-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Judge Rules That The Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Hunting
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
This is interesting. Now people who say "I believe in gun rights, my family has a long tradition of hunting, but I believe common sense blah blah blah" can be called out as simply being Statist Tyrants who want to undermine citizen's right protection from tyranny. The Second Amendment was never about duck guns.
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
To be fair, I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects recreational hunting either. A hunting ban on Sundays bans the act of hunting, which is totally separate from the right to keep and bear arms.
However, a hunting ban on Sundays could be an infringement of ones inalienable right to obtain food, as it relates to sustenance hunters, who rely on hunting in order to feed themselves/family.
That doesn't seem relevant here though, and though I didn't read the suit, the judge clearly stated recreational hunting.
However, a hunting ban on Sundays could be an infringement of ones inalienable right to obtain food, as it relates to sustenance hunters, who rely on hunting in order to feed themselves/family.
That doesn't seem relevant here though, and though I didn't read the suit, the judge clearly stated recreational hunting.
Depends on what your hunting and at what time in history.
I disagree with the notion that a Sunday ban would not violate religious beliefs. If one practices a Saturday Sabbath, then Sunday would be the weekend day to go hunting. But hey, you know.
edit: realized my grammar error
edit: realized my grammar error
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,938
- Likes
- 1,669
I would have gone with a church/state argument rather than a 2A argument.
I agree, but I don't see how it's a 2A issue. It's just idiocy.
It's clearly not.
Jason Flare
NES Member
The second amendment was not written because the founders were fond of deer hunting.
The question I always ask is "Why is it so important to you to create a government monopoly on 'non-hunting' guns?". The antis love to drone on and about about the individuals "need". I'd like to know why is it that the government has "need" to be armed against the (disarmed) people it supposedly is "by, for and of".
Heck, I'd be happy just to get to the range on a Sunday morning. That is the best time for me, but off limits.
Your club's Sunday hours
Did I read it somewhere on here (NES) that you can't shoot on a Sunday before 1:00 unless on a formal range? Anyone know if that is a law? (serious)
Your club's Sunday hours
Did I read it somewhere on here (NES) that you can't shoot on a Sunday before 1:00 unless on a formal range? Anyone know if that is a law? (serious)
.......or you can just live your life as a free man. Didn't the protectionists once say that civil disobedience is the highest form of patriotism?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
This is actually good, it's going to piss off the lib's who are convinced that annoying amendment was there only for hunting with bolt actions. They are going to have to rewrite their entire script.
Some have already rewritten the script, and I applaud them for that, it's the only legitimate strategy for disarming the populace. But the ratification of an Amendment is the absolute last straw, if it ever goes that far.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
Garys
NES Member
They picked the wrong grounds for the suit. They should have gotten atheist plaintiffs who could claim that the law is based on the Christian sabbath and thus is an example of the state recognizing one religion over the others. It's like the Blue Laws that we used to have in MA (and other states) until the mid to late 1980s. They were based on Christian beliefs.
Since the state is not supposed to favor any religion, a ban based on the sabbath of one religion can not stand. Actually a ban based on the sabbath of any religion can not stand.
Since the state is not supposed to favor any religion, a ban based on the sabbath of one religion can not stand. Actually a ban based on the sabbath of any religion can not stand.
What does that have to do with hunting?
I see this a a case of this judge opening a door that gun banners probably wanted closed. While maybe technically true that the second amendment doesn't protect your right to hunt, it protects your rights to have guns, it puts more fudds in the game. Now they're on record as standing against hunting. That was always there big "i support the second but" nonsense.
dcmdon
NES Member
Oops. Posted in the wrong thread.
This - Your religion oppresses me, whawhawha...
Quiet
Banned
You guys can't see it, and for any of you reading this who have met me you might want to avert your gaze at this moment, because I'm doing a little happy dance right now.
I can't tell you how many Anti's I've dealt with over the years who talk about hunting and that's what the 2A was all about, because people had a right to hunt, and NOBODY IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HUNTING GUNS.
Now the answer to that can be: The federal courts have already spoken to that and have said that the 2A does not protect hunting. The federal courts, in fact the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2A refers to an individual's right to defend themselves.
I love it when I have an authoritative answer to a red herring. Whitefish salad, here I come!
F
Finalygotabeltfed
The licensing of non commercial fishing in the ocean is just as egregious if not worse.
It's all about money, power and control. Government doesn't care about animals, they care about catering to someone who decides he wants to have peace and quiet when he reads his newspaper on his deck on Sunday morning.....in the McMansion he built out in the woods, where he displaced lots of animals by clearing his land.
As for the OP and 2nd, people had better take notice of the attorney/s who brought forth the case.....he's/they're clearly not someone you want to represent you in a gun case.
Agreed. Some of the reasoning supporting Sunday hunting bans that I've been told by other hunters and people who are supposed to be on "our side" have proven this to me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our Second Amendment is not about hunting. It reinforces our God-given right to possess and use our guns for many purposes, including hunting.
Sunday hunting bans are a product of a period when religion played a more prominent role in society. They are used today by the animal rights industry to keep hunters out of the field for a day.
Exactly.. I honestly don't think this will have any effect on getting more Fudds in to the 2A battle.
Nick Fury
NES Member
The anti movement has been playing the Fudds like a fiddle for a long time. Things like "We are not going to take your guns..." and "All you need to defend yourself is a shotgun and a porch..." are directly aimed at soothing a Fudds ruffled feathers. And it is working...
Screw the Fudds...I want to see case law that interprets 2A as for indvidual protection from whomever the individual needs protection from. This leaves the Antis with no convoluted support of 2A as written, leaving them with no alternative but to amend 2A to ALLOW INFRINGEMENT in some prescribed way (e.g. define militia and restrict firearm use to that capacity, as Stevens wants). Good luck to the antis on that (amending the Bill of Rights).
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
The heller decision came pretty darn close to that. Also, the funniest thing to me is that the 30s or 40s case about short barreled shotguns said that the 2A only protects the right to own military firearms. Thus the entire sporting use stuff that the ATF uses to restrict imports and the banning of newly manufactured machine guns are totally bogus - if anything the sporting guns are the ones that they could be trying to ban, according to the supreme courts interpretation of the constitution.
Similar threads
