The Constitution Does Not Protect Hunting

The C.A.S.H. Courier
ARTICLE from the Fall 2008 Issue

The Constitution Does Not Protect Hunting

This Intentional Misinterpretation Has Led To Unconstitutional Laws

By Herman Lenz

Our lawmakers take an oath to uphold both state and federal Constitutions. Yet they pass unconstitutional laws and allow unconstitutional actions to go on. They and the law enforcement personnel KNOW the average citizen cannot spend a million dollars or hundreds of hours in court.

A professional writer from Cedar Falls, IA, wrote an article in the Waterloo Courier basically declaring the Constitution dead. He said, Now the Constitution is mostly a ceremonial object. We bring it out on special occasions. People quote it when they wish to be seen as correct in an historical or cultural sense. Other than that, it is a dead document. Progressives already know it. Conservatives keep insisting it can't be true. Most in power don't know or care what it says.

No Equal Justice under the Law
Law enforcement personnel point guns at, and even shoot, unarmed and non-attacking people and pets, and no charges are ever filed. They are acting within department policy. So, their policy overrides or overrules the Constitution. Any common citizen would be fed to the lions for doing the same to them.

The Iowa Constitution, Article 1-Bill of Rights, sec. 6 says: 'The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.'

Yet, hunters are given special privileges or protections, making it illegal to harass them, while there is no such law making it illegal to harass animal rights activists, landowners, or residents. Recently in IA a law was passed making it illegal to bully homosexuals. Public pressure added several more classes of people, but NOT animal rights activists.

The hunter harassment law will have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I say that because I believe the animal rights people will lose in state court, as the hunting lobby and vested interests would be right there to wear them down financially. But if ALL the animal rights organizations were to unite in such a project, they could take that unconstitutional law down.

I'm not 'anti-gun,' having plenty myself, but I don't like the way they get used. Shooting paper and clay are okay, collecting is okay, but hunting is not.

The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was not to protect sport hunting, but was to insure that common citizens always had the means and firepower to defend freedom and overthrow a despotic government that might come into being. The founding fathers of America had just come out of a system where only the police and top officials were armed, and they wanted to be sure it didn't happen again. The Declaration of Independence states it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government. The National Guard, police, and Army aren't going to 'throw off' such government. Rather they enforce the despotic laws the government tells them to.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have nothing to do with protecting hunters' rights, especially when the hunters are using this misinterpretation to deny the homeowner and wildlife protectors their First Amendment rights.

Herman Lenz is a long time C.A.S.H. member.