvesting wildlife, and we would have had NO grounds to challenge the ban on. The state legislature can enact any law they please unless the KY Constitution provides otherwise or unless the statute would violate the US Constitution.

On what grounds could we have challenged a law before this amendment became part of our Constitution? We would have had no grounds, other than we did not approve or like the law. This is not a sufficient argument in a courtroom, and would never work. The court would simply tell us to encourage our legislators to amend or rescind the statute in question. Now every law passed will have to be judged on whether it infringes on our right to harvest wildlife.

I disagree with the premise that wildlife on your own land is subject to "management" by the state. Granted, dropping a dear in your (.20 acre lot) backyard is and should be regulated. A land owner must have exclusive hunting rights over his land regardless of the date and time of day and without state intervention or sanctions. The regulation of game on private property is anti-liberty.

KYGlockster said:

Could you please tell me how one could argue that the state -- the supreme power -- does not have authority to pass a law or regulation? This would never work.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken my friend, WE (the people) are the supreme power. Constitutions SHOULD NEVER be used to tell the government what they do not have the authority to do. It should always be say what they have authority to do.

Much of this mess that we have is because the government thinks that they are the rulers and they have no limits besides what is named. What other things should the government be allowed to take, just because we don't have constitutional protection from it? Should they be allowed to pass laws that everyone has to wear dress clothes on Sunday? Should they be allowed to limit your freedom of travel?

The government should only have the powers that WE (the people) give them, not what they decide they should take.

My argument in court? That governments only have authorities, where do they get that authority? From the people, did the people give them (specifically or implied) that power? Now they did.


I agree with OC for Me, it is none of the governments business what I do on my own land. I know of deer that have lived most of their life on property owned solely by my family (they like to stay around cattle and cattle feed), who should be allowed to tell me I cannot harvest them?

09jisaac said:

You are mistaken my friend, WE (the people) are the supreme power. Constitutions SHOULD NEVER be used to tell the government what they do not have the authority to do. It should always be say what they have authority to do.

Much of this mess that we have is because the government thinks that they are the rulers and they have no limits besides what is named. What other things should the government be allowed to take, just because we don't have constitutional protection from it? Should they be allowed to pass laws that everyone has to wear dress clothes on Sunday? Should they be allowed to limit your freedom of travel?

The government should only have the powers that WE (the people) give them, not what they decide they should take.

My argument in court? That governments only have authorities, where do they get that authority? From the people, did the people give them (specifically or implied) that power? Now they did.


I agree with OC for Me, it is none of the governments business what I do on my own land. I know of deer that have lived most of their life on property owned solely by my family (they like to stay around cattle and cattle feed), who should be allowed to tell me I cannot harvest them?

Click to expand...

Except that in our state 4 Justices decide what powers the Constitution gives to the government. Just like when they decided that the legislature did actually have the power to regulate firearms in areas other than concealed carry despite what the Constitution clearly says.

KYGlockster said:

Just thought I would remind everyone here that has thought about not voting on November 6th about some important items on the ballot.

We are voting for a constitutional amendment that protects our right to hunt and fish in Kentucky and we need to head to the polls to vote "yes" on this issue.

We are also having some important congressional races in Kentucky this election and we need to get out and support our candidates in these races.

Even if you have decided to ignore the presidential election -- which I hope you haven't -- you still should get to the polls and vote for these other important issues and candidates.

Click to expand...

KYG did you get your state constitutional amendment?

Shoobee said:

KYG did you get your state constitutional amendment?

Click to expand...

Yes, by about a million votes

09jisaac said:

You are mistaken my friend, WE (the people) are the supreme power. Constitutions SHOULD NEVER be used to tell the government what they do not have the authority to do. It should always be say what they have authority to do.

Much of this mess that we have is because the government thinks that they are the rulers and they have no limits besides what is named. What other things should the government be allowed to take, just because we don't have constitutional protection from it? Should they be allowed to pass laws that everyone has to wear dress clothes on Sunday? Should they be allowed to limit your freedom of travel?

