printer friendly, larger
The C.A.S.H. Courier
ARTICLE from the Fall 2008 Issue
The Constitution Does Not Protect Hunting
This Intentional Misinterpretation Has Led To
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
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
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
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.
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.
Lenz is a long time C.A.S.H. member.