NY state hunter mistakes woman walking her dogs for a deer killing her

[SlowSpyder]

The SCOTUS would disagree with you.

Voting for example requires licensure, though we call it "registration" instead. Regardless its something that needs to be maintained fairly regularly lest you lose it. Gun ownership also requires licensure but it doesn't need to be maintained.

Voting does not require a license, that is false.

More and more states are switching to constitutional carry, I imagine that will eventually be the case everywhere as that is the way it should be, going by our constitution (if you still value that).

 

[Sunburn74]

Voting does not require a license, that is false.

Its called a registration. Registration/license. That's semantics essentially, a game to be played with a thesaurus. Its like saying being furious is different from being enraged. Again, semantics.

Essentially they both refer to some sort of document you receive after some sort of screening process for eligibility. You can't just show up at a polling station shouting its my right and expect to vote. There is a licensure/registration process you must undertake first and some people don't pass.

 

[ivwshane]

The constitution. Naturally derived inalienable rights. No special license required.

Nope, you added the last part. Show me where in the constitution it states, to the affect, no special licensed required.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope, you added the last part. Show me where in the constitution it states, to the affect, no special licensed required.

By the definition of what a "right" is. You do not need license for a right, a right is an entitlement to act a certain way or do some specific thing. Rights do not have license, once it does it is no longer a right.

 

[bshole]

By the definition of what a "right" is. You do not need license for a right, a right is an entitlement to act a certain way or do some specific thing. Rights do not have license, once it does it is no longer a right.

How many species would go extinct without hunting licenses? If you are against licensing, you don't give a shit about wildlife conservation.

 

[SlowSpyder]

How many species would go extinct without hunting licenses? If you are against licensing, you don't give a shit about wildlife conservation.

A license to hunt and the right to own a gun are two different things.

 

[bshole]

A license to hunt and the right to own a gun are two different things.

Well this thread is about hunting and you have come out against licenses. I would like you to defend your opposition to hunting licences.

 

[Denly]

Negligence comes from tort liability. A good lawyer will place contributory negligence on the woman for walking in the woods in low light during hunting season without a colored vest.

Don't know anything about hunting, am I suppose to know when is hunting season if I am hiking?

 

[Sunburn74]

By the definition of what a "right" is. You do not need license for a right, a right is an entitlement to act a certain way or do some specific thing. Rights do not have license, once it does it is no longer a right.

Rights are not a blank check for behavior. Rights may require licensure assuming the burden is reasonable. There are many many examples in our society of necessary registration and licensure prior to utilization of rights. There are many many examples of where rights are curbed by laws and regulations.

Also whilst gun ownership is a right, hunting is not. The government does not need to allow anyone to hunt. Hunting is a privilege.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well this thread is about hunting and you have come out against licenses. I would like you to defend your opposition to hunting licences.

I am not opposed to our government being involved in policing our consumption of natural resources, animals that are hunted included in that. Hunting on public land isn't necessarily a right. Like anything the government gets involved in, they can go too far. But all in all having the harvesting of wildlife controlled is good for all, the animals, the environment, and hunters.

But, owning a firearm is considered a right in America, it is in a different category than those things which require license, such as hunting / fishing / driving. Owning a gun is akin to saying whatever you want, using your 1st amendment right to free speech. No license or special privilege needed.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Don't know anything about hunting, am I suppose to know when is hunting season if I am hiking?

I don't know anybody who doesn't know when its hunting season. Most local news stations broadcast that fact to help people out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2013/09/24/hiking-hunting-season-safety-tips/2854437/

 

[Sunburn74]

Owning a gun is akin to saying whatever you want, using your 1st amendment right to free speech. No license or special privilege needed.

Is that really true? I think not. The first amendment is a right that has had very few curbs by the courts and generally has been expanded over time. Other rights have been curbed over time. There was a case before the supreme court where after a misdemeanor a state law allowed the removal of the right to own a gun. After a felony a person loses the right to own a gun entirely. And so on and so on.

