Question one on the ballot in Indiana deals with the possibility of a new amendment to the state constitution that “forever” protects the right to hunt and fish in this state.
The amendment would also mandate that hunting and fishing is the preferred method of wildlife control and conservation instead of relocation, fencing or another humane approach.
It’s all rather uncalled-for.
The proposed amendment seems to come as a response to a non-existent threat against the right to hunt in Indiana. Its proponents state that by passing the amendment, an important right will be protected. However, those proponents cannot say exactly by whom or how the right is being attacked at all.
It would be extremely difficult to outlaw hunting in Indiana, and that’s why no one is trying. Even opponents of this amendment, like the Humane Society, do not publicly oppose the sport of hunting.
In an interview for the Indy Star, Joel Kerr of the Indiana Animal Rights Alliance said the amendment question is also poorly worded and makes it seem like voters are either voting yes or no to the idea of hunting in general. This will undoubtedly increase the number of people who vote yes on question one, unknowingly introducing another amendment to the state constitution.
This whole situation seems a lot like a next-door neighbor building a seven-foot fence between your properties to protect their vegetable garden from your dogs when you don’t have any dogs, and maybe any potential dogs you would have wouldn’t want to roll around in their stupid garden anyway.
The National Rifle Association is a big supporter of this amendment — and the other 19 state constitutional amendments that protect hunting rights. Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, claims that this type of amendment can shield hunting and fishing rights from “well-funded extremist groups.”
You know, groups like the NRA.
The underlying question with this proposed legislation is, why now? If there are not any groups actively trying to take away the right to hunt and fish, what is causing this sudden desire to solidify these rights in writing, “forever”?
It may be the rhetoric surrounding gun control. With Hillary Clinton almost definitely to be elected as our next president, gun owners are crying that she will “take away our guns!”
However, that just is not the case. Clinton has proposed tighter background checks, a ban on certain assault weapons — as in, not hunting arms — and closing the loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to purchase a gun without a full clearance before murdering churchgoers in Charleston.
If you are hunting animals and fishing for sport, you will be fine. Even in “Hillary’s America.”
Indiana, I doubt anyone is ever going to take away your guns. Let’s not crowd our state’s constitution with a superfluous amendment to protect rights you already have.
