protecting our heritage

quail hound

quail hound

Moderator
http://m.trib.com/news/state-and-re...cle_137945cb-3c9e-51a9-a8a8-0371385dc49e.html

I applaud Wyoming and other states proposing to protect their residents right to hunt. Our nations heritage of hunting needs to be protected, and I'm sad to say that if any state is to go in the opposite direction it would be Ca.:( What do you guys think? Do our rights to hunt, fish, and trap need to be protected or will it be there for future generations without intervention?
 
I think Tennessee or Kentucky did this also. I strongly support this move:thumbsup:

Good luck in Ca. Quail Hound. You've got a few big cities out there who in general don't understand a thing about our hunting heritage. We're feeling the pain here too being so close to Chicago. It's hard to expand our recreational opportunities. The anti's are right there to stop what we propose:mad:

--1pheas4
 
1pheas4 said:
I think Tennessee or Kentucky did this also. I strongly support this move:thumbsup:

Good luck in Ca. Quail Hound. You've got a few big cities out there who in general don't understand a thing about our hunting heritage. We're feeling the pain here too being so close to Chicago. It's hard to expand our recreational opportunities. The anti's are right there to stop what we propose:mad:

--1pheas4
Click to expand...

1pheas4, You got that right. Here in Arizona this issue was on the last ballot. It was voted down.:mad: Most sportsman here think it was voted down because Phoenix and Tucson. The prop had very Little advertising. :confused:

Yes they need to be protected.
 
Last edited:
Kansas Voters Passed Revised Constitutional Gun Rights Provision

Kansas voters in the 2010 election passed the following new constitutional gun rights provision by an 88% to 12% margin:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

Inclusion of the word "state" is consistent with the 2nd Amendment's reference to the need for citizens to have arms in order to serve in a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[.]"
 
Last edited:
I was a proud Kansan when I seen the results to that proposition in last year's general election. I voted yes of course! :thumbsup:
 
BritChaser said:
Kansas voters in the 2010 election passed the following new constitutional gun rights provision by an 88% to 12% margin:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

Inclusion of the word "state" is consistent with the 2nd Amendment's reference to the need for citizens to have arms in order to serve in a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[.]"
Click to expand...

Wow 88%, that's amazing. I don't think 88% of Californians could agree on anything. Growing up in the central valley, the ag capital of the world I feel very disconnected with the direction our state is heading. The issues that are important to the valley aren't important to the "big cities" and vice versa. The valley is almost like a different state all together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top