My apologies, I should have added the link to the text I am quoting. It's an article by Steven Ginsberg, Washington Post staff and posted to TFL by dz: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35326-2000Oct28.html
..............
Written originally 29 Oct. 2000.
As I explained to Paul Moog (VCDL), I don't like tinkering with our basic documents, but... (see bottom, meanwhile -)
I.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents say the amendment would clutter the constitution and could endanger local control over gun regulations and animal rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) "Local Control", as in "anywhere control" of gun regulations is often too much. Face it, if a guy discharges a gun in highly populated urban city streets or buildings for joy or whatever, it's stupid. But "control" is just that - "we want all those nasty guns outtahere." Responsible RKBA advocates and practitioners do not discharge firearms just ANYWHERE. There's more, like carrying while driving within 1000 feet of a school - federal felons, huh? But...
(b) If all those "animal rights" folks had, or knew of, instances where animals invaded their back porch, bedroom, etc. (overpopulation/hungry/angry,rabid), they'd think twice. Wasn't it here on TFL that pictures of the results of a deer home invasion was posted? (Took too much bandwidth and was dropped). What a mess. And we all know what meeting a deer head-on at road speed can do. I live urban, in a townhouse behind a city library, and at night the raccoons waltz on the library fence - and in the streets and storm sewers. Anyway, where, in any constitution is "animal rights" defined? And what about "dominion over all the ..."?
I don't mean mistreatment, etc., but wildlife management includes thinning the herd; talk to Norfolk Naval Shipyard about feral cats, and Norfolk International Airport (among others) about geese. There's more, but ...
II.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, about 320,000 people hunted and 477,732 people fished, according to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. By 1999, those numbers dropped to 274,813 and 449,784 respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the numbers are dropping the state's income is dropping. They increase the fees which precludes many borderline sporters to take a look at their overall costs (arms, ammunition; tackle, gear, bait); transportation (boats, motors, cars, gasoline) and they opt out, but management costs keep climbing.
Seems to me $$$ from license and other fees the state collects from sporters might increase if they'd drop the fees to allow more people in the field. As I remember, last year the deer take, while pretty good, did not reach expectations, thus we have higher populations today. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There's more, like salt water fishing licenses and $50.00 fines, but ...
III.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ballot question is: "Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended by adding a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well - this one has me fuzzy ... as the language is fuzzy, as in "concerning the right...". I can see it now: The answer is "Yes" and the resultant change, after PETA, the antis, the whomevers get into the act: "The right of the people of the Commonwealth to hunt, fish and harvest game shall be as directed by the Commission for Not Too Many and Not Too Few Living Organisms Not Considered As Human Beings (CNTMNTFLONCAHB), said commission to be composed of one representative of each county and other quasi-political sub-divisions. Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor and shall meet for the purposes of establishing rules, regulations and other wildlife management subjects once each third gubernatorial election year. Commissioners shall be compensated from fees ...".
Well, in the wake of a successful "Aye" vote the "commission" outlined above is, in fact, a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?" is it not?
Re my "see bottom ...", top above:
I will vote "Aye" - for one reason alone: Hopefully, in the course of human events, an "Aye" vote will allow firearms of some kind to continue to be available and used. It's one more legal thorn in the side of those who would - and will, disarm us if we don't get on with getting on about our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There - I've said it. Enough of me.
Andy Barr
Virginia Beach
Now see intersting article re same: http://199.244.139.109/dcwww?-show:client/journal/FFX/j2000/q4/m10/t31/pb/s001/000_0 00.pdf
------------------
The Handgun: In a real pinch, the Great Equalizer.
[This message has been edited by Ironbarr (edited November 01, 2000).]
..............
Written originally 29 Oct. 2000.
As I explained to Paul Moog (VCDL), I don't like tinkering with our basic documents, but... (see bottom, meanwhile -)
I.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents say the amendment would clutter the constitution and could endanger local control over gun regulations and animal rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) "Local Control", as in "anywhere control" of gun regulations is often too much. Face it, if a guy discharges a gun in highly populated urban city streets or buildings for joy or whatever, it's stupid. But "control" is just that - "we want all those nasty guns outtahere." Responsible RKBA advocates and practitioners do not discharge firearms just ANYWHERE. There's more, like carrying while driving within 1000 feet of a school - federal felons, huh? But...
(b) If all those "animal rights" folks had, or knew of, instances where animals invaded their back porch, bedroom, etc. (overpopulation/hungry/angry,rabid), they'd think twice. Wasn't it here on TFL that pictures of the results of a deer home invasion was posted? (Took too much bandwidth and was dropped). What a mess. And we all know what meeting a deer head-on at road speed can do. I live urban, in a townhouse behind a city library, and at night the raccoons waltz on the library fence - and in the streets and storm sewers. Anyway, where, in any constitution is "animal rights" defined? And what about "dominion over all the ..."?
I don't mean mistreatment, etc., but wildlife management includes thinning the herd; talk to Norfolk Naval Shipyard about feral cats, and Norfolk International Airport (among others) about geese. There's more, but ...
II.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, about 320,000 people hunted and 477,732 people fished, according to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. By 1999, those numbers dropped to 274,813 and 449,784 respectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the numbers are dropping the state's income is dropping. They increase the fees which precludes many borderline sporters to take a look at their overall costs (arms, ammunition; tackle, gear, bait); transportation (boats, motors, cars, gasoline) and they opt out, but management costs keep climbing.
Seems to me $$$ from license and other fees the state collects from sporters might increase if they'd drop the fees to allow more people in the field. As I remember, last year the deer take, while pretty good, did not reach expectations, thus we have higher populations today. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There's more, like salt water fishing licenses and $50.00 fines, but ...
III.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ballot question is: "Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended by adding a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well - this one has me fuzzy ... as the language is fuzzy, as in "concerning the right...". I can see it now: The answer is "Yes" and the resultant change, after PETA, the antis, the whomevers get into the act: "The right of the people of the Commonwealth to hunt, fish and harvest game shall be as directed by the Commission for Not Too Many and Not Too Few Living Organisms Not Considered As Human Beings (CNTMNTFLONCAHB), said commission to be composed of one representative of each county and other quasi-political sub-divisions. Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor and shall meet for the purposes of establishing rules, regulations and other wildlife management subjects once each third gubernatorial election year. Commissioners shall be compensated from fees ...".
Well, in the wake of a successful "Aye" vote the "commission" outlined above is, in fact, a provision concerning the right of the people to hunt, fish and harvest game?" is it not?
Re my "see bottom ...", top above:
I will vote "Aye" - for one reason alone: Hopefully, in the course of human events, an "Aye" vote will allow firearms of some kind to continue to be available and used. It's one more legal thorn in the side of those who would - and will, disarm us if we don't get on with getting on about our 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There - I've said it. Enough of me.
Andy Barr
Virginia Beach
Now see intersting article re same: http://199.244.139.109/dcwww?-show:client/journal/FFX/j2000/q4/m10/t31/pb/s001/000_0 00.pdf
------------------
The Handgun: In a real pinch, the Great Equalizer.
[This message has been edited by Ironbarr (edited November 01, 2000).]