Proposes a constitutional amendment to assert the right of Missourians to hunt and fish
If HJR20 is passed, it would amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution by adding a new section dedicated to the rights of hunters and anglers. This amendment would serve to cement the legal framework surrounding hunting and fishing, potentially preventing future legislative actions that could restrict these rights. Moreover, it affirms the contribution of hunters and anglers to Missouri’s economy, highlighting their role in job creation and ecosystem management. The impact of this amendment would extend to regulations enforced by the conservation commission, which would still have the authority to implement laws regarding safety and public welfare.
HJR20 is a proposed constitutional amendment in Missouri aimed at asserting and protecting the rights of residents to hunt and fish. The bill emphasizes the significance of these activities, not just for recreation but also for their contributions to physical health, social well-being, and the local economy. By enshrining the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution, this amendment seeks to ensure that these practices remain a fundamental right for all Missourians, framing them as crucial to the culture and heritage of the state.
The overall sentiment surrounding HJR20 appears to be supportive, particularly among those who engage in hunting and fishing as well as organizations advocating for outdoor traditions. Proponents argue that the amendment is a proactive step to safeguard rights against potential future encroachments. However, some critics express concerns that a constitutional amendment might be unnecessary and could complicate future legislative efforts aimed at managing wildlife or environmental protections, pointing to potential conflicts with conservation policies.
A notable point of contention lies in the amendment's phrasing which emphasizes that while it protects individual rights, it does not prevent the general assembly from enacting laws to limit these rights for individuals deemed dangerous due to criminal background or mental health issues. Critics argue that this ambivalence may lead to legal and practical conflicts in enforcement. The dual focus on preserving individual rights while still allowing for safety regulations underscores the delicate balance that the legislation attempts to achieve, potentially leading to future debates on the interpretation of these rights.