Posted on 04/14/2005 9:08:58 AM PDT by Dubya-M-Dees
LOVINGSTON -- A Nelson County judge refused yesterday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the county had violated hunters' constitutional right to hunt. The lawsuit is being followed closely by hunters across the nation. Orion Sporting Group LLC claimed the Board of Supervisors violated Orion's rights to hunt under the Virginia Constitution by denying a special-use permit to operate a shotgun sports center where customers shoot at clay targets that simulate game. The county argues that hunting can only be defined as the pursuit of live animals and sought the suit's dismissal yesterday. Circuit Judge Michael J. Gamble said he needed to see more evidence at the trial scheduled for next week. "We have to determine what actions at Orion do consist of hunting beyond the pursuit of game," Gamble said. But Gamble heard lively and sometimes eloquent arguments over just what constitutes hunting before he decided to proceed with the trial. John W. Zunka, a lawyer for the supervisors, argued that shooting at clay targets is simply not hunting and so is not a constitutionally protected right. "Hunting is not just pulling the trigger and shooting the animal," said Halbrook, who noted that in the state's constitution, the word "hunt' and "harvest game" are separate rights. "Harvesting game means something different than hunting." Early last year, the county denied Orion a permit to operate the shotgun sports center as part of its licensed hunting preserve, based on noise and safety issues. "We have a novel issue here." Halbrook said he will call more than a dozen witnesses, some of them experts on hunting, to prove that hunting includes a wide variety of protected activities, including shooting clays. "There's no case law on this," Halbrook said. "This is the first big case. We think it will set the tone."
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
Calling all hunters!
The main reason to be concerned about this is that it has never been done before, and will set a precident.
Sporting clays are meant to simulate the hunting conditions of upland game.
now the beetch when the have tose pigeon shoots too, for practic (cough cough) which is it?
wish I could blame that incoherent mess on something, but I can't
now they beetch when they have those pigeon shoots too, for practice (cough cough) which is it?
Uh. They are shooting at clay targets. This is not a hunting issue, it's a gun issue. If the proponents of this ban are serious about opposition to hunting, they should PROMOTE shooting at clay instead of live critters.
"In order to humanely hunt with a gun, you have to practice with a gun under the conditions of a hunt.
Sporting clays are meant to simulate the hunting conditions of upland game."
I wouldn't even consider hunting, but I do target practice. If people can't legally shoot at clay pigeons, they will shoot at birds in their back yard with less accuracy than if they practice.
Could you please tell me what this sentance says? I can't figure it out. Thanks.
seems like every year there is a pigeon shoot, but it is as lame as anything you will ever see....they have caged pigeons that get released for a shooter to shoot
example: http://www.urbanwildlifesociety.org/pigeons/NTWPijShoot.html
Judge will hear case testing hunting rights
Company says shooting at clay targets qualifies in its challenge to Nelson's denial of permit
BY CARLOS SANTOS
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Apr 14, 2005
LOVINGSTON -- A Nelson County judge refused yesterday to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the county had violated hunters' constitutional right to hunt.
The lawsuit is being followed closely by hunters across the nation.
Orion Sporting Group LLC claimed the Board of Supervisors violated Orion's rights to hunt under the Virginia Constitution by denying a special-use permit to operate a shotgun sports center where customers shoot at clay targets that simulate game.
The county argues that hunting can only be defined as the pursuit of live animals and sought the suit's dismissal yesterday.
Circuit Judge Michael J. Gamble said he needed to see more evidence at the trial scheduled for next week.
"We have to determine what actions at Orion do consist of hunting beyond the pursuit of game," Gamble said.
But Gamble heard lively and sometimes eloquent arguments over just what constitutes hunting before he decided to proceed with the trial.
John W. Zunka, a lawyer for the supervisors, argued that shooting at clay targets is simply not hunting and so is not a constitutionally protected right.
Zunka argued that the definition of the word "hunt" is "unambiguous. Hunting involves the pursuit of live animals or game. Hunting is a very plain and unambiguous word . . . and hunting is not shooting sporting clays."
Stephen P. Halbrook, a lawyer for Orion, argued that shooting at sporting clays -- small round targets that are thrown into the air is an integral part of hunting.
"It's our position that hunting includes a number of activities necessary for pursuing live game. . . . Shooting clays is a part of hunting.
"If there's a right to hunt, there should be a right to be proficient, to be safe and to be humane," all of which are goals that can be improved by the practice of shooting clays, Halbrook said.
Orion has portrayed the lawsuit as a stand for the state's constitutional right to hunt and said that the decision in the lawsuit will have an enormous impact on hunters in Virginia as well as in other states with similar constitutional rights.
The controversy between the county and Orion has also ignited a national debate -- in columns and news stories in sporting and gun magazines -- over what constitutes hunting.
In 2000, voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that declares "the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law."
"Hunting is not just pulling the trigger and shooting the animal," said Halbrook, who noted that in the state's constitution, the word "hunt' and "harvest game" are separate rights. "Harvesting game means something different than hunting."
Early last year, the county denied Orion a permit to operate the shotgun sports center as part of its licensed hunting preserve, based on noise and safety issues. The center would have been situated within a 450-acre tract near Wingina in southern Nelson County.
"I guess the issue will be decided at trial," Zunka said after the hearing. "We have a novel issue here."
Halbrook said he will call more than a dozen witnesses, some of them experts on hunting, to prove that hunting includes a wide variety of protected activities, including shooting clays.
"There's no case law on this," Halbrook said. "This is the first big case. We think it will set the tone."
Contact Carlos Santos at (434) 295-9542 or csantos@timesdispatch.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.