Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 11, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

Huh?

How can the govt. emphasise what God has already given us the right to do? It would be more appropriate to prohibit the unlawful interference thereof, by the DNR to abridge any such God given right!

As much as I appreciate the sentiment behind this resolution to spell out part of what our rights actually entail for those too ignorant to figure it out for themselves, given the recent actions of democrats acting like republicans and visa-versa, this resolution could ultimately be used by the anti's to curtail out rights so that it strictly applies towards hunting and nothing else. As a substitution, and if the good representative is serious on this issue, I would recommend that this be dropped and that a new resolution be changed so that anything in the MCL that is in conflict of Art 1, Sec 6 of the Michigan Constitution, is hereby ruled null and void. Not only would this provide some much needed house cleaning, but if this representative is serious about defending our rights, it would also have a greater effect than what this resolution is trying to accomplish by itself.

>As a substitution, and if the good representative is serious on this issue, I would recommend that this be dropped and that a new resolution be changed so that anything in the MCL that is in conflict of Art 1, Sec 6 of the Michigan Constitution, is hereby ruled null and void.< Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution says: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” This has little or nothing to do with hunting. Actually, the part of the Michigan Constitution that is best cited regarding this proposal is Article I, Section 23, which says: “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Constitution does not “enumerate” or mention “hunting” in its iteration of rights. Therefore, it already is established -- by virtue of Article I, Section 23 -- that the right to hunt is perfectly protected. But like all rights, the right to hunt is subject to (sometimes burdensome) regulations devised to protect the safety, health, welfare and resources of the people of the state.

If a right is subject to regulations, then doesn't this really mean that right has just been demoted to a privledge?

>If a right is subject to regulations, then doesn't this really mean that right has just been demoted to a privledge? < Not hardly. Legally, a right is defined as, “. . . that which a person is entitled to have, or to do, or to receive from others, within the limits prescribed by law . . ..” I’ve heard the concept of rights being subject to regulation described this way, which seems apt: “The right to swing my arms around ends where somebody else’s nose begins.” By conrast, a privilege is defined as, “an advantage not enjoyed by all.”

Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution speaks specifically to the right to keep and bear arms. Unless one is into using firearms to harvest fish, Article I, Section 6 has nothing to do with fishing. But Article I, Section 23, which protects all "unenumerated" rights, covers the fishing ground, as observed.

But it's a lot easier to hunt with a firearm than it is to fish with one. I'd also like to think that I didn't have so much pride, that I'd deliberately overlook a better idea when it's presented, specifically the idea to substitute Art 1, Sec 23. And to add to something else mentioned above; Yes, if you do place restrictions on a right, it no longer becomes a right, but instead a privledge. The difference here is that with rights come responsibility. Yes, my rights end where yours begin. And if my actions violate yours, then that is where I become responsible for my own actions, not before.

>But it's a lot easier to hunt with a firearm than it is to fish with one.< The proposed Constitutional amendment would specifically protect the right to hunt and fish (both). It has nothing to do with firearms per se, and is not at all related to the Michigan Constiutution’s Article I, Section 6, which spells out the right to bear arms, thus: ““Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” >I'd also like to think that I didn't have so much pride, that I'd deliberately overlook a better idea when it's presented, specifically the idea to substitute Art 1, Sec 23.< Nah, I didn’t think you overlooked Article I, Section 23, which is the truly and directly applicable section in this discussion. I just figured you didn’t know it was there or didn’t care. My guess is that you were (a) preoccupied with a narrow interest in guns, or (b) hadn’t bothered to read and digest the whole Constitution. Is there a better explanation? >And to add to something else mentioned above; Yes, if you do place restrictions on a right, it no longer becomes a right, but instead a privledge.< That certainly is not what general or “law” dictionaries would tell you. It is a made up concept -- a figment of your imagination. >The difference here is that with rights come responsibility.< No, the actual difference between a right and a privilege was explained before. A right is defined as, “. . . that which a person is entitled to have, or to do, or to receive from others, within the limits prescribed by law . . ..” A privilege is defined as, “an advantage not enjoyed by all.” >Yes, my rights end where yours begin.< Not so at all. My rights are not necessarily exclusive of yours, or vice-versa. It is entirely possible that they overlap and coexist, and for the most part they usually do so quite peacably. It is where and when the way you exercise your rights begins to impinge on my rights (or vice- versa) that we may find some limits on how you are permitted to exercise them. But no rights are terminated. >And if my actions violate yours, then that is where I become responsible for my own actions, not before.< That’s tommyrot. What you are suggesting is that one is not really responsible for his/her behavior unless it impinges on others. Actually, in a philosophical and legal sense, a free person is responsible for his own actions, period. That applies whether those actions are good or bad, and whether or not those actions remain within the limits of regulated behavior in the exercise of rights or privileges. What you are describing here is a form of accountability. One may be accountable and held accountable to others (or society at large) for his or her actions in a wide variety ways and in a wide variety of situations, both within and outside the boundaries of regulated behavior. Of course, none of this has anything to do with House Joint Resolution J, which proposes a Constitutional amendment that is quite unnecessary, per Article I, Section 23.

