I'm doing research for the Nov Election and wanted to know:

[Guest uofmeet]

whats you guys thought about this

"CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Shall Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by adding the

following sentences at the end of the section:

The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable

regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any

private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state’s power to regulate commercial activity.

Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species."

[Oh Shoot]

Thought that already was enacted during last session or two?

Or was it just enacted to add it as a constitutional referendum, or what?

- OS

[Guest HvyMtl]

Um. Is this necessary? And a bit vague? "subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law" What is "reasonable?" What is the definition of "reasonable?"

What is reasonable to you will not be reasonable to PETA, or the Brady Bunch. Leaving this loop hole will enable the anti-gun lobby, and those who think we should not eat animals, to place what they deem are "reasonable" limitations.

And really, is this amendment necessary?

Leery of opening the constitutional sessions, as I wonder if it will allow other amendments to be presented and approved...

Edited October 4, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Rightwinger]

Keep it like it is now! It ain't broke, no fixin required.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Agreed. Any time you use a 'subject to' clause like that, you open the door for

political abuses. Oh, and that phrase about non threatened species is a precursor

for the further regulation of 'threatened' species. There is already too much of

that for the rest of history. Two words: Snail Darter

Edited October 4, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[Oh Shoot]

Thought that already was enacted during last session or two?

Or was it just enacted to add it as a constitutional referendum, or what?

- OS

Oh, okay, I had to refresh my memory.

Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (2010) - Ballotpedia

It IS on the ballot this Nov, with the exact wording in the OP.

I guess I'm on the "what does this actually change?" side?

- OS

[Fallguy]

Not sure "right" and "subject to" can really be used together.

[StPatrick]

Not sure "right" and "subject to" can really be used together.

Agree with the above...anybody know where hunters' / shooters' / fishermans' rights groups stand on this one?

This seems like a feel-good amendment, in that the federal government can enact laws and regulations that have supremacy over any state laws, enshrined in the state constitution or not. I'm not sure how to vote on this particular issue; the spirit is good, but where are the teeth, and what mechanisms will provide them? It's not like PETA and other anti-hunting / fishing groups have any traction in TN, so I am unsure what current or future problems this solves.

Currently, I'm inclined to vote "yes", but only as a message and reminder to our elected representatives and appointed officials. I don't see this as anything other than a reminder to them regarding which way the wind blows. Passing any kind of constitutional amendment is a very strong statement - it may be that this is a "just in case" backbone-supplement.

Edited October 5, 2010 by StPatrick
fishermens' is redundant; fixed.