|
|
|
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:
MO: Missouri Supreme Court Shoots Down Captive Deer Hunting Operations
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The state’s highest court bucked Missouri’s captive deer hunting industry Tuesday, saying the state government has a right to regulate the companies in order to control a deadly brain disease affecting the animals. The case involved the owners of hunting preserves who challenged regulations imposed by the Missouri Department of Conservation in 2014 that attempted to crack down on the spread of chronic wasting disease by limiting the importation of deer and elk into the state. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/4/2018)
|
75 deer out of 24,000 over more than a decade does not a crisis make. In fact, it's a statistical nullity.
But the gov't will insist on controlling everything it can get its big nose into. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
