NRA ILA alert
MAINE: Maine's Hunting Rights in Jeopardy! Anti-hunting legislation, Legislative Document 1635, "An Act To Prohibit Recreational Bear Trapping," has been referred to the Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. This bill would abolish the open season on trapping bears, a long-standing Maine tradition. Please contact the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee Members today and politely urge them to oppose LD 1635 and save a tradition of hunting that has been used by Maine hunters for decades. Senate members can be reached at (207) 287-1583, and House members can be contacted at (207) 287-4469.
OK, the Todd Take. I donated money, spent time, wrote letters, collected money from my friends and family out of state. We got this shot down. Then Maine Hunters had the opportunity to go on OFFENSE with Sunday hunting and did not. They split ranks saying it was "too early" to cause a commotion. The small woodlot owners association SAID it's members would post their land so the trappers bailed.
So now, instead of fighting for a right, we are fighting to keep a right again. And I'm worn out and upset with the trappers for bailing out on my right to hunt Sundays. By rights, I should bail on them the way they bailed out on me. But I won't. We can't afford to have any more rights eroded.
I expect, no DEMAND, we get a commitment from the guides and trappers on Sunday hunting win or loose on this issue before you see me stepping to the plate again.
MASSACHUSETTS: One-Gun-A-Month Bill Filed in Massachusetts! Governor Deval Patrick's (D) gun-rationing scheme has become a reality. House Bill 3991 is currently in the Judiciary Committee. This bill would limit law-abiding Massachusetts gun buyers from purchasing more than one firearm in a month's time. Please contact the Governor and the members of the Judiciary Committee and respectfully urge them to oppose this gun-rationing scheme.
I love this. It always sounds "reasonable" to the lefties. Let's apply it to one of their favorite issues. How about no woman can get more than one abortion per year. All this does is make honest folks lives difficult. Criminals can still buy/steal/trade as many guns as they want at a time.
Why would someone need two guns in a month you ask? Maybe they want to buy a matched pair of collector's guns. Maybe they have the opportunity to purchase a collection. Maybe they took up a new hobby like Cowboy Action Shooting, where you need one or two revolvers, a rifle and a shotgun. Perhaps they got the opportunity to go on a once in a lifetime hunting trip that requires guns different than what they own. Maybe they just WANT two guns.
Multiple gun purchases are already reported to the Feds. Let's face it, we're no safer from a nut job with two guns purchased together or apart. And unless he has three hands, three guns are no help.
Just so we get this straight, in Massachusetts, you have to go through a Federal background check, a State background check, and a local back ground check, including personal references. Your finger prints are put in a database and are run for every crime where they run prints. You also have your mug shot put in the system. All costs of this vary by town (but are always expensive) and are borne by the applicant, every four years.
I asked the officer who does the paperwork how many people fail the checks. She said "None. Criminals don't apply."
THEN the local police chief (in volition of the equal protection afforded by the 14th amendment, because standards vary by town and are subjective) may or may not issue a permit, and can limit said permit to what kind of guns you can own, and when and where you carry them (i.e. low capacity long guns for target shooting only). Any carry outside of that (even perhaps stopping for gas) could subject you to jail time.
You are also required by law to report every time you move to the town you moved from, the town you moved to, and the State Police (who never update their records and still send notices to my parents).
If you pass that standard, no amount of gun rationing is going to make any difference. I know, let's just catch the bad guys and leave honest folks alone.
Let me start out by saying I am in full support of Sunday hunting. I have covered this in detail for about a week on my blog in the past. However, this has been brought up something like the last 15 years and continues to be shot down every time. SAM needs to refocus and go about it a different way. There are many factors to look into. If this passes will this in fact cut back available hunting lands that are already depleting?....
First, I want Sunday hunting, but even if it gets shot down over and over again, it's worth fighting for. Sunday hunting has been brought up a few times over the last 15 years, but it has not been brought up as frequently as the antis bring their pet projects up.
It's as if we constantly play on defense, without ever trying to gain some ground. The siege mentality is hard to bear. There has never been a position that can be defended forever, and you win by going on offense. (The anti-bear folks will loose over and over until they win.)
SO, we ought to consider taking the fight to the antis by constantly trying to pass expanded hunting (so long as it's biologically sound). We ought to fight for a spring bear hunt per my good friend Craig McLaughlin, former Maine Bear Biologist. I'd be willing to loose that fight every year.
The reason land is getting posted is because of the unbearable taxes on open land. That needs to be addressed. Folks are cutting up family plots because they can't afford to keep them with the meager income from timber or hay. I should know, I live on one of the splinters of the original 100 acre farm. There are three two-acre budding lots available sandwiched between what will be my horse farm and an existing dairy farm. For sale by the brother of the guy we bought this place from. I don't blame him for selling (although I wish he wouldn't).
The Small Wood Lot Owners Association of Maine has threatened that all their land will be posted if Sunday Hunting passes, but a) not everyone who owns a small woodlot is a member and b) not every member does exactly what they are told. I own about 120 acres of woodland in the state and it's not posted and I'm not a member of their club. If I was, my land would remain open. I am considering posting it against Trapping on Sundays.
And don't get me started on ATVs. They ruin property and buzz off when you do catch them trespassing. I'd vote for a total ban on quads anywhere but on your own land. I've considered posting to keep ATVs off, and the only easy sign to get is "Posted: No Trespassing."
Other states have been through this and the sky does not fall and the entire state does not get posted. Ohio introduced Sunday Hunting on a) public land, b) large tracts of private land, and c) smaller tracts of public land hunted by the owner or with the owner physically present. The whole state is wide open Sundays now.
Since unposted land is a benefit to everyone, other states tax it at a lower rate than posted land. Lowering the tax burden would keep acreage open, intact and reduce "urban sprawl." We also need to look at the timber harvest laws to see if some of it isn't just "feel good" legislation. The timber companies have been the hunter's best friend. The keep land in one piece, open to hunting and create young forest habitat.
Those are some great points. Like I said, I am in full support of Sunday hunting. My little parcel of land will always be open to anyone wishing to hunt on it as well.