HaHa HaHa:  0
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: SURPRISED AT THE VOTING BOOTH TODAY!!!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default


    In no way did I interpret the amendment on the ballot to be directed toward netting. If it were worded this way I strongly feel netting would have been outlawed. I already voted "yes" on it when I oppose inshore netting. I had no idea there were 6 amendments on the ballot until I got to the polls. Shame on me I guess but shouldn't we be informed ahead of time?
    Likes Special K LIKED above post

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    This is what I have being told. If you are not sure what those amendments are, just say NO to them.
    Thanks Special K thanked you for this post

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Clemmons, NC
    Posts
    146
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I usually vote NO for amendments since they are usually adding taxes or regulation or creating more bureaucracy. The lawyers worded this one very tricky.
    Thanks Special K thanked you for this post

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Cherryvill,NC
    Posts
    1,022
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Kelbroyou are exactly right. Some of the wildlife meetings and and especially the marinefisheries meeting I've been to those proclamations and amendments are wording on purpose to have a lot of gray areas in them. These laws are pushed by activist that most people don't here about. I assure you those people are at those meetings and they push THERE agenda and laws to the lobbyist which line the pockets of the politicians. Please I beg everyone that is going to vote to please do a little research on your politicians and your amendments


    Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app
    Thanks Special K, kelbro thanked you for this post

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    348
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roach1 View Post
    In no way did I interpret the amendment on the ballot to be directed toward netting. If it were worded this way I strongly feel netting would have been outlawed. I already voted "yes" on it when I oppose inshore netting. I had no idea there were 6 amendments on the ballot until I got to the polls. Shame on me I guess but shouldn't we be informed ahead of time?
    I don't think the amendment is directed towards any one thing in particular, but do see it as being a road block to getting nets out of inshore waters. I would support it in its original form, but not with the commercial exception removed.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    Posts
    512
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    You don't really win either way. Vote No and you have unintended consequences and if you vote Yes you have unintended consequences. The double talk done by our legislatures is so frustrating and really turns so many people off from voting altogether. I try to teach my kids the importance of voting and then this kind of stuff comes up. It's fun teaching a 13 and 16 year old about what is written and then you have to dig much deeper to get the actual story. Everybody should do their research and be informed before making a decision but just when you think you understand what is going on the double talk happens.
    Likes Special K, brhunt LIKED above post

  7. #27
    "D"'s Avatar
    "D" is offline Super Moderator and 2023 Crappie.Com Man of the Year * Crappie.com Supporter * Member Sponsor
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Iowa, Louisiana
    Posts
    12,215
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Fellows, thanks for keeping this civil. As it does pertain to fishing rules, we let it run for a while in the normal forum. But since it does involve a political issue of sorts, we decided it is best to move it to the off topic forum. "D"
    Team Overalls Travel Squad

    FISH for LIFE

    HUMANKIND......be both

  8. #28
    strmwalker's Avatar
    strmwalker is offline Crappie.com Legend * Crappie.com Supporter
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wateloo,South Carolina
    Posts
    6,517
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ************************************ I seen this post last night !!! ************************* and was surprised about it !!!
    they just had a thing about this on FOXNEWS !!! ***********
    please guys and gals research before you pull the lever !!!!! vote with what you think is right for you and your family and fellow man !!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!


    "What if you woke up today with only the things you thanked God for yesterday"
    "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point. "AMEN"
    Thanks Special K, Jamesdean, brhunt thanked you for this post

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Fountain, co/pengilly,,mn
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hockey86 View Post
    You don't really win either way. Vote No and you have unintended consequences and if you vote Yes you have unintended consequences. The double talk done by our legislatures is so frustrating and really turns so many people off from voting altogether. I try to teach my kids the importance of voting and then this kind of stuff comes up. It's fun teaching a 13 and 16 year old about what is written and then you have to dig much deeper to get the actual story. Everybody should do their research and be informed before making a decision but just when you think you understand what is going on the double talk happens.
    Agreed on unintended consequences both ways. The vagueness is concerning and no one will truly understand the law until there is a legal definition of traditional methods. This is a state government release that explicitly says traditional methods is not defined. I am not a NC voter but definitely seems confusing what they are trying to preserve or what is considered traditional methods which could criminalize legal methods currently.

    https://www.sosnc.gov/static_forms/N...xplanation.pdf

    More information,

    One of the six amendments to receive comparatively less attention in recent weeks, however, is the proposal to establish a constitutional right “to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.” While many critics have derided the proposal as a blatant attempt to spur voter turnout this fall amongst conservative rural voters, substantive criticism of the amendment has been largely muted, with many critics simply arguing that the amendment is silly and unnecessary because it wouldn’t really change anything.
    This may be an accurate assessment. The full language of the proposed amendment goes on to say that the “right” established by the amendment is “subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to (i) promote wildlife conservation and management and (ii) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” It goes on to add that “Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Nothing herein shall be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights,or eminent domain.”
    These caveats would appear to place some meaningful limitations on the so-called “right” established by the amendment. After all, if the state will remain free to regulate hunting and fishing as it long has, then it’s not immediately evident what will change if voters were to approve the proposal. In effect, the amendment would be little more than an expression of opinion by voters, with no real world impact. One might as well establish a constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle.
    That being said, it’s also true that the overwhelming majority of Americans and legal scholars once held similar views of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution – namely, that the “right” to bear arms was subject to the obvious limitation that Congress and state legislators remained free to enact laws to, among other things, regulate militias and protect public safety.
    Unfortunately, of course, this interpretation has been greatly undermined in recent years as what might be described as “Second Amendment fundamentalists” have pushed ever more aggressively for a rigid, absolutist interpretation.
    Could the same thing happen with respect to the hunting and fishing amendment? It seems at least worth noting that the two amendments share many of the same champions, including the National Rifle Association. What’s more, hunting and fishing amendment supporters have been quite open about linking the amendment to gun rights.
    And while the apparent limitation of being “subject” to laws and rules established by the General Assembly sounds significant at first blush, it also includes a potentially truck-sized loophole in that such laws must be exclusively for the purpose of promoting wildlife conservation and management and preserving the right to hunt and fish.
    What about laws or rules that are enacted in order to protect human life or wellbeing, like a ban on hunting with machine guns or silencers, or burning forests to flush out game, or even hunting in a state park? By a strict reading of the amendment language, such laws could be subject to court challenges by hunting supporters as unconstitutional.
    At a minimum, state lawmakers would now be subject to a new and strict test that would permit a close review of their motives every time they seek to regulate hunting and fishing. Add to this the proposal’s failure to define “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing and the vagueness of the proposed amendment becomes that much more maddening and problematic.
    Of course, the obvious preventative remedy to the amendment’s absurd lack of clarity and potential for abuse would and should have been a lengthy, deliberate legislative process that would have provided plenty of time for constitutional experts, scholars, interest groups, regulators, lawmakers of the minority party and the public at-large to weigh in.

    Meaningless or dangerous? Hunting and fishing constitutional amendment raises huge questions | NC Policy Watch
    Thanks brhunt, Special K thanked you for this post

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

BACK TO TOP