The government should only have the powers that WE (the people) give them, not what they decide they should take.

My argument in court? That governments only have authorities, where do they get that authority? From the people, did the people give them (specifically or implied) that power? Now they did.


I agree with OC for Me, it is none of the governments business what I do on my own land. I know of deer that have lived most of their life on property owned solely by my family (they like to stay around cattle and cattle feed), who should be allowed to tell me I cannot harvest them?

Click to expand...

HAHA. I don't think I am mistaken.

You could go before a court and argue your logic all you want, but it will get you nowhere. All you need to do is research millions of past cases that have came before the courts concerning issues such as these to realize without something telling the government they can't do something, then they can do so.

Where did they get the powers to do so? We voted them to be our representatives, and by doing so we allow them to make decisions for us concerning legislation. How do we change that legislation? We remove them from office by voting for someone else.

How is something judged in court as to whether a body of government had the authority to regulate a certain subject? In this country, it is based on governments' constitutions and bill of rights, and whether there are already laws on the books that prohibit regulation.

A constitution states what a government can and cannot do. A bill of rights states what the government cannot do to the people and the rights that are protected by the relevant bill of rights to the people.

Unfortunately in this country, unless something is specifically protected by a bill of rights, or prohibited by a constitution, then the courts have stated the government can regulate.

The STATES particularly have supreme authority to regulate pretty much anything they please, and they often do.

Constitutions are written to devise how a government will operate, to delegate powers and to protect the rights of the people affected by the government through a bill of rights.

What if the federal government came out and stated that hunting was no longer allowed because the EPA or some other alphabet agency decided to ban this substance or that substance, or that hunting was an environmental tragedy, blah - blah. We now have a Constitutional provision that protects our right to hunt with "traditional" methods, and would circumvent any such nonsense.

You could argue all day that the government doesn't have the power to do something (if you could even get your suit heard), but without proof and reasoning you will go nowhere.

Let's take Illinois for instance. This state has prohibited its citizens from exercising the right to bear arms in any way for years and years. Some have tried to argue that the state does not have the authority to completely prohibit its citizens from bearing arms, but they still do. The Illinois Constitution clearly states that people have a right to arms "subject to the police powers of the State." Even though the US Constitution states the PEOPLE have a right to keep and BEAR, the Illinois Constitution does not, and therefore they continue to deny this right to their citizens, and the courts have ruled they have that right.

If we do not have constitutional protections then we have nothing. Yes, this is sad, but it is becoming more and more true everyday.

gutshot said:

They did. The results:OBAMA 60,085,524 ROMNEY 57,401,992

2.5 million vote margin for Obama.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the final results confirmed. However, many states had already given their votes to Obama before the polls had even closed in that state.

Apparently there must be alot of ignorant people in this Country to vote Obama back in office, or a bunch of dead people voted for him again.

MrOverlay said:

Except that in our state 5 Justices decide what powers the Constitution gives to the government. Just like when they decided that the legislature did actually have the power to regulate firearms in areas other than concealed carry despite what the Constitution clearly says.

Click to expand...

"In areas other than 'concealed' carry?" Do you mean in areas other than "open" carry? The legislature CAN regulate concealed firearms all they want.

Or has there been an actual ruling where they stated they CAN'T regulate "concealed" carry even though the Constitution states concealed carry is the only area concerning carry that they CAN regulate?

KYGlockster said:

"In areas other than 'concealed' carry?" Do you mean in areas other than "open" carry? The legislature CAN regulate concealed firearms all they want.

Or has there been an actual ruling where they stated they CAN'T regulate "concealed" carry even though the Constitution states concealed carry is the only area concerning carry that they CAN regulate?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I poorly worded that. The Constitution says the legislature is restricted to areas concerning concealed carry. However, the SC of Kentucky ruled that that was not absolute. They can legislate in areas of firearms law that deal with matters other than concealed carry. An example would be Eary V Commonwealth and Posey V Commonwealth if I read them correctly.

