Constitutional Amendment for Hunters Passes Tennessee House

[Marswolf]

http://www.newschannel9.com/articles/hunting_12976___article.html/fishing_constitution.html

The Tennessee House has unanimously passed a measure to amend the Tennessee Constitution to further protect the rights of hunters and fishermen.

House Joint Resolution 108 reads, "The citizens of this state have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish, subject to regulations and restrictions authorized by this constitution and prescribed by law. When reviewing such regulations and restrictions, a state court shall utilize a rational basis standard, as the standard has been defined by state courts through case law. This section shall not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, the state's sovereignty over game and fish, or regulation of commercial activities."

The measure passed the full House by a vote of 92-0. Mike Butler, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, expects the resolution to go before the Senate during the 2008 Legislative session. If it passes there, the resolution must again pass both the House and Senate during the 2008-2009 session by a two-thirds majority. It would then be placed on the ballot of the next gubernatorial election where it must receive a majority vote before it does indeed become a Constitutional Amendment.

The measure has been the subject of some controversy. Last the measure died when the National Rifle Association backed a change in the language that some felt would subject the state to unnecessary and potentially expensive, legal challenges. This year however, the NRA's objection to the current language was marginal at best.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Interesting... my first gut reaction (when I read the title) was that I would not want to separate out "hunters" from other firearm users... that is to say, I would worry about making a distinction on the purposes of firearms, as it opens the arguments against different types of usage (i.e. future possibility of easier "banning").

However, it doesn't even mention firearms in the Resolution, and seems to be a much more generalized statement regarding the rights of Tennessee citizens. So, while I don't personally hunt, it sounds like a good thing to me!

[Marswolf]

To be honest, I don't see exactly what this is for. There may be a constitutional right to hunt, fish, etc but if it is subject to the whim of "regulations and restrictions authorized by this constitution and prescribed by law" or a standard that "has been defined by state courts through case law" then you have a right as long as the legislature or courts says you can't do it - don't you?

I guess I don't see anything wrong with it, it just seems useless on a state level. Maybe this is intended to keep localities from doing a blanket ban on hunting or fishing? But if that is the purpose, I doubt it would have been a unanimous vote.

[molonlabetn]

Does a bona-fide 'right to hunt/fish' mean that residents of TN shouldn't need to be licensed to do so?

If not, then I see no purpose for this legislation...

[Guest Len]

If you need a license to do something, it would seem that doing that thing is not a right. (Shoot, I can't find my license to speech, dang, now I can't log on to TGO and talk about rights....)

So, this law either recognizes a right that does not exist, or we are currently in the business of issuing a license (that costs money) for something we should not need a license to do....

Seems useless at best, contradictory at worst.

Hmm...

I also have the same gut feeling as Hyaloid -carving out special rights for hunters may leave other gun owners behind in the future?

I don't know. I don't hunt so don't "have a dog in this hunt" (heh, heh, heh...) but it seems like more political grandstanding than actually addressing an issue that needs attention.

[molonlabetn]

I wonder if passively 'hunting' violent criminals is considered a 'right'...?

[Mike.357]

"The citizens of this state have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game and fish, subject to regulations and restrictions authorized by this constitution and prescribed by law.

Didn't we have this already?

state court shall utilize a rational basis standard

Court/rational can anyone say oxymoron

[Guest SomeGuy]

Though I fully support hunting (especially when it involves me eating deer), I have been opposed to this joke of an amendment pretty much since the original draft.

It is being written to be worthless, much like the way the TN Constitution was written and amended to be worthless when it came to carrying firearms on your person. (It acknowledges a right, but then says the legislature can limit the right, "with a view to prevent crime"). What a worthless joke.

[Marswolf]

Well, I think that's it. It passed the House unanimously because it doesn't do anything. It looks to me like it is just worthless.

[Guest Len]

From what I have read, it seems hunters (or more accurately the legislators looking to court their votes) are worried that sometime in the future, an animal rights group will be able to push through legislation outlawing hunting. And so this is a preemptive strike.

I suppose anything is possible, but it seems to me that there are many more pressing, current, issues that could be addressed before we get to this one. I think the overwhelming majority of people who give to animal rights organizations do so to support spay/neuter programs and programs to help homeless cats & dogs. This is a far cry from banning hunting. We can't even make cruelty to animals a felony in this state, and we're worried that these same groups are going to be able to get hunting banned? Give me a break.

[Marswolf]

It just doesn't seem to me that this amendment prevents the legislature or courts from banning hunting. This lion is toothless and clawless.