Does the 2nd Amendment trump state and federal hunting laws?

[jpak]

Why can't I use a 4 ga. to hunt ducks?

Why can't I have a 10 rounds in my duck gun?

Why can't I have a 10 round mag for my .308 auto?

Why can't I use .22 shorts to hunt deer?

How come I cain't hunt from a paved road?

How come I cain't hunt at night with a jacklight?

Why does the federal gummint make me use non-toxic shot to hunt ducks?

Ain't all this unconstitooshunal???

Why ain't the NRA stood up for my 2nd 'mendment rights?

[jpak]

1. kick

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

3. This is a series question - state and federal hunting regulations DICTATE to gun owners

what they can use to hunt and how.

But it's not consteetooshunal to regulate large capacity magazines for handguns and semi-autos derived from military submachine guns and assault rifles - according to the "freedom lovers".

Are federal hunting regs "racist and classist attacks on civil rights?"

can't have it both ways

nope

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

11. Nope

:D

[high_and_mighty]

15. I suppose someone would need to challenge the laws.

Taking the government to court takes a lot of money. If no one feels that their rights are being violated then no one will fight it. I am guessing hunters find the laws to be reasonable restrictions but I don't hunt so I wouldn't know.

[slackmaster]

18. Maybe the ACLU will support your right to threaten the President, which has been infringed

;-)

[X_Digger]

42. Where does the second amendment mention hunting, again? n/t

[jpak]

52. The federal government restricts your magazine capacities in the field

and this is not an infringement on your holy 2nd A rights?

:D

[X_Digger]

55. No, it's not.. there is no federal 'right to hunt'.. nor is the second amendment about hunting.

Take a con law class sometime.

Hell, go to the public library, I'm sure they have at least one con law textbook.

[ileus]

63. Not in WV or VA.....I hunt with 30's all the time.

[jpak]

78. not in a duck blind

nope

[benEzra]

97. You realize that only a small minority of gun owners are hunters,

and that only a small minority of hunters hunt ducks, right?

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Popcorn thread alert.

:popcorn:
Mmmmmmm,good

[madrchsod]

6. ahhh ...a sunday afternoon silly post....

[RSillsbee]

7. There are very few sustenance hunters in this country

Since we are hunting for "sport" I'm OK w/ cutting Bambi a break

[jpak]

14. But it violates the holy 2nd A

what is a freedom lover to do?

[slackmaster]

19. You can either challenge it or get over it

I recommend either one.

[jpak]

24. I recommend we ban 30 round mags - then we can challenge it or not

Freedom lovers cannot pick and choose how to interpret the holy 2nd A.

For it is the holiest of holies...

yup

[slackmaster]

27. This magazine ban craze will blow over soon enough

Even you will probably have forgotten about it six months from now.

[jpak]

29. The family members won't

disgusting

yup

[RSillsbee]

30. The Second Amendment has ZIP to do w/ hunting

And I don't own a single weapon suitable for hunting (IMO)

I take that back, I suppose I could hunt Coyotes w/ my Mini 14

[jpak]

34. wrong - federal waterfowl regs clearly infringe on holy 2nd A rights to bear arms

You can't have more than 3 rounds in a shotgun duck hunting

that is infringing

yup

:D

[X_Digger]

46. Which clause of the second amendment mentions hunting? n/t

[JDPriestly]

8. Because if you want all those things, you are too crazy to buy a gun.

If you want all those things, you are certifiably insane.

[jpak]

13. crazy people buy guns all the time from licensed dealers

felons buy guns all the time at stupid gun shows

what's your point?

:D

[RSillsbee]

32. RE: felons buy guns all the time at stupid gun shows

If it happens "all the time" surely you can cite numerous examples

[jpak]

36. There was case locally (and no I will not tell you where I live) where felons were caught hunting

when asked where they obtained their guns, they said at a local gun show.

It's called the Gun Show Loophole for a reason.

also - Mayor Bloomberg sent investigators to AZ gun shows and guess what they found...

