SJR 7 – Constitutional Right to Hunt & Fish passes Senate

By a vote of 38 – 10, the Indiana Senate passed SJR 7 regarding the “right to hunt & fish.” It’s already passed through the General Assembly once. (See the prior discussion here from 2011; and a proto-version of the bill from 2005) If it passes the house, it will go on to the ballot for the public to vote on.

It would add to the state constitution a provision that says:

The people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, poultry, or dairy products, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject only to laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly. Hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.

Is this addressing a problem? Does it limit the government in some fashion that should be more explicit? It’s either so innocuous it shouldn’t be cluttering up the Constitution, or so opaque in its intent that its intent should be made more explicit. But, who wants to be the legislator who votes against hunting & fishing? Somebody ought to float a puppy amendment.


  1. Freedom says

    Come on. Be honest about why you don’t like this. It speaks to natural law, self sufficiency, masculinity, the eternal and necessary right to keep and use arms, independence, skill, and ruggedness. You know, conservative activities.

    If Vi Simpson offered an amendment requiring everyone to participate in a drum circle while uttering a secular prayer to the earth god to ban guns and automobiles, which amendment also forced everyone to participate in at least three homosexual experiences by the time of high school graduation and compelled everyone to live in a high-density building with all males receiving twice-daily estrogen injections, you’d be all for it.

    • Freedom says

      When someone speaks of:

      1. Natural law;
      2. Self sufficiency;
      3. Masculinity;
      4. The eternal and necessary right to keep and use arms;
      5. Independence;
      6. Skill; and
      7. Ruggedness.

      You hear “penis?” Cf. “Hoplophobia.”

      We all have baggage which warps our view of the world in unproductive ways. Sometimes, we all might benefit from just a little time on the couch, talking through some of our issues.

      • Doug says

        Nah, but when I hear someone waxing on about the need to safeguard their masculinity, I suspect feelings of inadequacy.

        More to the point though, all of these things you think the proposed amendment speaks to go right out the door whenever the General Assembly has the whim. The bit about “subject only to laws prescribed by the General Assembly” makes the exercise nonsensical.

        • Freedom says

          Don’t be a boll weevil in the cotton field. We’re telling you the way things are going to be, the way things should be, the way things must be.

          If words ain’t gonna’ get the job done, what do you leave us? Be thankful I’m talking to you about this. Most people interested in this subject won’t read your blog, may not even have a computer and won’t reduce themselves to speak with you on this subject. They’ll let others say what needs to be said, and by now, figure everyone’s been told enough to know better.

          When you see amendments like this come through, you should really pause and consider: “Dear God, what have I done (and the blame lies right at your feet) to draw such a reaction from decent men?” Here’s the thing, down in your gut, you know they’re right, and you’re not. You know deep down that this urbanized liberal male role isn’t the way a man was built.

          Time’s about now for your kind to step aside and be quiet, for a while.

              • Stuart says

                It was in praise of the quality of work he did, not an irrelevant personal argument. Sorry, but while your anger is almost palpable, your comments don’t always make sense. I would like to know what you are thinking, not just how much rage you feel.

          • varangianguard says

            When other people tell me to “sit down and shut up” about any part of the political process, I remember that it is they who are un-American, not me. If there is not to be any civil discourse allowed because you think you know better than me, then we don’t live in whatever system you seem to think we live in.

            And, if saying “your kind” isn’t ad hominem, then you don’t know what THAT means either.

            You also might want to consider changing your “handle” to “Anti-Freedom for All, but Me”. It would seem more fitting from the tone of your writing.

  2. Freedom says

    P.S. With you sappers and miners relentlessly trying to tear down the foundational ideas of this country upon which all real Americans agreed for centuries and trying to tell us that which we all know to be true about Liberty isn’t, and with your mendacious solicitors using the courts as a running coup d’etat, telling us that any liberty not explicit doesn’t exist, we need to make a lot more freedoms explicit, lest the leftist traitors endeavor to find any seam into which to drive a maul and crack the frame of Freedom.

    • Stuart says

      Freedom, your comments tend to communicate a vengeful, dark, angry and dualistic understanding of relationships. Sort of Old Testament prophet without the religion. Is that really you? Could you go beyond that and provide some rational arguments that would actually stimulate an intelligent discussion? You could start out by not insulting people in the first sentence.

      • Freedom says

        Stuart, it’s telling that you look at America and see “vengeful, dark, and angry.” How you’ve forgotten the sacrifices of the immortals and your blood debt to their honor to preserve what they gave you.

        It’s further revealing that you don’t know your Jefferson.

        One also wonder to what “relationship” you refer.

        Or was this all vapid subterfuge intended to cloud and derail the discussion?

    • Freedom says

      Jack, your answer depends on in which century and in which city and to which students the subject is being taught. The older the date, the better the city and the more exemplar the students, no, the sententiae would come from the quills of students barely in their teens, and they could even write parallel translations in Latin.

      That you publicly posited your query is a sad comment on America’s precipitous intellectual decline.

  3. Carlito Brigante says

    “[R]eal Americans,”, there is that darned “True Scotsman” assertion again. Hundreds of words of tensentious and turgid prose saived by one assertion.

    Or should I say insertion, keeping with the penis substitution theme of the day.

  4. Don Sherfick says

    Somewhat ironic that the measure is numbered SJR-7, which is the former version of the the proposed “Marriage Protection Amendment”, now termed HJR-6. Vote on the latter has been postponed until the 2014 session, but if it should pass, the two will be be on the ballot together in 2014. One (hunting and fishing) would totally defer to the legislature’s ability to enact laws; the other will deny the General Assembly the ability to do anything meaningful in the area of benefitting same sex couples. I went back to your 2011 link and see that Tipsy had much to say about the former marriage measure, and how it commendably preserved legislative power. haven’t seen him opine recently on the current measure, which he didn’t think much of in 2007.

Leave a Reply