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

davidmcbeth · Jun 23, 2014

http://bearingarms.com/judge-rules-...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_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.

OC4me · Jun 23, 2014

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.).

Freedom1Man · Jun 23, 2014

Nightmare said:
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.

WalkingWolf · Jun 23, 2014

The judge is correct, 2A is and never was about hunting, self defense, or permitted carry.

davidmcbeth · Jun 23, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
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.

cloudcroft · Jun 23, 2014

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]

sudden valley gunner · Jun 23, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
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.

F350 · Jun 24, 2014

Actually I think hunting is constitutionally covered under "...Pursuit of Happiness"....I have several happiness' mounted and hanging on my wall

beebobby · Jun 24, 2014

If it's not about a militia, the 2a doesn't apply.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 24, 2014

beebobby said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Jun 24, 2014

cloudcroft said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Jun 24, 2014

Nightmare said:
Divide and conquer.

Push come to shove, they'll be on the antis-side.

Freedom1Man · Jun 25, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
Push come to shove, they'll be on the antis-side.

I've met a few, I believe that, you're correct.

beebobby · Jun 26, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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)?

RK3369 · Jun 26, 2014

yes, because........

beebobby said:
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.

WalkingWolf · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
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.

bchunter · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
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.

beebobby · Jun 26, 2014

RK3369 said:
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.

OC for ME · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
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.

beebobby · Jun 26, 2014

OC for ME said:
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?

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

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member