Gun show sellers will sell to anyone - even when the buyer tells them they can't legally own a gun.

yup

[RSillsbee]

43. Do you suppose

That I'd come to "where you live" to hunt you down?

It's called the Gun Show Loophole for a reason.

It's called the "private sale loophole" and according to the DOJ less that 1.7% of criminals get their guns there


also - Mayor Bloomberg sent investigators to AZ gun shows and guess what they found...

So you take the word of a pug? A pug w/ an agenda at that?


Gun show sellers will sell to anyone - even when the buyer tells them they can't legally own a gun.

Where I live (Colorado Springs Colorado) all sales at a gunshow must go through NICS

[slackmaster]

9. I think you should go ahead and try one or two of those things, and serve as a test case

I'll even chip in $5 for your defense.












(Just to be clear, this post is :sarcasm:. I don't advocate anyone violating the law.)

[elleng]

10. No, they do not prohibit, they regulate.

Silly question.

[jpak]

12. What's the difference? - none

If the federal government can prohibit you from having more than 3 rounds in you duck gun

and those shells have to be specified nontoxic shot.

Then the big ol' federal gummint can tell you you cannot have a 30 round magazine for any firearm.

yup

the

end

[beevul]

16. Link to federal hunting law?

"If the federal government can prohibit you from having more than 3 rounds in you duck gun and those shells have to be specified nontoxic shot."

Furthermore, as far as I know, the state "hunting" limits on magazine capacity for example, apply only when hunting.

They don't specify that you can't have more than x rounds in your duck gun. They specify that you can't have more than x rounds in your duck gun WHILE HUNTING.

[jpak]

21. No - Federal waterfowl laws DICTATE that you use a plug and nontoxic shot

They still tell you what to do and prohibit magazine capacities greater than 3 rounds in the field - which violates the holy 2nd A.

If they can do that, they prohibit 30 round mags.

yup

[beevul]

25. Cite it then.

That shouldn't be too hard.

Cite these federal laws.

[jpak]

33. OK

http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/50_CFR_20.pdf

:rofl:

[ileus]

65. Who duck hunts?

[jpak]

83. Real gun owners

yup

[X_Digger]

85. Only one in five gun owners hunt.

They're a minority of gun owners.

[jpak]

87. Then they should be restricted to single shot only as well

yup

[X_Digger]

88. You're not even making sense at this point.

How does what you wrote have any coherent connection to my reply?

Have you been imbibing? Did your team win? Or lose?

[one-eyed fat man]

115. Huh?

"You're not even making sense at this point."

Are you implying he made sense at some point? Is there a link?

[X_Digger]

117. Touché n/t

[SteveM]

125. Good one. nt

[ileus]

102. I'm pretty real...

[slackmaster]

17. It could indeed do that. I doubt that anybody here would claim otherwise.

But it won't.

;-)

ETA I'm not sure you're correct about federal hunting law, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of discussion.

[elleng]

23. You were talking about State governments, right?

and determing what kinds/amounts of ammunition are too hazardous to the public, right? The law thrives on nuance. Too bad many people don't/can't appreciate that.

[jpak]

26. both - they both violate the holy 2nd A

Why do Freddom Lovers tolerate them?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

28. You seem to be having a hard time finding anyone on this forum who has a problem with hunting regs

I wonder why that is.

[jpak]

35. Then they allow the federal gov. to infringe on their gun rights

when it is convenient for them

yup

[slackmaster]

40. All of our rights are subject to restrictions enacted by due process of law

Nobody on this board who is interested in a serious discussion of the subject would disagree with that statement.

[jpak]

45. Then there should be no problem amongst gun owners with banning high capacity magazines

as long as the restrictions are enacted by due process of law

right?

[slackmaster]

47. Every gun owner who I know personally, including me, obeys laws even if we don't like them

I believe and trust that the same is true of everyone who participates in this forum.

