Bill in Maryland

[averageguy]

https://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news ... unt-alone/

[mask]

I have fought animal rights groups for close to 50 years and this has their finger prints all over it. It doesn't sound like a safety issue at all but a way to stop hunting before it starts. Thanks for posting.

[birddogger2]

Perhaps someone in MD should offer an amendment to that bill.

My suggestion, for the sake of safety, would be to require that all law enforcement officers be required to store their duty weapon at the station house.

I could be wrong, but I have the sense that far more gun violence is perpetrated by law enforcement personnel than by legal hunters under the age of eighteen, in the act of hunting. I think the statistics on domestic violence and suicide will bear this out.

I suspect that not very many acts of domestic violence are committed by underage hunters during legal hunting hours and that incidences of suicide by licensed hunters under the age of eighteen during legal hunting hours is similarly miniscule.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for off duty law enforcement personnel. There are, sadly, folks with issues.

Soooo, if it is public safety we are concerned with, armed law enforcement personnel that are off duty are a much greater source of risk for gun violence.

RayG

[averageguy]

Ray G,

Wow that is some really ugly and wildly speculative bias you have against Law Enforcement there. You should consider getting some help with that.

The Sportsman Alliance does an excellent job of keeping members informed of the never ceasing 24/7 attacks on our Sport, including our dogs. My purpose in posting is to bring awareness to both.

[cjhills]

Who is Bill in Maryland?

[birddogger2]

Ray G,

Wow that is some really ugly and wildly speculative bias you have against Law Enforcement there. You should consider getting some help with that.

The Sportsman Alliance does an excellent job of keeping members informed of the never ceasing 24/7 attacks on our Sport, including our dogs. My purpose in posting is to bring awareness to both.

I am of the opinion that the only way to combat and defeat anti-gun and anti-hunter bias is to confront it directly. By couching this action in the same terms and suggesting that an amendment to the bill be offered which has true potential to improve public safety...is a way to expose the stupidity and unfairness of such legislation.

There is no question that underage hunters, legally licensed, pose a miniscule safety risk to the public, especially while hunting during legal hunting hours. The same(sadly) cannot be said for the law enforcement community. It can be a very high stress job and there are folks with issues. Everyone knows that.

I have no inherent bias toward law enforcement. I do have some problems with how the function of law enforcement has been diverted from "serving and protecting" the public. It seems that in today's society, one of the prime functions of law enforcement is to arrest "somebody" for "something. It seems not to matter if the somebody was a victim, and in some instances, it seems that arresting the victim for something is preferable, because it poses less risk to the officers.
However, I recognize that this diversion is largely politically driven.

I do have a bias against dangerous activities. I do think that certain law enforcement priorities and practices, and for that matter, government priorities are not particularly in the public interest. Law enforcement's procurement of military hardware, full auto weapons and the like, strikes me as a very dangerous path to go down. We have a military for that. Local law enforcement"s apparent requirement to pay for itself(at least partially) through issuance of traffic citations is another diversion that I feel is not particularly in the public interest. If a community feels the need for police protection, they should budget accordingly. If they need traffic control, there are meter maids for that.

RayG

RayG

[averageguy]

RG,

Your diatribe against Law Enforcement has no intersection with the subject posted.

I have Friends and Family in Law Enforcement, which brings bias, as well as a much deeper understanding for their job and the lack of support from a General Public that unfortunately needs them more than ever, but increasingly behaves in the opposite manner.

Do we have too many laws and growing? Heck yes we do.

You are intelligent enough to know that Law Enforcement is not the Legislative Branch of Government that makes these laws.

The name Law Enforcement is instructive. They enforce the Laws and up to a point it is best for our society that Law Enforcement not utilize a self determined path as to which laws they choose to enforce and which to ignore.

Informed voters should address their dis-satisfaction with Laws towards the elections of the Law makers responsible.

Now let's get back to the subject of the OP if we can Please.

[birddogger2]

averageguy -

I WAS addressing the original post. There was no diatribe. My second post was, I thought, more of an explanation.

When someone or some group wants to pass a law that restricts YOUR rights...it is my opinion that the BEST way to bring that to a halt is to immediately propose companion legislation, based on exactly the same premise, that group in question as well as the general public... will find distasteful and offensive. Both get voted down, and a message gets sent. Unfortunately, most politicians don't have the cahones to do stuff like that.

Fighting fire with a bigger hotter, nastier fire will definitely get folks attention. Being "reasonable" with folks who are unreasonable...simply does not work and will inevitably result in a succession of one sided "compromises". Unreasonable people who wish to restrict our constitutional freedoms need to be "pushed back", not accomodated.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

I do commend and encourage you to continue to inform the sporting public on such matters. Thank you.


RayG