Another example is voting for example. You need register in order to use it and can be denied at times.
Abortion rights are another. You can't just have an abortion and you certainly can't give yourself one even in your own home without facing legal repercussions. There is a process of registration that is needed.

Just think about the most liberal of the bill of rights amendments: the right to pursue happiness. Yet this right is curbed by essentially every single law passed. This is considered ok. We do not live in a state of anarchy and unrestricted rights result in anarchy.

 

[interchange]

This is somewhat my point. I think this concept of getting a license when you are competent and then never being assessed again regarding competency is very dubious. A lot of professions that require licensure have maintenance of certification procedures to ensure this. Even with drivers licenses to some degree some states do this.

I don't understand how as a country we have no formal systematic mechanism to ensure that people who own guns over time still are able to use them safely.

What would your maintenance licensing test show? That people still know it's wrong to shoot at unidentified targets after dark? I don't think that this guy would have failed the test. People do stupid things they know are wrong all the time.

It's still potentially useful, though. There might be laws or best practices that are more easily forgotten. Mostly, though, I think it can serve to bring attention to the value of gun safety. A value that is already inherent in the individual but whose attention may wander. Otherwise, I think things like cognitive and vision testing would be a more effective test for liability to operate a firearm than knowledge of proper use.

So I agree that it's a helpful intervention, but one that is likely only partially helpful. I personally can't think of a better one that doesn't limit rights.

 

[Red Storm]

How do you take that shot without 100% knowing it's a deer? Hope that guy never touches a gun in his life again.

 

[Zaap]

Just think about the most liberal of the bill of rights amendments: the right to pursue happiness.

LOL!

 

[Capt Caveman]

This is a somewhat fair point. There is a baseline risk of adverse events with anything. Is the per hour risk of adverse event with hunting exceeding an unacceptable level of risk? For example the per hour risk of adverse effect driving or flying a plane or playing a game of football or whatever. I doubt it.

I don't think this shooting is a particularly strong argument to further restrict gun use or access though it makes you wonder if eligibility to hunt should be better regulated and assessed. I also wonder who was in the wrong when someone is walking their dogs in a space where hunting occurs during presumed hunting season. Is this a failure of the state by not putting up adequate markers? I would think that there'd be fences or signs or common knowledge that certain areas are off limits. Granted he was shooting in the dark and violated the 1st and 2nd rules of hunting but nonetheless, I do wonder how well known it was that hunting was going on in that area.

Isn't hunting illegal at night and that's when this happened? No need for a sign when you're not supposed to be hunting and you couldn't see the sign anyways.

 

[ivwshane]

By the definition of what a "right" is. You do not need license for a right, a right is an entitlement to act a certain way or do some specific thing. Rights do not have license, once it does it is no longer a right.

So none of our rights are restricted or require a license of some sort? People are allowed to assemble in order to protest anywhere and anytime they please? Anyone can establish a religious organization and be tax exempt? Anyone can just walk up to a voting booth and vote?

So I'll ask again, where in the constitution does it say, to the effect, that no right should require licensing, registration, or be limited?

 

[mxnerd]

200 yards from the victim in the dark?

I don't believe it unless he is a well trained sniper, I mean, those snipers in the movies.

 

[EduCat]

Just saw on the news that ole boy got charged with manslaughter, looking at 15 years if found guilty. (Seems pretty cut and dry to me)

Two lives down the drain.

 

[Zaap]

Just saw on the news that ole boy got charged with manslaughter, looking at 15 years if found guilty. (Seems pretty cut and dry to me)

Two lives down the drain.

Good.

The guy should have known the old adage: If you can't do the time...

...commit the crime in San Francisco.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Good.

The guy should have known the old adage: If you can't do the time...

...commit the crime in San Francisco.

Yeah, trial by jury really sucks doesn't it.

 

[Linux23]

Good shoot?

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, trial by jury really sucks doesn't it.

Only if its the jury that spends many hours listening to actual evidence and arrives at a conclusion different from the one arrived at after listening to hours of evidence free ranting on right wing media.