How about you?

[jpak]

48. I do

yup

[slackmaster]

49. So you are trying to argue against a postion that literally NOT ONE PERSON on this forum holds

Amazing.

[jpak]

58. Then you would be OK with a ban on high capacity magazines?

:wow:

[slackmaster]

61. No, I think that would be a bad law. I'm not OK with it.

Nuance is lost on you, apparently.

[jpak]

79. I think it would be great law - 1 year of amnesty - after that, 1 year mandatory jail and $10K fine

yup

[slackmaster]

95. I doubt that would pass a Constitutional challenge

What you describe (which appears to be a blanket ban on possession) would be a confiscation of property without compensation or due process, and I believe an ex post facto criminal penalty. You'd have to either grandfather or provide for purchase of the items to be banned.

[rl6214]

106. Ok

Reimburse me for what they are worth. I own 100 or so 30 rnd mags for my AR15s, worth $1000 each so that's $100,000 to purchase those from me.

[RSillsbee]

71. Last time we tried that

the Pugs got both houses and the white house for 10 years.

[slackmaster]

94. Historical fact is lost on followers of the authoritarian religion

:hi:

[elleng]

39. ...

:thumbsup:

[elleng]

38. The 2d Amendment is not 'holy,' it is legal,

'Freedom lovers' 'tolerate' state and federal governments because without them there is anarchy.

:shrug:

[PavePusher]

20. Whole lotta ign'ance in a troll thread. Good luck with that. n/t

[jpak]

22. Typical

I win

yup

[SteveM]

126. Ahh, the state of the gun-control movement...

splatter-fest punking, and bull-in-the-ring logic spasms.

[aikoaiko]

31. I encourage you to donate to the NRA-ILA a large amount of cash with a note explaining your position

I'm sure they would be happy to address your concerns if you were to make them known and show a little financial support.

[jpak]

37. NRA - National Republican Association

yup

[aikoaiko]

44. Oh, I thought you were earnest.

:sarcasm:

yup, you be trollin'

Seriously (and i hate that I am about to dignify your post with a serious answer) is that no one, not even the NRA, is saying that there should be no regulations on the use of firearms. There should be a really good reason, however, to ban things from lawful residents of the US.

[jpak]

50. When I took my hunter safety course in 1966, it was the National Rifle Association

today

it's a bunch yahoo republicans who hate liberals and democrats

yup

[aikoaiko]

54. I think you are correct that there are too many Republicans who hate liberals in the NRA

but I blame us for that. We've been the impetus for far too many stupid guns laws since your 1966 hunter ed course.

We're taking back the NRA slowly and surely, and forcing them to endorse Democrats when we're better than the alternatives.

[slackmaster]

56. Oh crap, you've violated the Prime Directive

Never step out of character, even when your troll completely unravels.

[jpak]

57. My troll was highly successful - it got gunners to admit that the federal government can restrict

magazine capacities

and gun owners have no problem with that.

yup

[X_Digger]

59. admit that the federal government can restrict magazine capacities --- WHILE HUNTING..

.. which has nothing to do with the second amendmemnt.

nope

[slackmaster]

62. Faulty deduction

You aren't reading peoples' replies very carefully.

Saying government can do something is not the same as saying you "don't have a problem" with something.

[Atypical Liberal]

118. Only temporarily...

My troll was highly successful - it got gunners to admit that the federal government can restrict magazine capacities and gun owners have no problem with that.

First of all, you will find that many gun owners, and in this case specifically, hunters, have no problem with regulations that enhance and protect their sport.

Just about any sport has rules, and most people who want to play the sport understand and accept the rules, even though the rules may make the game harder to win. They accept them because they understand the rules are there to insure fair play and opportunity for all participants. This is true whether we are talking about duck hunting, checkers, football, or competitive target shooting.

