Quote:

---

Tho only opportunity here accrues to the anti-hunting and anti-gun special interests. They are the enemy, not lawyers. Keep your focus.

Curl

---

I stand corrected as to the proper nomenclature of the lawyers at issue.

Curl, I mean no disrespect but take even a short look at the process of wolf recovery in the West {and bear/cougar hunting bans and/or restrictions, etc} and you too will modify your statement, I suspect, somewhat drastically. Your term, "bonanza", aptly describes the carnival-like history {on-going} of wolf recovery, yet another wildlife management absurdity aggravated by constant obfuscations by the various pro-wolf groups as represented by the legal profession. I am not intending to denigrate attorneys, I am stating a fact.

As identified by RIPP, the devil is in the details and the details will be worked out by herds of attorneys over the coming years. If you look back some years at the process of the introduction of the lead shot ban, I think you might have to modify your statement there, too. However, the litigious nature of our society, and opportunities for litigation, have changed over the years. This thing will be a mess in my opinion, a mess dumped out on the floor of the courts. Definitions of where the ban takes effect, the possibility for unintentional misuse of ammunition inside banned areas for non-hunting use {protection of livestock, etc}, the use of banned ammunition on private property for a variety of purposes, the definitions of what types of ammunition are legal, acceptable and available, the cost burden for implementing the ban, the legal burden for the state to enforce it, all of thse things burdens will be gladly borne by the legal profession.

When I shoot a sheep in the head with a 9mm for the purpose of butchering it, and I dump the bulleted head and offal on "the back 40" of my ranch, who will I turn to to ask whether this is "allowed"? I bet such things haven't even been thought thru, and who do you think will "help" me and "them" think these things through? The county court clerk? Will I merely read the state code and make a decision for myself? I have many reasons even here in Idaho to seek legal counsel for activities on my own ranch so I readily admit the need for attorneys.

I ask quite honestly and with absolutely no malicious intent: Do you suppose this ban will diminish such questions for a private property owner in the ban areas of California? Will the ban ease the workload of the "profession" or add to it?

My focus is totally clear; the source of this problem is not "attorneys", but it is certainly possible that the only group {animal or human...} that will benefit by it is attorneys.

I think most of us would agree that the condors in the animal kingdom won't be benefiting by it.

Post Extras