MrOverlay said:

Yes, by about a million votes

Click to expand...

Congrats then, my friend.

Hopefully your state DFW will manage the public lands better than Calif DFG has. Most of our public lands have been picked clean. There is still hope here though on the semi-private and the private lands. These are being managed here much more successfully for hunters.

It looks like the DFW concept that has emerged almost everywhere is state control of both private and public lands, but mostly just in order to tax it, to finance the regulation of it.

It seems to me that private lands should be private and not subject to state control of hunting. But that's not normally how it goes.

Good luck and good hunting!

KYGlockster said:

Yeah, the final results confirmed. However, many states had already given their votes to Obama before the polls had even closed in that state.

Apparently there must be alot of ignorant people in this Country to vote Obama back in office, or a bunch of dead people voted for him again.

Click to expand...

You conveniently left out boxes of ballots floating along the Florida shore, and freshly filled out ballots after Nov 6 in places such as Texas.

Corruption is not a new thing. That's why we have an FBI that is supposed to hunt this down. They are good at catching criminals, so if you don't hear about it then there is no need to ass-u-me that your Red team lost because the Blue team cheated better than yours did.

The 5 stages of grief include denial, anger, depression, and finally acceptance. Sounds like you are still a long way off from accepting the will of all the people. Good luck as you go through that process.

The morning-after pundits on the news talk shows give a quite different reason rather than cheating --

- The Red team was at a disadvantage as challengers, as challengers always are, and while the red candidates were spending money beating up on each other during the primaries, the Blue team was out registering new voters to vote;

- The Red team was misinformed by FOX News all along, and their pollsters were inept, although they kept up a good game face;

- Romney's backgroun with Bain Capital LLCD was the focus of the Blue teams attack ads, during a time when CEOs and MBAs have a very poor record of success in elections (check out Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman and their failure to attract voters in California), which became very successful ads painting Romney as another vulture;

- the effect of the T-party, which is viewed as extremist and far from humane or mainstream;

- the alienation of Latino/Latina voters even since the Red team primary process;

- the obvious unity of African Americans behind the Blue team candidate due to their similar ethnicity and race;

- the alienation of women voters who voted 55% for the Blue team, which continues to uphold abortion rights enforced at the federal level with Roe v Wade, which is probably bad law, but which is a hot button;

- the combined demographics which all came together like another perfect storm against the Red team, which is mostly lilly white;

- pure stupidity around comments within the Red team about the 47%, rape and childbirth, contraception, and so forth.

So I don't think many dead people voted for the Blue team at all. And I'm not worried about the boxes floating along the Florida shore. Or the fresh ink on Texas ballots after Nov 6.

Note also that states do not "give" their "votes" to anyone. The Electoral College has not even convened yet to give any votes to anyone.

Romney conceded the election based on the exit polling conducted by his vast politcal machine, and reported precints, when he found out he cannot win.

This amendment will make it to where the people will have the final decision as to whether a type of hunting or fishing will be banned.

Since this is now in our Constitution, then anything that would ban the right would have to be put to a vote before the people of KY; based on the vote to approve this amendment, I don't think the people would EVER vote to deny a right they just voted to protect.

Before, the legislature could ban anything; now ONLY the people can decide whether they want to ban a certain type of hunting or fishing.

The Amendment states, "subject to laws and regulations that promote conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing." The laws must preserve the future of hunting and fishing while at the same time acting to conserve the wild-animal populations in this state.

It is in the Constitution! Hunting will not be banned unless the people say so.

MrOverlay said:

Perhaps I poorly worded that. The Constitution says the legislature is restricted to areas concerning concealed carry. However, the SC of Kentucky ruled that that was not absolute. They can legislate in areas of firearms law that deal with matters other than concealed carry. An example would be Eary V Commonwealth and Posey V Commonwealth if I read them correctly.

