Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1 (2016)

[jamil]

Yeah, they do tend to muddle the language on those sometimes. I can usually figure out how I want to vote on them but as for the judges, I have no idea.

OT: sometimes putting signs in your yard can have the opposite affect. For example if every day for the past couple of months you drive by the same yard filled with Democrat signs, and that yard also has school board candidates and judges, you kinda remember those names when it's time to vote. Sometimes, it's not as much about who to vote for, but who to vote against.

Here's the language of what appears on the ballot (for reference).

So the intent being, if you want to forever prevent PETA types from passing silly laws against hunting, vote 'yes'. I'm still not confident that this will actually do that. I may try some google-fu to find the specific wording for the change to the state constitution.

ETA: Not that it matters. I already voted 'yes'.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OT: sometimes putting signs in your yard can have the opposite affect. For example if every day for the past couple of months you drive by the same yard filled with Democrat signs, and that yard also has school board candidates and judges, you kinda remember those names when it's time to vote. Sometimes, it's not as much about who to vote for, but who to vote against.



So the intent being, if you want to forever prevent PETA types from passing silly laws against hunting, vote 'yes'. I'm still not confident that this will actually do that. I may try some google-fu to find the specific wording for the change to the state constitution.

ETA: Not that it matters. I already voted 'yes'.

I haven't dug into it but 19 other states have passed similar laws. I'm betting the language (or effect) is similar in all of them.

 

[henktermaat]

The libertarians are saying "vote no." Because not needed.

 

[HoughMade]

A vegan wrote an editorial in the local paper saying "Vote No".

I'm in for a "yes".

 

[henktermaat]

The libertarians are saying "vote no." Because not needed.

Sorry for the delay, I finally found the article I was thinking of. Food for thought:

Hoosiers: There Is a Constitutional Vote on your Ballot - Right to Hunt and Fish

"The Bill of Rights contains no other section requiring any other right be subject to the laws of the General Assembly or other authorities of the General Assembly. When did a right become alterable by the government?

This is not a constitutional amendment. If Hoosiers grant the General Assembly and their authority agencies the power to change terms of a constitutional document they are violating the Constitution itself."

 

[Cameramonkey]

They lost me at "subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:"

If I read this right, its basically "you have a right to hunt and fish until the GA writes a law telling you that you dont.". (or passes silly restrictive laws that make it not worth the hassle)

 

[rw02kr43]

A friend of mine posted about this proposed amendment and how it would open the door for hunting stray cats. I also heard on the radio the other night about the argument that this will allow hunting in downtown Indy.

Jason

 

[Cameramonkey]

A friend of mine posted about this proposed amendment and how it would open the door for hunting stray cats. I also heard on the radio the other night about the argument that this will allow hunting in downtown Indy.

Jason

I agree with what others have said. "its a solution looking for a problem"

I'm torn. We dont need more laws. But I also hate animal rights nutcases who are calling desperately to stop it because of silly reasons like this. (Putting my fingers in the eyes of wackjobs is a hobby of mine. Its probably the most fulfilling one.) One on Abdul's show the other night eluded to people starting to hunt songbirds if this passes.

 

[jamil]

Maybe they should pass a law saying the constitution carries the weight of law. That would fix everything.

 

[HoughMade]

You guys are acting like there is a Constitutional right to hunt and fish now.

As it stands now, the General Assembly can pass laws limiting or eliminating hunting and fishing for any reason or no reason at all. This applies to any regulations made by the DNR as well.

this amendment would limit any laws to those having a genuine wildlife management or conservation purpose or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Laws simply made to curtail hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional....which they are not now.

 

[foszoe]

You guys are acting like there is a Constitutional right to hunt and fish now.

As it stands now, the General Assembly can pass laws limiting or eliminating hunting and fishing for any reason or no reason at all. This applies to any regulations made by the DNR as well.

this amendment would limit any laws to those having a genuine wildlife management or conservation purpose or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Laws simply made to curtail hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional....which they are not now.

This is how I took it. Its a law to limit the ability to make more laws. I voted yes because the NRA said to and this reasoning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You guys are acting like there is a Constitutional right to hunt and fish now.

As it stands now, the General Assembly can pass laws limiting or eliminating hunting and fishing for any reason or no reason at all. This applies to any regulations made by the DNR as well.

this amendment would limit any laws to those having a genuine wildlife management or conservation purpose or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Laws simply made to curtail hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional....which they are not now.

This is a good way to look at it.

Anybody know if the language of the IN Amendment is more or less the same as that of the other states that have previously enacted similar changes to their constitutions?

 

[Cameramonkey]

You guys are acting like there is a Constitutional right to hunt and fish now.

As it stands now, the General Assembly can pass laws limiting or eliminating hunting and fishing for any reason or no reason at all. This applies to any regulations made by the DNR as well.

this amendment would limit any laws to those having a genuine wildlife management or conservation purpose or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Laws simply made to curtail hunting and fishing would be unconstitutional....which they are not now.

That right there pretty much sums up the issue with the leftist wackos. They know if this passes the door is shut on them ever succeeding in restricting hunting, no matter how miniscule the chance is today.

Thanks for the analysis sir.

 

[seedubs1]

Algae eater here.....And I'll vote for this.

1) People have a right to hunt and fish. Absolutely, this is a God given right to provide sustenance for yourself and family.
2) If I'm going to eat meat, I'd prefer to hunt it myself, or it to be raised outside of the big farm industry by a local small farmer.

I expect anyone that votes no on this to become an algae eating vegan immediately.

 

[Hookeye]

They are trying to declare it a right, to stop possible anti hunter legal maneuvers (like the antis have done out east).

Wonder what all has been tried in New Jersey, the anti bear hunters are all bent.
Bear and cougar............east and west........the weirdos have had some success.

They're nuts. They aint stupid.

 

[HoughMade]

Agreed.

I see NO reason to NOT vote for it.

In other words...VOTE FOR IT!

 

[Landon]

Early results look like this is going to get the nod.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Lets hope so.

 

[SSGSAD]

I voted YES .....

 

[KellyinAvon]

I voted YES .....

Me too!