ANGRY people can attack the wrong thing and miss the real point. My mother used to punish me and my brother both for something only one of us did. Bigots stereotype against an entire race based on a few bad individual experiences. And sometimes people lash out against a proposed law simply because it is associated with things they think are bad.
On Nov. 7, citizens of the Commonwealth will get the chance to vote either to accept or reject the proposed "Right to hunt" amendment to the Virginia Constitution. This amendment puts forth that "the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." This proposal has been met with much public outcry, including arguments that it will make hunting easier and will lead to more criminal use of guns.
These claims are ridiculous. The new amendment will have few affects on current hunting policies; it won't really change anything at all. Hunting is already legal. This amendment would simply state that hunters have the constitutional right to do something they enjoy, and certainly wouldn't cause the effects that some people fear. There are plenty of other laws that protect hunting from getting out of control, and background checks protect against criminal use as much as they can.
The current problems with hunting, such as animal abuse and danger to residential areas will not be solved if the amendment isn't accepted. These - and other - problems are controlled independently of a proposed "right to hunt." Virginia law states that any city or town, by ordinance, can prohibit hunting within a half-mile radius of residential areas. Counties and cities can also prohibit hunting near highways and any other roads they choose to protect.
Giving citizens a right to hunt is not going to make them more likely to fire their shotguns in the vicinity of homes and cars. If you want to solve these problems, rejecting the proposed amendment isn't the way to do it.
Problems do exist with hunters trespassing illegally on private property. They do this against the laws that restrict them to certain areas. Giving them the constitutional right to hunt, which they already do anyway, will not affect their choice to trespass. All the amendment does is give hunters the freedom to do something they already enjoy doing, but it will not make law-breakers change their ways. The amendment isn't giving bad citizens the right to break the law, it's giving good citizens the right to enjoy a favorite recreational activity.
If the proposed amendment is passed, it won't be easier for hunters to abuse or overkill animal populations. Regardless of a right to hunt, it already is a Class 1 misdemeanor to abuse, overkill, torture, abandon, maim or mutilate the carcasses of the hunted game.
It's unfortunate that this sometimes happens, but it happens independently of any proposed amendments. Once again, if you want to attack something, seek out harsher penalties for hunters who mistreat animals, and don't take away the right to hunt that law-abiding citizens won't abuse.
A valid concern in today's society is that guns will get into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, this will happen whether citizens are given the right to hunt or not. Criminal use of guns won't increase due to the amendment, and either way, there are other laws that attempt to decrease criminal use. Background checks are required before anyone can purchase a gun. Hunting licensees still must be obtained, and all license holders have to pass a hunter education and safety test before they can go out in the woods with a gun.
The proposed amendment doesn't give criminals the right to hunt; it gives hunters the right to hunt. Criminals must be dealt with in other ways than by preventing the majority of citizens from hunting. Even if the amendment does not pass, criminal use would in no way decrease. A criminal is a criminal no matter what rights other people have, and if a criminal wants a gun bad enough, he will find a way.
Believe it or not, the proposed amendment may even prove to be good for the Commonwealth. If citizens realize they have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, then they'll be more likely to purchase a license to do so. With each purchase, some of that money will go to the Commonwealth to use for other gains. Perhaps that money can be used to pass stricter laws for animal abuse or background checks. Or it could be used to educate children on the dangers of guns used inappropriately.
The proposed "Right to hunt" amendment to the Virginia Constitution doesn't deserve to be lambasted so much. It doesn't increase problems with hunting. It merely lets law-abiding citizens know that they are free to hunt, fish and harvest game safely.
(Brandon Almond is a Cavalier Daily associate editor.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