>The proposed Constitutional amendment would specifically protect the right to hunt and fish (both). It has nothing to do with firearms per se, and is not at all related to the Michigan Constiutution’s Article I, Section 6, which spells out the right to bear arms, thus: ““Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”< Reread my previous post. I said that it COULD be used to infringe. Judging from your tone of your next paragraph, that concern isn’t necessarily unfounded. >Nah, I didn’t think you overlooked Article I, Section 23, which is the truly and directly applicable section in this discussion. I just figured you didn’t know it was there or didn’t care. My guess is that you were (a) preoccupied with a narrow interest in guns, or (b) hadn’t bothered to read and digest the whole Constitution. Is there a better explanation? < Yes, your “guesses” were incorrect. Don’t be disappointed, though. This most likely isn’t the first time you were wrong about something. >And to add to something else mentioned above; Yes, if you do place restrictions on a right, it no longer becomes a right, but instead a privledge. That certainly is not what general or “law” dictionaries would tell you. It is a made up concept -- a figment of your imagination. < Do tell. Your next paragraph almost has it correct. >No, the actual difference between a right and a privilege was explained before. A right is defined as, “. . . that which a person is entitled to have, or to do, or to receive from others, within the limits prescribed by law . . ..” A privilege is defined as, “an advantage not enjoyed by all.”< “…within the limits prescribed by law…”, since when? Two years of poli-sci taught me that laws were constrained by rights, not visa-versa. Following your own logic, Lansing or Washington can easily pass laws striking down any enumerated right(s) at their leisure. >Not so at all. My rights are not necessarily exclusive of yours, or vice-versa. It is entirely possible that they overlap and coexist, and for the most part they usually do so quite peacably. It is where and when the way you exercise your rights begins to impinge on my rights (or vice- versa) that we may find some limits on how you are permitted to exercise them. But no rights are terminated.< Never said that they were exclusive to only one person or another. >That’s tommyrot. What you are suggesting is that one is not really responsible for his/her behavior unless it impinges on others. Actually, in a philosophical and legal sense, a free person is responsible for his own actions, period. That applies whether those actions are good or bad, and whether or not those actions remain within the limits of regulated behavior in the exercise of rights or privileges. What you are describing here is a form of accountability. One may be accountable and held accountable to others (or society at large) for his or her actions in a wide variety ways and in a wide variety of situations, both within and outside the boundaries of regulated behavior.< Bunkum! I’m not “suggesting” anything. As you alluded to yourself above, in a free society, rights and responsibility go hand in hand. Unless of course, you’re trying to say that we’re no longer living in a free society? >Of course, none of this has anything to do with House Joint Resolution J, which proposes a Constitutional amendment that is quite unnecessary, per Article I, Section 23.< Hey, unnecessary legislation coming out of Lansing…who’d have thought?

>Two years of poli-sci taught me that laws were constrained by rights, not visa-versa.< Evidently, it wasn’t quite enough education. See below. >Following your own logic, Lansing or Washington can easily pass laws striking down any enumerated right(s) at their leisure.< That’s your claim and your reasoning, not mine. The content of laws is constrained by the Constitution, which protects individual rights from being legislated away. >Unless of course, you’re trying to say that we’re no longer living in a free society?< It seems to me that you are the one trying to foster the notion that we no longer live in a free society. The paranoid fear that HJR J (which is about protecting the folks’ right to hunt and fish) might be used to attack your Article I, section 6 right “. . . to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” which you expressed above, is a case in point.

>That’s your claim and your reasoning, not mine. The content of laws is constrained by the Constitution, which protects individual rights from being legislated away.< Do you even bother to read your posts? Our rights are enumerated in the Constitution which is the framework for the set of laws we live by. You must in some sick and twisted way enjoy being wrong.

>Our rights are enumerated in the Constitution which is the framework for the set of laws we live by.< Our rights are both enumerated (specifically listed) in the Constitution and not so. Both the US and Michigan Constitutions clearly state that rights not specifically "enumerated" in those documents are in no way diminished by that fact. That's what Article I, Section 23 in the MI Constitution says. That's what we have been "discussing" here. Perhaps you should read it, if you can.

>How can the govt. emphasise what God has already given us the right to do? It would be more appropriate to prohibit the unlawful interference thereof, by the DNR to abridge any such God given right!< This is a Republic, not a Theocracy. What God has told us we may or may not do is of no prevalence in the creation and enforcement of laws. This is a "my right to swing my arms stops where your nose begins" situation. Your belief that God and "your" religion should dictate "my" rights and the laws that bind me is in fact imposing on my freedoms as an American citizen. No. I am not one of the people who seem to think it is somehow cool or fun to bash someone's religion or some such. I am just trying to explain. Also, I do in fact realize that this country's Constitution was based upon Christian beliefs, but I also realize that the people who settled this country did so to escape overly controlling government Theocratic government so that they may live by and worship freely, whichever religion and or god they chose. There are at least two good people in here who seem to have a vastly more comprehensive understanding of law. And you may ask them or they may flame my post as they see fit.