Click to expand...

In Eary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 198 (1983) the Kentucky Supreme Court
expressly recognized that the right to bear arms is subject to the state’s reasonable exercise of its
inherent police powers to protect the public health and safety. The Eary court upheld the
constitutionality of a statute which prohibited convicted FELONS from possessing handguns. The
Eary holding recognizes that the right to bear arms under Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky
Constitution is not absolute. In other words, while Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky
Constitution secures a right to bear arms, it does not define the scope of that right in absolute
terms.

I find the Eary ruling to be sound. I agree that the majority of felons should not have a right to bear arms, but I do NOT agree that all convicted felons should lose that right. I also recognize case law and common law that has upheld such restrictions date back to before the founding of this Country.

In Posey v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is constitutional. The court found that the statute does not violate a person’s inalienable “right to bear arms” granted under Kentucky’s Bill of Rights.

Again, same type of situation; I can find this legitimate to an extent. People who are convicted of non-violent felonies should not lose their right to arms in my opinion. I don't mean ALL non-violent felonies, but those where there was not a victim involved in the crime (drug use, etc.).

KYGlockster said:

In Eary v. Commonwealth, Ky., 659 S.W.2d 198 (1983) the Kentucky Supreme Court
expressly recognized that the right to bear arms is subject to the state’s reasonable exercise of its
inherent police powers to protect the public health and safety. The Eary court upheld the
constitutionality of a statute which prohibited convicted FELONS from possessing handguns. The
Eary holding recognizes that the right to bear arms under Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky
Constitution is not absolute. In other words, while Section 1, Seventh of the Kentucky
Constitution secures a right to bear arms, it does not define the scope of that right in absolute
terms.

I find the Eary ruling to be sound. I agree that the majority of felons should not have a right to bear arms, but I do NOT agree that all convicted felons should lose that right. I also recognize case law and common law that has upheld such restrictions date back to before the founding of this Country.

In Posey v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a statute prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is constitutional. The court found that the statute does not violate a person’s inalienable “right to bear arms” granted under Kentucky’s Bill of Rights.

Again, same type of situation; I can find this legitimate to an extent. People who are convicted of non-violent felonies should not lose their right to arms in my opinion. I don't mean ALL non-violent felonies, but those where there was not a victim involved in the crime (drug use, etc.).

Click to expand...

My point is that although the Constitution says clearly that the legislature is limited to concealed weapons legislation, the SC and apparently you (no offense intended) agree that there are exceptions to that clear reading. The next SC that visits this area may also find that they think other exceptions are also good public policy. Sort of the beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing.

So my original point was the Constitution means what 4 SC Justices says it means, regardless of what we think.

09jisaac said:

You are mistaken my friend, WE (the people) are the supreme power. Constitutions SHOULD NEVER be used to tell the government what they do not have the authority to do. It should always be say what they have authority to do.
...SNIP

Click to expand...

Actually, Government should and must be limited to what it is specifically authorized under the Constitution and PROHIBITED from acting in areas where NOT AUTHORIZED BY the Constitution... but I knew what you tried to say...
Sure wish we could do this FEDERALLY!

MrOverlay said:

My point is that although the Constitution says clearly that the legislature is limited to concealed weapons legislation, the SC and apparently you (no offense intended) agree that there are exceptions to that clear reading. The next SC that visits this area may also find that they think other exceptions are also good public policy. Sort of the beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing.

So my original point was the Constitution means what 4 SC Justices says it means, regardless of what we think.

Click to expand...

No offense taken. I believe it is just good sense to not allow violent felons to walk around armed. Beyond that, I don't believe firearms should be legislated in any other way. If one commits a violent crime against another person, then they surrender certain rights that they would have had if they had chose to not hurt others. I will say that we must take all sections of the Constitution of Kentucky into consideration when we are discussing such an issue, and not just the one amendment. We must take into consideration the manuscripts and writings of those that have written the Constitution for their intent and meaning. We must take into consideration the entire language of the Amendment.

