Push To Outlaw Hunting In Oregon Underway

(Brian Gehring /The Bismarck Tribune via AP, File)

How many times have you heard or had to say “the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!”? Well, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, if you needed to get up to speed. Yes, the proliferation of game animals is a big part of our American heritage, but it wasn’t the deer the framers of the Bill of Rights were worried about protecting the people from. This is relevant because there have been more than one leftist progressive member of the anti-freedom caucus try to equate gun rights to our ability to hunt. There is also a push that would outlaw hunting in Oregon. What do some champions of gun rights have to say about hunting and the right to keep and bear arms?

Former NY Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington seems to think the Second Amendment is about hunting:

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.

Or nanny Michael Bloomberg:

Well, if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly, that’s a good definition… And then you can argue what a lot is, okay, let’s say three. If you haven’t hit the deer with three shots, you’re a pretty lousy shot, that deer deserves to get away.

One more from the Golden Girl of the Golden State, Dianne Feinstein:

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

Let’s come to an agreement right here and right now; I’m not advocating that the Second Amendment is about hunting, but let’s lean on progressive rhetoric to make a point. Unfortunately the people pushing for Oregon Initiative Petition 13 (IP 13) “ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND ASSAULT EXEMPTION MODIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT”, are not even cut from the same cloth as Eddington, Bloomberg, or Feinstein. Nope, not at all. What is IP 13? From the text:

Whereas, animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress, and fear.
Whereas, current exemptions permit unnecessary and inhumane harm to animals.

The People of Oregon therefore propose the Abuse, Neglect, and Assault Exemption Modification and Improvement Act to amend Chapter 167 of the Oregon Revised Statutes—which currently provide unnecessary exemptions to laws governing animal abuse, animal neglect, and animal sexual assault—in order to reduce the suffering of animals and improve their quality of life.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

FINDINGS AND POLICY

Section 1.
(1) The People of the State of Oregon find that animal abuse, neglect, and assault is a serious problem in Oregon and that Oregon needs to amend the current exemptions that allow for the abuse, neglect, and assault of animals.
(2)(a) The purpose of this Abuse, Neglect, and Assault Exemption Modification and Improvement Act is to remove the current exemptions that allow for the inhumane and unnecessary abuse, neglect, and assault of animals.
(b) It is the policy of the State of Oregon that animals should be cared for in ways that minimize their pain, stress, fear, and suffering.

Does this pass the reasonable man test? Sure. I think it does on the surface. If the sexual assault of animals is a big problem in Oregon, then perhaps this does need to be addressed. But, when you start to dig into the details, you’ll find a much more sinister situation:

Section 2. ORS 167.315 is amended to read:
(1) A person commits the crime of animal abuse in the second degree if, except as [otherwise authorized by law] necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of immediate violence, the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to an animal.
[(2) Any practice of good animal husbandry is not a violation of this section.]
[(3)](2) Animal abuse in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor. [1985 c.662 §2]

Section 3. ORS 167.320 is amended to read:
(1) A person commits the crime of animal abuse in the first degree if, except as [otherwise authorized by law] necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of immediate violence, the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:
(a) Causes serious physical injury to an animal; or
(b) Cruelly causes the death of an animal.
[(2) Any practice of good animal husbandry is not a violation of this section.]
[(3)](2) Animal abuse in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

The text is striking from the current law “otherwise authorized by law”, which would be hunting, fishing, and trapping. As well as “good animal husbandry”, which according to Oregon law is:

“Good animal husbandry” includes, but is not limited to, the dehorning of cattle, the docking of horses, sheep or swine, and the castration or neutering of livestock, according to accepted practices of veterinary medicine or animal husbandry.

This is a prospective ballot initiative which needs the proper support in order to make it to the voters. Do read the full text of the proposed initiative, as it goes beyond the outlawing of hunting. This is all bad news. No, I’m not an advocate for abusing animals. Or sexually assaulting them. If now is the time for animal #metoo movement, so be it, we can embrace it. The proposed law also wants to make any infraction a felony if such act(s) are committed in front of a minor child, among a host of other infractions. Breaking the new law in that manner would make people permanently disqualified from owning arms, voting, etc. Imagine an Oregon where you’re a felon for taking your child duck hunting.

An article by Lynn Burkhead of Peterson’s Bowhunting even chuckled a little until the full weight of the situation set in:

Pretty sobering stuff. While the Oregon initiative might have initially seemed like humor straight out of the weekend funny papers, the truth is that now there really is a safe falling out of the sky here and it’s aimed for the noggins of Oregon’s outdoors enthusiasts who enjoy some of the nation’s best big-game hunting, waterfowling, upland bird hunting, and fishing activities on private, state, and federal lands.

The other unintended consequence is what this does to land management in the state. Through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act a flood of funds go into the coffers to maintain the same land many recreate on, regardless of being a hunter or not. There is also revenue used for management that is generated from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses. This banning of hunting will equate to a defund the police movement for wildlife. Yank the funds and remove the force that keeps everything in balance, you’ll have a Portland equivalent in mother nature. As we all know, Portland is gaining high marks on how they handle things. Is the city still burning? Anyone check in on them lately? Think that’s a stretch, how about the feral hog problems in Texas or the reinvigoration of wolf populations turning out to be problematic. Who is going to pay for land management?

Let’s not worry too much. Now is the perfect time for all the progressive politicians that have been saying the Second Amendment is about hunting to step up to the plate and swing. I’m sure all the weight of Moms Demand Action, a Bloomberg funded group, will be put into stopping such a measure. If Bloomberg, Feinstein and the ilk are going to use hunting as a pulpit for usurping rights, they best stand up for it as a right when it’s threatened under the same logic. There should be an outpouring of support to not let this ballot initiative see the light of day! Besides, we have an ace in the hole, President Biden. Biden will come to Oregon’s rescue. In an interview with Field and Stream back in 2013, even he said the Second Amendment protected hunting (and other activities):

It was written primarily for self-defense. The argument about whether or not it was, you know, that famous phrase of Jefferson’s, “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,” which is often used by people who are super-enthusiasts–the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.