|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Knowing The Regulations is Your Responsibility as a Hunter
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Throughout my career as a hunter and someone employed by the outdoor industry, I have hunted in many areas of the country. In doing so, one of the most time-consuming tasks after the tag has been drawn and the hunting license was purchased is the reading and understanding of the state’s hunting regulations. Each state is different and some states are very different than home when it comes to their game laws. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/27/2018)
|
Noitisn't. Quitlyin'.
The rules are:
You go out. You kill the sumbitch. You field dress it. You load it on the truck. You take it home for skinning and butchering. You cook it and eat it.
Those are the rules. Simple |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(8/28/2018)
|
| No PHORTO, its not. If we are going to try and maintain the moral high ground on hunting then we must abide by the rules and regulations, they are there for a reason. And as long as they do not inhibit our right to put meat on the table through responsible game management practices then they are a good thing. I'd like for my grandchildren to be able to hunt the very same kinds of game animals I have hunted, 50 years from now. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