The KY Constitution states, "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State..." This does not say the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" like the US Constitution states. This says we have a right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and of the State, and that the GA can deny the ability to conceal arms.

The Amendment does not say the right is absolute, or that it shall not be infringed. Yes, it maintains that strict scrutiny must be given to any legislation that pertains to the right to bear arms (openly), but that is as far as it goes.

Like I said, I would have written it so that nobody could say firearms or other weapons could be legislated in ANY way, except that you would lose the right if you done violence to someone.

I would like to see this Amendment strengthened just like Louisiana has done to theirs. Our Amendment and Louisiana's were nearly identical, and their liberal court destroyed their arms protections to where they no longer had a protected right.

I agree that a few people in robes should NOT be the ones that determine what something means, but the entire population of the State should be the ones to do so. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and unless we amend the Constitution to allow the people the final say in the Constitutionality of questionable legislation, or the intent of Constitutional Articles and Sections, then the men and women in robes will continue to determine our future for us.

gutshot said:

I don't believe it is all that clear. If it said that the GA was allowed to regulate "only" concealed carry, that would be clear. What is clear, is that the GA does prohibit OC in schools and "loaded" OC in bars. In addition to that, the Ky. Administrative Regulations (KAR) prohibit OC in several places. This means that the Legislative and Executive branches both think they can regulate OC. The Judicial branch thinks they can, too, because they do. So, all three branches of the state government think they have the power to regulate OC. Where do you hope to turn for support for the idea that they can't? I doubt that any one of them is going to tell any other of them that they can't. When the original language ("the right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned") of the Ky. Constitution was removed 1891, this argument was lost. As a matter of fact, that language was copied from the Pennsylvania Constitution and even though those words still remain intact in that document, Pa. still regulates OC in much the same manner as Ky. Maybe, there never was a winning argument that the Commonwealth of Ky. can't regulate OC.

Click to expand...

I believe all of the restrictions you mention were adopted after the current Constitution was adopted. One could argue that they are in direct conflict with the current Constitution, and I would based on what to me at least is the "clear" reading of the sentence in question. However, that is more of an academic arguement as the ship has already left the dock. A strenthing of that particular right, by Constitutional amendment might be an interesting venture though. Hmmm.

My original point, which I think got lost along the way, was that regardless of what we think the Constitution says, it ultimately depends on what 4 SC Justices think it says.

MrOverlay said:

...

My original point, which I think got lost along the way, was that regardless of what we think the Constitution says, it ultimately depends on what 4 SC Justices think it says.

Click to expand...

You are correct, precisely. And this bears repeating for the Federal Constitution and Federal Amendments also.

We as armchair amateurs forget at times that we are not supreme court justices.

Excellent point.

The high I/Q people will get that, while the low I/Q people will never get anything.

gutshot said:

I don't think that point was missed and doubt you'll find much disagreement.

Click to expand...

No disagreement here.

I believe we should protect "Jury Nullification" in our State Constitution.

I also believe we should make the "People" the final determination of whether something is Constitutional or not.

The people will be the ones that will have to amend the Constitution in order to have this new Amendment amended; that is of course if the Court that is being spoke of determines that a type of hunting or fishing CANNOT (if someone tried to challenge the issue in court) be banned because the new Amendment, and the GA actually passed a bill that would amend the new Amendment to allow the GA to ban hunting or fishing, and sent it to the people to decide upon. I don't believe the GA would allow an anti-hunting bill to amend the Constitution (the new Amendment) to get that far.

It it was challenged, and the Court rules that hunting or fishing could still be banned, then the Amendment is completely worthless (because the SC would have destroyed it). I don't believe this would happen with the current Justices, but I have witnessed stranger things.