Senate moves to lift Sunday hunting ban
By Norman Leahy | Thursday, January 26th, 2012 | Politics, VirginiaNumerous bills that would allow some form of Sunday hunting have been proposed in this session. One of them has now passed the Senate:
The state Senate voted Wednesday to advance legislation that would allow Sunday hunting on private property, setting up a probable vote today on final passage of the bill.
The Senate voted 25-14 to advance the bill (SB 464), thwarting an amendment that would have left it to localities to decide whether to allow Sunday hunting in their jurisdictions. The Senate did amend the bill to prohibit hunting within 250 yards of a place of worship on Sundays.
Virginia is one of only 11 states that prohibit or restrict hunting on Sundays. Lawmakers have resisted efforts to roll back the ban in previous sessions, but supporters of Sunday hunting have mounted a well-coordinated effort to lift it in the 2012 General Assembly session. Gov. Bob McDonnell has said he would sign legislation allowing Sunday hunting on private property.
The bill was amended to ban hunting within 250 yards of a church. Okay.
Looking over the vote tally, though, shows that the bulk of the opposition came from Republicans. And it’s very interesting to see tea party favorite Tom Garrett’s name among the “nays.”
How many of these same Republicans who voted to deny even private property owners the right to hunt on their own land on Sundays will end up voting for the property rights amendment? Most, if not all, I suspect. How they rationalize denying such rights on the one hand while protecting them on the other ought to prove highly amusing.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Post contributor.
Comments
5 Responses to "Senate moves to lift Sunday hunting ban"
Norman,
Based upon the “property rights” argument, then I should be able to hunt and fish all species on my own property without any limitations such as hunting seasons or bag limits. BTW, I hunt and fish, and I am opposed to Sunday hunting in Virginia. It is the one day during major hunting seasons where I am able to walk and use my property without worrying about stray hunters or shots.
As a conservative, if this bill is made law, where will the additional funding and resources come from to pay for the added work of the resource officers? It will not come from the hunters, they have already purchased their licenses.
MG – it will come from hunting as more people purchase licenses. DGIF has identified not enough time to hunt as a major reason many people are not renewing their licenses. If we can turnaround the trend on declining license sales, it will more than pay for the few extra CPOs required. It is a fallacy to say that a ton of new officers will be required. They already patrol on Sunday, that’s how they bust people currently violating the law – otherwise Sundays would be a free for all.
You cannot claim to be in favor of property rights and oppose Sunday hunting. Plain and simple. It is a legal activity six days per week, that the government then arbitrarily picks one day to make it illegal. We’re not doing away with population control methods like bag limits and seasons, but we are enabling property owners to do a legal activity on their land.
I grew up hunting in Colorado, where most of the land is federally owned. Care and commonsense (and mandatory hunter safety classes) made accidents rare. A far bigger threat than getting shot was getting lost.
Well, that and having a group of Texans show up in your favorite hunting spot.
Norm, you might want to check my vote.
There is a difference between voting against a committee substitute and voting against a bill. Several of us felt the original bill was preferable to the committee substitute, but that the committee substitute was preferred to a ‘no’ vote on the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record, and only wish that your error hadn’t escaped anyone’s notice for a week.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.