House Bill 1

CUT EM'

6 pointer
Aug 23, 2009
286
NKY
Notice from the League of Kentucky Sportsmen
The Voice of Kentucky Sportsmen
“It is not what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” These words of the French playwright Moliere, penned over 300 years ago, could not ring more true for the sportsmen and women of our Commonwealth.
Mark your calendars, sportsmen take action on November 6, 2012…on this day; good or bad, history will be made, tradition and heritage will continue or fade into memories.
During the 2011 Session of the General Assembly an important piece of legislation sailed through the House and Senate; on November 6, 2012 it will be the only item listed under “Kentucky Referendums”. HB 1 is a real honest to goodness piece of bi-partisan legislation, of the likes never seen by the sportsmen of this state.
Backed by the National Rifle Association, House Bill 1, if passed, as a Constitutional Amendment will guarantee all Kentuckians the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife through traditional methods. End of discussion.
Without guise of flowery language, ifs, ands or buts, succinct and to the point…in fact it is barely five lines of copy, hardly a paragraph. Simplicity is a wonderful thing.
Here in lies the danger.
This piece of legislation is so simply understandable that it may be taken for granted, especially by the sportsmen and women of Kentucky.
On your ballot this November 6, there is no missing or mistaking this proposed Constitutional Amendment. It is the only item listed under Kentucky Referendums.
This is Kentucky, the Happy Hunting Ground; hunting and fishing is embedded in our DNA. We all enjoy the outdoors, the serene beauty, a day afield with family and friends, and the tug of a fish on the end of your child’s line. Without this Constitutional Amendment, someday all that could be a pipe dream, memories and enjoyment of days gone by.
It is imperative that every sportsperson in the Commonwealth make it to the polls on November 6, 2012, make the right decision and do the right thing, insuring the future of our fishing and hunting heritage.
For your reading is HB 1, in its entirety…
The citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using traditional methods, subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or the regulation of commercial activities.

To our future of Warm Barrels & Tight Lines…I hope,
Mark Nethery
President
League of KY Sportsmen
 

EC

12 pointer
Jul 13, 2003
13,162
Louisville, KY.
Pretty weak language.

"...subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing."

Subject only to statues enacted and adopted administrative regulations? This is pretty bloody vague and is pretty much an open door to any modification of one's "right". All you have to do, apparently, is just claim you're promoting wildlife conversation to preserve the future...whatever that could mean.
 

GSP

14 Pointer
Staff member
Dec 12, 2001
13,077
Montrose
Pretty weak language.

"...subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing."

Subject only to statues enacted and adopted administrative regulations? This is pretty bloody vague and is pretty much an open door to any modification of one's "right". All you have to do, apparently, is just claim you're promoting wildlife conversation to preserve the future...whatever that could mean.
So you would be good with having that part removed? Then you could hunt 24/7/365 without bag limits? You could hunt anywhere you wanted? etc? After all it would be a RIGHT that was without subject to legislative actions.
 

EC

12 pointer
Jul 13, 2003
13,162
Louisville, KY.
So you would be good with having that part removed? Then you could hunt 24/7/365 without bag limits? You could hunt anywhere you wanted? etc? After all it would be a RIGHT that was without subject to legislative actions.

I'd refer it open to public referendum or stronger language outlining intent without question. We live in a time when some four-eyed bureaucrat can come up with any twisted notion. They can claim anything thru "administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency" and claims it "...promotes wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing."

Don't think so? Look how many have claimed the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals. I've gotten untrusting and cynical--but for reason.
 

ptbrauch

12 pointer
Nov 10, 2004
11,024
The OC
What this does is enshrine what we have now into our state constitution. What it means is that HSUS or PETA can't come in and get laws passed that we use sterilization or other means that aren't hunting to control deer, or any other wildlife population. And if they are somehow successful, the hunter's ace in the hole is that it can be overturned as being unconstitutional. Without this, they could get a law passed and we'd have no further recourse.
 

GSP

14 Pointer
Staff member
Dec 12, 2001
13,077
Montrose
to add to the above. It also stops the local towns, cities, etc from enacting their own laws banning hunting, fishing and trapping
 

Jimmie in Ky

12 pointer
Nov 28, 2003
2,339
Mayfield, Kentucky, USA.
But I agree the language is weak!! Being able to change it by legislative action is a problem. In several states allowing the legislature any control at all has become a big problem. We may not always have a legislature that can be trusted to look after our wildlife.

And I haven't forgotten about past legislatures trying to rob fish and wildlife funds to pay the bills they ran up! It seems like they are setting us up for a shafting. Jimmie
 

GSP

14 Pointer
Staff member
Dec 12, 2001
13,077
Montrose
The legislative body has full control of it now. They can stop hunting in KY with a single Bill.

Please tell me what this stronger language that everyone wants is????

Hunting is a Right that can not be altered by legislative actions? Therefore anyone's hunting license can not be taken away due to any actions of their own?

Hunting is a Right that can not be altered by legislative actions? Therefore I can and will hunt anywhere I desire?


Hunting is a Right that can not be altered by legislative actions? Therefore I will hunt year around without regard to limits or seasons?


Hunting is a Right that can not be altered by legislative actions unless they are the "good ones"?


Please post the "strong " language.
 

Jimmie in Ky

12 pointer
Nov 28, 2003
2,339
Mayfield, Kentucky, USA.
I am not a lawyer nor do I have a dictionary handy. I do understand why they used the wording they did. But it just seems they did not go far enough to keep the general public out of the equasion. The addition of " Fish and Wildlife management never to be mandated by public vote" would make me feel better.

Being able to get wildlife management on the voters plate has caused more trouble than you can shake a stick at. Why it sort of bothers me that this amendmant is up for submission to the public. With a growing AR problem in this state you can understand that. The animal housing act has already been proposed in our own legislature by these extremist for big government. Haven't heard how far it got yet or if it died in committee, but it has been proposed.It has also been propsed at the national level recently but covered up by the elections. Another excellent reason to get the idjits out of the white house!!

I fully intend to vote for this no matter. It beats heck out of what is there now. Jimmie
 

daking

12 pointer
Dec 29, 2004
2,604
Jim Wayne, liberal dem from Louisville opposes it. That's the best of all possible litmus test for voting. If Jim Wayne's for it, be against it. If he's against it, vote for it.
 

GSP

14 Pointer
Staff member
Dec 12, 2001
13,077
Montrose
I am not a lawyer nor do I have a dictionary handy. I do understand why they used the wording they did. But it just seems they did not go far enough to keep the general public out of the equasion. The addition of " Fish and Wildlife management never to be mandated by public vote" would make me feel better.

Being able to get wildlife management on the voters plate has caused more trouble than you can shake a stick at. Why it sort of bothers me that this amendmant is up for submission to the public. With a growing AR problem in this state you can understand that. The animal housing act has already been proposed in our own legislature by these extremist for big government. Haven't heard how far it got yet or if it died in committee, but it has been proposed.It has also been propsed at the national level recently but covered up by the elections. Another excellent reason to get the idjits out of the white house!!

I fully intend to vote for this no matter. It beats heck out of what is there now. Jimmie

All Amendments are up for vote by the voters.
As for wording keeping general public out??? The general public has to approve this.
As for keeping wildlife management off the voters plate, this does help to do that.
Also, even if the Legislative body decides to go down the anti road, having it a right helps the battle in how they can craft a Bill
 

EC

12 pointer
Jul 13, 2003
13,162
Louisville, KY.
They used to claim owning a driver's license was a right--now they say it's a privilege.

They say owning firearms is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (it's even outlined in KY's Constitution as a right as well)...now you'll hear some claim it's a privilege or you don't even have a right, it was intended for the National Guard (even though the 2nd amendment was written over 100 years before the National Guard was created). In some places it is not a right at all--but it used to be (see Chicago, NYC, etc).

I just think the language ought to be clearer and stronger. Its too open for interpretation by self serving government bureaucrats and gives them the prerogative and not the People. But it's too late to change it now.
 

GSP

14 Pointer
Staff member
Dec 12, 2001
13,077
Montrose
They used to claim owning a driver's license was a right--now they say it's a privilege.

They say owning firearms is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (it's even outlined in KY's Constitution as a right as well)...now you'll hear some claim it's a privilege or you don't even have a right, it was intended for the National Guard (even though the 2nd amendment was written over 100 years before the National Guard was created). In some places it is not a right at all--but it used to be (see Chicago, NYC, etc).

I just think the language ought to be clearer and stronger. Its too open for interpretation by self serving government bureaucrats and gives them the prerogative and not the People. But it's too late to change it now.

HUH??? Gun ownership is a privilage? Why don't you look up Heller vs: DC or McDonald vs: Chicago? Drivers licenses have NEVER been a right.
 


Top