Vote for Your Right to Hunt and Fish in Arizona On November 2nd (Phoenix: eat, property)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

It wouldn't be necessary to propose these types of amendments if our freedoms weren't being challenged.

We should all be happy to see amendments proposed, even if we don't agree with them, because it shows that we as citizens of this state have the opportunity to effect change without having to rely solely on government officials.

You can leave them blank, that's your right, but please don't vote no to something you haven't researched just to voice your disapproval of the number of amendments. Use the amendment process to make YOUR opinions known (whatever they are), and to help shape the direction of Arizona. It is freedom/democracy at work!

Absolutely! I am always happy to see these propositions on the ballots because it gives the CITIZENS the chance to decide these issues that shape the state. Not having these initiatives, and leaving everything to the Legislature & judges creates too much bureaucracy and government control.

I'm not sure how I'll vote on this yet ... but regardless of the outcome, the Legislature & judges had better leave the final decision to the voters. There have been too many of these initiatives that have passed, only to have some pompous higher authority strike them down after the election. A good example was the medical marijuana issue. The public voted "yes" on that many years ago, only to have it killed by the bozos in the Legislature. Now, here it is on the ballot again.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

I'm not sure how I'll vote on this yet ... but regardless of the outcome, the Legislature & judges had better leave the final decision to the voters. There have been too many of these initiatives that have passed, only to have some pompous higher authority strike them down after the election. A good example was the medical marijuana issue. The public voted "yes" on that many years ago, only to have it killed by the bozos in the Legislature. Now, here it is on the ballot again.

Just like statutes passed by the Legislature, initiatives can be challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional (state or federal) or in conflict with federal law in areas where federal law trumps state law (which is one of the main, if not the main, problems with the medical marijuana issue), or end up being modified because they conflict with other state laws already in effect. Initiatives don't have special status, nor should they. The public kept passing initiatives here that were "unfunded mandates", leaving the state with obligations to do things but no money to pay for them. Now, the law has been changed so that initiatives that require expenditure of money HAVE to specify a funding source. That's just an example of how the initiative process can't, and doesn't, allow the voters to have whatever they want.

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by observer53

Just like statutes passed by the Legislature, initiatives can be challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional (state or federal) or in conflict with federal law in areas where federal law trumps state law (which is one of the main, if not the main, problems with the medical marijuana issue), or end up being modified because they conflict with other state laws already in effect. Initiatives don't have special status, nor should they. The public kept passing initiatives here that were "unfunded mandates", leaving the state with obligations to do things but no money to pay for them. Now, the law has been changed so that initiatives that require expenditure of money HAVE to specify a funding source. That's just an example of how the initiative process can't, and doesn't, allow the voters to have whatever they want.

People bandy that statement around a lot... w/o actually knowing what it means. All laws must be in agreement with the US Constitution or they are 'unconstitutional'. There are many such state and muninciple laws inconsistant with the US Constitution (the Second Amendment forinstance) yet remain in effect for generations. The right to hunt and fish... eliminates 'permit'. Rights require no permission... they are your rights. Not what the government allows you to do... but what you, as a citizen may do as you choose w/o government restriction.

Laws are not written to allow you to do anything. Laws are statements of what you may or shall not do. I suspect the vast majority of AZ voters do 'not' hunt or fish, nor would ever do so. There is nothing in the US Constitution inconsistant with recognizing hunting/fishing as an individual right. Rights need not be funded... there's nothing to fund.

As for 'leaving these decisions to the professionals'... that's a true statist line. The 'professionals' are many times... Not. This is typical abbrogation of personal responsibility to somebody else. I will vote YES for Prop 109.


Oh... Kdogs statement was lifted straight from the uber-liberal Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-..._b_717150.html Pascalle is President and CEO of the Humane Society of the US... No conflict of interest there... is there?

[kdog]

Originally Posted by .45acp

Oh... Kdogs statement was lifted straight from the uber-liberal Huffington Post.

I did not "lift" anything. I quoted it, and provided a link to the source.

[observer53]

A statute or municipal ordinance is only declared unconstitutional if someone challenges it as being inconsistent with the Constitution if one sits on the books, it sits there. There are areas in which federal law preeempts, and other areas in which regulation is reserved to the states. But, I really don't need to get into that big an argument here. I don't spend time either hunting or fishing, but I don't want any of my "rights", whether I happen to choose to exercise them or not, put in the sole hands of this Legislature. I don't want that camel's nose under the tent. I don't think that hunting and fishing is that threatened that this sort of action is necessary.

Just because something is found on a site you or anyone else characterizes as "ultra liberal" doesn't mean it isn't valid.

From what I've learned to date, voting no.

[123.DieselBenz]

Isn't there something about using bullets containing lead where the condor flies . . . is a no-no . . . what's next?

The lottery system is a joke too!

[.45acp]

Prop 109 will add the following to Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution

Article 36

A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this Stateand is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this State.

B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.

C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

D. This section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights.

So, there it is...

As fort Pacelle: Wayne Pacelle: “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.”

Associated Press. "Anti-hunting activist targets West." The Kingman Daily Miner. December 30, 1991


Nothing like a anti-hunting wonk with an agenda is there?

[observer53]

December 1991-- that's TWENTY YEARS AGO. And "if they could they would" is a VERY big if. It's just not going to happen.

Mr. Pacelle did not hide his identity in his statement. He's entitled to his opinion, whether I agree with it or not.

[kdog]

Looks like the naysayers are getting organized: Arizonans Against the Power Grab - No on 109

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by kdog

Looks like the naysayers are getting organized: Arizonans Against the Power Grab - No on 109

bunny huggers united