Secondly, the magazine restrictions during hunting are temporary and do not affect the functionality of the firearm. My magazine is only restricted while I am hunting. It doesn't affect the militia suitability of my arms because within seconds it is back to its fully functional capability. It doesn't bother me that my duck gun can only hold 3 rounds because as soon as I get home it can hold 7 again. It doesn't bother me that my AK can only hold 10 rounds while hunting because as soon as I get home it can hold 30 again.

The bottom line is, federal restrictions on hunting activities are not restrictions on the physical ownership or functionality of my firearms.

[Euromutt]

134. How many moons orbit the world you inhabit?

Because it sure as hell isn't the one everybody except you in this thread is on. Your troll was a straw man from the get-go, and your assertions concerning what others have supposedly "admitted" bear zero relation (other than that those others' statements concerned firearm regulation) to what they actually said.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Was your instructor named Elmer, and was his day job at Warner Brothers?

And no, I don't mean Elmer Keith...

[jpak]

81. No - he was a respected local hunter at the local fish and game club

and we reloaded shotgun shells

and shot skeet - 2 rounds per student - I smoked my first bird even though the shotgun was almost bigger than me.

and shot .22 mags - another 2 rounds - I hit my target 50 feet- iron sights standing.

yup

[SteveM]

127. And gun-controllers made the NRA into what it is "today." Yup.

All that hating, you should really join up and be in the belly of the beast.

Trolling is best done when fishing.

[X_Digger]

41. Free clue: the second amendment has fuck all to do with hunting. n/t

[jpak]

51. So it's OK for the federal government ot restrict magazine capacities - yes?

:D

[X_Digger]

53. Nope

The state could ban hunting altogether- that would still have nothing to do with the second amendment.

Now, you'd run into problems with various state constitutions that explicitly protect hunting, but they're not the second amendment.


At a federal level, there is no 'right to hunt'. No such provision exists.

I don't give a flying fuck what hunters do or don't do, honestly.

Like 80% of gun owners, I don't hunt.


Got that? Yup? Nope? The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

*sigh* *mumble* pour piss out of a boot.. *mumble*

[jpak]

72. I'm glad you agree, the federal govt. should restrict all civilian sporting arms to single-shot only

yup!

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

77. s.h.o.u.l.d. I. t.y.p.e. s.l.o.w.e.r. ?

You've made no attempt to get from Point A to Point B.

As far as I can tell, there is no Point B.

Or as another poster put it, you appear to be 'connecting the dot.'

[rl6214]

107. The restrictions have nothing to do with mag size

they have everything to do with conservation and being a good steward in the hunting community.

[ileus]

60. FXjohn is that you?

[rrneck]

64. Why can't you tell

what other people might need without ever having met them or knowing the circumstances of their lives?

[ileus]

66. I should receive 4 30's, 2 20's and 1 15 round mag in tomorrow.

I can't wait to load em up.

[jpak]

73. LOL!!!11

I bet you can't

.22 short

yup

[ileus]

104. ? Can't what ?

[lawodevolution]

67. So is this how gun owners are supposed to talk. Your ignorance of the gun culture leads to fear

And then hate which leads you to post such ignorant things on the Internet.

[jpak]

74. LOL!!!111

I posted nothing that was even close to "ignorant"

yup

edit: my apologies

gun & culture = oxymoran

yup

[lawodevolution]

82. Pure ignorance. Gun ownership is a part of my culture and heritage. Every disparaging thing

You write about a group of people you don't understand shows how ignorant you are.

[jpak]

84. I hunted at 13 and bought my first gun in 1975

you know nothing of real gun culture

nothing

yup

[lawodevolution]

91. Good use of empathy/forced teaming which is a common tactic for anti-gun activists.

I have no way of knowing if what you wrote is correct but based on how immature your post is I doubt it. It's an effective tactic to pretend to be part of a culture you are trying to destroy.

[benEzra]

98. If you understood the issue...

you'd understand that only about 1 in 5 gun owners hunt, and that most hunters also own nonhunting guns.

[Glassunion]

99. You mean I cannot hunt bear with my .380 with a 2in barrel?

[shadowrider]

100. Absolutely not. That's overkill n/t

[Euromutt]

101. Sure you can; just remember to file down or remove the front sight first

That way, it won't hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your ass.

(Not my joke, I hasten to point out; it's an apocryphal story about the response some guy got when he asked if he should take his .357 Magnum revolver to Alaska for protection against grizzlies.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. And neither do you. Most (ca. 80%) gun owners *don't* hunt.

[jody]

68. "The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken shit. That little white speck

is chicken shit too." Ernest Tucker in Pure Country

[jpak]

75. RU implying that I am "chicken shit"

that's just plain stupid

yup!

[SteveM]

128. We know, now. You don't care about gun-control.

You care about punking and trolling. The Second is in good hands with the likes of you.

[Straw Man]

69. These are environmental and game-protection regulations...

...and AFAIK don't affect your right to have a standard-capacity or extended-capacity magazine in your self-defense firearm, even while hunting.

There is no Constitutional protection of the right to hunt, so any restrictions on firearms used for hunting wouldn't be protected by the Second Amendment. But you knew that.

BTW... cain't? gummint? unconstitooshunal? 'mendment? No points for the ugly display of classist bigotry.

[jpak]

76. Good then the feds should restrict ALL civilian sporting arms to single-shot only

yup

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

80. That was the point flying over your head..

Care to actually address what multiple posters have been telling you, rather than your moronic pedantry?

My guess?

Nope.

[jpak]

86. I addressed your comment - if hunting is not a holy 2nd A right

then the regulation of civilian sporting arms is OK

single shot only

yup-o

[X_Digger]

89. Your 'then' doesn't connect to the two clauses..

It'd be like me saying, "If the sky is blue, then cars can go fast."

The scope of regulation of what firearms a person can own has fuck-all to do with hunting. Never has.

*knock knock knock* Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Here's a new term for you- Non Sequitur: Latin, meaning, "It does not follow".

[Straw Man]

90. Why?

Good then the feds should restrict ALL civilian sporting arms to single-shot only

What environmental or game-management problem are you addressing? You are aware that the three-round limit only applies when hunting migratory gamebirds, right? Are you even aware of the reasons for the limit? Are you aware that all these limits have nothing to do with what kinds of firearms people may possess?

Of course you aren't. Why do I even bother asking?

[AtheistCrusader]

92. The state has the power to regulate the public commons resources.

Wildlife, and the privelidge of hunting is one.

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as stated, under Miller, Heller, or McDonald.

[petronius]

93. Nothing in your list relates to a right to keep and bear arms - they relate to uses

of those arms. You might as well assert that the 2nd protects the right to use guns to commit murder. In other words, none of those hunting laws you list are unconstitutional, the 2nd has no bearing on them, and their existence provides no insight whatsoever about other gun-related laws, such as magazine bans...

[Callisto32]

96. Yawn.

[ileus]

103. Rabbit Season

[Euromutt]

108. Duck season!

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. You two pipe down. You're making it vewwy, vewwy difficult to concentrate...

[Euromutt]

112. For shame, Doc, hunting rabbits with an elephant gun!

[ileus]

114. rabbit season!

[Euromutt]

121. (looks knowingly at camera) Rabbit season!

[ileus]

130. Duck season!

[jpak]

123. Stupid Season!

yup!

:rofl:

[SteveM]

129. And you were bagged on the first day.

[Hoopla Phil]

131. yup

[Euromutt]

135. Figures you wouldn't know the classics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Fire

[rl6214]

105. why do anti's

always think they are talking down to gun rights advocates like they are just a bunch of stupid hicks?

cain't, cain't gummint, unconstitooshunal, ain't mendment-just makes you look foolish.

[rrneck]

They have a problem with civility (and spelling)

Maybe we should restrict their access to keyboards. It's the only way to be safe.

[Hoopla Phil]

119. Gives them some sense of accomplishment.

yup

[shadowrider]

113. I'm soooooooooooooooo glad I use the iggy function

It prevents me from seeing nonsensical, incoherent drivel. Keeps my blood pressure down.

Most of the time I think they do that simply to start an argument which they, ultimately, have nothing to contribute other than insults.

[Hoopla Phil]

133. I've only put one person on ignore. I only did that because of the continuous

string of foul language from her. I don't see her posting anymore so maybe she was banned. She did get a LOT of her posts deleted.

[Euromutt]

137. Intellectual laziness

It's much easier to stereotype an opponent than to try to understand his motivations and point of view. It's also a means of avoiding having to confront the possibility that the opponent might hold his opinions for legitimate reasons, which you may not be able to address.

One of the reasons I dislike terms like "gun grabber" is because I'm a former proponent of gun control myself, and I understand that most proponents of increased gun control are motivated by the best intentions, namely to a desire to reduce violent crime, or at least reduce the severity of its effects. Where we disagree is on how to achieve that, and what price in individual freedoms is acceptable to achieve it.

[krispos42]

111. Ownership and use are two separate things. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

116. These are restrictions that sportsman approve of.

All of these are restrictions that sportsman largely approve of, because they protect and enhance the sport!

Hunters tend to be huge environmentalists. They spend boatloads of money protecting natural environments. Otherwise, there would be no place to hunt!. We might grumble about magazine restrictions or bag limits, but in the end we don't mind too much because we know what happens if they are not in place - overhunting.

In the bad old days of commercial hunting, hunters would like in small canoes with cannons sticking out the front of them. These giant shotguns - punt guns - would be slowly floated hear a flock of waterfowl resting on the water, and BOOM dozens of birds would be taken out in one go. The result was a drastic reduction in waterfowl.

[jeepnstein]

120. Hunting is a different thing from self defense.

When I used to hunt, I fully supported the game laws to the letter and spirit. As a result of those laws we see game available at levels that were thought to be long gone back in the Sixties when I started hunting. I cannot think of a single local game regulation that I object to any any grounds at all.

That doesn't have a thing to do with the 2nd Amendment or self defense. And of course the OP knows this. He's just being ridiculous because that's all his kind have left at this point.

[Euromutt]

136. And there you articulate the crucial point

Both the Second Amendment and various state constitutional provisions concerning arms pertain to keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of defending oneself or the state. A limit on magazine capacity while hunting isn't an issue because one does not hunt to stave off imminent threat to life or limb. Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms does not confer a right to discharge firearms (or loose arrows, swing swords, etc.), meaning that the latter is within the government's authority to regulate.

[kudzu22]

122. Same reason you can't use a .357 magnum to kill your ex-wife

Obviously you don't understand what the constitution says. "Keep and bear arms". Keep = own. Bear = carry. All of your examples are of USES of arms. They do not prevent you from keeping or bearing the arms in question, therefore there is no constitutional issue.

[ileus]

132. A friend of mine used a 357 to kill his wife.

actually I think two friends of mine killed their wives with 357's.

one claimed it was an accident, he was never charged with anything, and was killed in a dispute less than a year later.

the other was just sentenced a few weeks ago.

[SteveM]

124. As you imply inconsistently, you CAN own a 4 ga., a multi-round duck gun...

a .22, etc. You can use them for home defense and, where applicable, on your person for self-defense. You just can't use them to hunt. Hunting, as you must be aware, is not cited in the U.S. Constitution as a right; however many states have passed state-wide constitutional protections for hunting in the face of the anti-hunting lobby. So, hunting remains more regulated than a fundamental U.S. BOR right.

So, no, regulations on hunting "ain't...unconstitooshunal?"

BTW, your use of grab-ass phonetics to disparage those you think are less intelligent has clearly back-fired. But you do have a right to that.

[Hoopla Phil]

138. Thought I'd bump this post since there were so many unanswered questions.

yup