KYGlockster
Activist Member
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?
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.
Last edited: