Will Kentucky make hunting a constitutional right?
California banned hunting bears and bobcats with dogs in September, but Kentucky is taking no risks with its own hunting laws. A constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot Tuesday proposes to make hunting a personal right and the preferred way to control animal populations. The amendment would add this language to Kentucky’s constitution:
“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.”
Democratic Representative Leslie Combs, one of the bill’s sponsors in the Kentucky Legislature, argues that the law reaffirms gun and private-property rights and that it has strong economic benefits. “Altogether, [hunting and fishing] bring in about $3 billion a year and they support 34,000 jobs,” she explained in an op-ed.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
PETA will start building a cement block wall around the entire state.
hawkdriver on November 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Good for Kentucky! Hopefully the rest of the states will follow her lead.
TKindred on November 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Conservation and wild game management doesn’t directly translate into trampling on the ‘right to hunt.’
But, it all depends upon the motivation; ie: good stewardship VS animal rights, etc.
locomotivebreath1901 on November 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM
And that would be just fine with us, it would keep the riff-raff out. The Commonwealth is a wonderful place to live and knowing that an amendment such as this will easily pass, makes it even better.
Norky on November 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Actually, when the Bill of Rights was debated, there were those who wanted language in the Second Amendment specifying that one of the reasons for a right to bear arms was to hunt.
radjah shelduck on November 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Instead of changing the constitution for something so obviously self-evident, why not simply ignore the idiots?
Mord on November 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM
A rank political calculation or could she be one of the last “conservative” Democrats in a party that is working furiously to purge all conservative thought forever?
swinia sutki on November 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Just be sure to include zombies so when World War Z begins we can have free license to blast them.
Bishop on November 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Editorial note: that is a dangling participle. I mean, I don’t know about the rest of you folks, but I had no idea bobcats in California had dogs! Bobcats don’t have opposable thumbs; how in the world do they operate a can opener to feed their dogs Alpo?
Smartass note: it’s kind of appropriate that Kentucky would be the state to make hunting a constitutional right. I mean, there isn’t another state in the union with as many men who look like Elmer Fudd.
radjah shelduck on November 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Bravo, Kentucky!
OldEnglish on November 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM
First we win the NCAA Mens Basketball Championship, now this… keep this up State Legislature and you’ll go and make me proud to live here!
creatocon on November 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Typical stupid introductory comparison. California’s restriction could just as easily be a law in Kentucky under the proposed amendment.
BTW, does Kentucky have a constitutional amendment making fishing a right? California does.
Dusty on November 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Because the idiots never shut up and go away. They just repackage their arguments.
swinia sutki on November 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM
I approve of this message.
reddevil on November 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Nothing the Obama administration cannot attack and destroy.
CW on November 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM
I shouldn’t worry about the bobcats, it’s only in September.
OldEnglish on November 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM
If you don’t do something about your football team we’re gonna kick you out of the SEC! Y’all need to join Conf USA with Memphis. At least for football
Charlemagne on November 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Yeah, and why only in September? Why not the rest of the year?
Oldnuke on November 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Instead of changing the constitution for something so obviously self-evident, why not simply ignore the idiots?
[Mord on November 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM]
It’s hard to ignore drums circles.
Dusty on November 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM
On Tuesday, when I push the yes icon for this amendment, I will think, “Stick this up your ass, Ashley Judd”.
NoNails on November 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Currently, Alaska is the only state which has such language in their constitution. Sarah Palin was viciously attacked by the left over her unwavering defense of Alaskans’ constitution hunting rights.
Pork-Chop on November 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM
I think another south state did this in 2010… Mississippi or Arkansas methinks.
Obama is a uniter… Against him! Lolol
pamplonajack on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM
LOL! They probably scare off the deer too.
Mord on November 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM
I fully support Kentucky and this. Also, since our Democratic president killed Bill’s barbeque in his socialist attack on real American food, I think all God-fearing red states should enact a constitutional amendment designating all barbeque restaurants as “too delicious to fail” and bail them out no matter how low-quality or incompetently managed they are.
Alpha_Male on November 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM
i thought we had this in Va. too
kelley in virginia on November 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Good job, Kentucky.
Now if we could get someone in the White House to actually kill and eat the turkey for Thanksgiving, we’d be on our way back to good.
TexasDan on November 3, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Because it only takes one leftist judge to legislate from the bench, which cannot be ignored.
Example: Massachusetts, where one judge made homosexual marriage legal, in spite of the will of the people and the legislative process.
Rebar on November 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Idaho has a similar constitutional amendment on the ballot, although it also includes trapping which has caused controversy.
HidetheDecline on November 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Wyoming is voting on the same thing this year.
Russ86 on November 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Even more amazing is that even without opposable thumbs, those bobcats are actually less dependent on the government, and are able to care for their dependents better than the average “Liberal”.
KMC1 on November 3, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Because the court won’t.
Odysseus on November 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Exactly. Liberal judges infest the nation, and don’t feel an obligation to follow the law.
slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM