Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: 2nd amendment does not protect hunters - so says federal judge

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    2nd amendment does not protect hunters - so says federal judge

    http://bearingarms.com/judge-rules-s...tm_campaign=nl

    Kane said she could find no proof that courts have extended Second Amendment protections to include recreational hunting. She also found that the hunters could not prove that the law unfairly discriminated between classes of hunters or that the ban on Sunday hunting violates their religious freedoms.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    My first reaction is duh! The 2A is not about protecting hunting at all. Is the opinion published anywhere? I'd be more interested in what the judge determined 'was' protected by the 2A rather than what 'was not' (with respect to hunting).

    The decision would be useful to us if the judge went into great detail what activities were protected i.e. preservation of the citizen's militia (U.S. v. Miler) or self-defense (Heller v. D.C.).

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I went to her web site, that has a heading Opinions, with the most recent update 6/6/14.

    But I think it much ado about nothing, the state regulates hunting as it will, with no bearing on the 2A.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I went to her web site, that has a heading Opinions, with the most recent update 6/6/14.

    But I think it much ado about nothing, the state regulates hunting as it will, with no bearing on the 2A.
    Well, the antis keep trying to sell the idea that the 2A only protects hunting.

    The case could be good for us.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Well, the antis keep trying to sell the idea that the 2A only protects hunting. The case could be good for us.
    The antis will try to sell anything that will be bought, that's the point of fraud.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    The judge is correct, 2A is and never was about hunting, self defense, or permitted carry.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Well, the antis keep trying to sell the idea that the 2A only protects hunting.

    The case could be good for us.
    Good viewpoint ... + those people who are only concerned about their hunting rights might now wake up.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Well, they've been asleep for MANY decades so far, so I'm not sure anything will change now.

    After all, hunters -- as a group -- probably have been the most politically useless category of so-called "gun-owners" in that the vast majority of them (30 million?) have never joined or are members a pro-gun organization, such as the NRA, GOA, or whatever (and I'm not arguing the merits of those 2 orgs, just citing them as examples).

    Can you imagine a sudden 30-million influx of NRA, GOA (or whatever) members on the national political scene?

    But myopic hunters traditionally only do hunting, and couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment and/or RKBA issues, or target shooting even, as those issues "don't specifically apply to them."

    Well, "those issues" DO apply -- to us ALL -- so yeah, I hope hunters DO wake up (as a group) but doubt they will since they're much like Canadians (also as a group): As long as they have their trivia -- telly & beer -- they are blissfully ignorant and happy.

    Now...have I offended enough groups of people yet or do I need to continue? ;-)

    [a rhetorical question only]
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 06-23-2014 at 06:57 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The judge is correct, 2A is and never was about hunting, self defense, or permitted carry.
    +1 Those rights are also preexisting yet different than the purpose of the 2A.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Actually I think hunting is constitutionally covered under "...Pursuit of Happiness"....I have several happiness' mounted and hanging on my wall

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Considering our legal heritage in English common-law, an argument for the constitutionality of hunting would be interesting. Like making sausage it requires some license. Even now, and over the last decade, fox hunting has been banned.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    If it's not about a militia, the 2a doesn't apply.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    If it's not about a militia, the 2a doesn't apply.
    Wrong. Read the sentence. An armed people is a vital part of the militia yet a very seperat thing, notice the comma. If we were to say a scholars are important so the right of the people to have books shall not be infringed I doubt you'd be making the same twisted argument, yet the sentence structure would remain the same.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Well, they've been asleep for MANY decades so far, so I'm not sure anything will change now.

    After all, hunters -- as a group -- probably have been the most politically useless category of so-called "gun-owners" in that the vast majority of them (30 million?) have never joined or are members a pro-gun organization, such as the NRA, GOA, or whatever (and I'm not arguing the merits of those 2 orgs, just citing them as examples).

    Can you imagine a sudden 30-million influx of NRA, GOA (or whatever) members on the national political scene?

    But myopic hunters traditionally only do hunting, and couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment and/or RKBA issues, or target shooting even, as those issues "don't specifically apply to them."

    Well, "those issues" DO apply -- to us ALL -- so yeah, I hope hunters DO wake up (as a group) but doubt they will since they're much like Canadians (also as a group): As long as they have their trivia -- telly & beer -- they are blissfully ignorant and happy.

    Now...have I offended enough groups of people yet or do I need to continue? ;-)

    [a rhetorical question only]
    I spoke to many officers of CT Sportsman Assoc. in 2013, during hearings regarding anti-gun laws. They did not understand the natural right or 2nd amendment. I told them to go home and that they are embarrassing themselves.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Divide and conquer.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Divide and conquer.
    Push come to shove, they'll be on the antis-side.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Push come to shove, they'll be on the antis-side.
    I've met a few, I believe that, you're correct.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Wrong. Read the sentence. An armed people is a vital part of the militia yet a very seperat thing, notice the comma. If we were to say a scholars are important so the right of the people to have books shall not be infringed I doubt you'd be making the same twisted argument, yet the sentence structure would remain the same.
    Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    yes, because........

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?
    a "citizen" militia might be necessary to stand up against a standing military which is under the command of a "President" who at some times deems himself a dictator. If you take arms away from the citizenry, they have no ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?
    Powerful military is nothing compared to the will of armed citizens. In example~Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?
    It's nessessary to maintaining a free country. Don't give up what many countries do not have.


    And yes, I'm canadian.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
    a "citizen" militia might be necessary to stand up against a standing military which is under the command of a "President" who at some times deems himself a dictator. If you take arms away from the citizenry, they have no ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
    Constitutionally, the President has the power to call up the militia. In your opinion (because, really, that's all it is) is it constitutional for a citizen militia to call itself up to wage war against the democratically elected govt. of the people because they don't like the CIC.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Constitutionally, the President has the power to call up the militia. In your opinion (because, really, that's all it is) is it constitutional for a citizen militia to call itself up to wage war against the democratically elected govt. of the people because they don't like the CIC.
    The exclusion of key elements of a valid premise so as to substantiate the liberal false premise.....so typical of liberals to make stuff.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The exclusion of key elements of a valid premise so as to substantiate the liberal false premise.....so typical of liberals to make stuff.
    Was that your answer to the question about the constitutionality of taking up arms against the elected govt. or just typical GOTP deflection?

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?

    Yes. Armed citizens knowing how to use their guns is necessary for a free state.

    The army of the government is a nonsequitor to your question and something totally seperate, especially considering the 2A wasn't about protecting against the government said military works for.

    Also, because of the comment and as I pointed out the RKBA as written doesn't have to include the militia.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •