Matt from Portland asks:
"What logic is there in the Oregon Legislature limiting people's right to bear arms? And is that even Constitutional?"
Matt, the short answers are that this is a serious issue in Oregon that the Legislature , and yes it's Constitutional.
Wildlife poaching in Oregon is a serious offense and 2016's House Bill 4046 was an appropriate response to the increase in the trafficking of animal parts, including ursine forelegs.
Whatever the motivations of poachers -- be it financial gain , sustenance, or merely the thrill -- poaching has the potential to seriously endanger wildlife populations. A 2014 survey by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife found that over 1 in 5 mule deer deaths during that period were from poaching (significantly more than what had been taken by licensed hunters or bears), and that a staggering proportion (80%) were female, which jeopardizes the long-term survival of the mule deer population.
As for the conspicuous inclusion of bear arms into HB 4046, the black market for bear parts was at one point, according to a 1998 Los Angeles Times Article, valued into the billions of dollars even as the individual activity is difficult to track. And when it comes to bear parts, I have to say that the value is not insignificant: tauro-ursodesoxycholic acid (which bears make in our gallbladders) has in fact been shown to have curative properties through legitimate medical research. But that's no excuse for taking bear arms. (Which are typically just eaten or used as ashtrays!) Actually, come to think of it, that's no excuse for taking gallbladders either!
With regard to the Constitutionality, Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution provides that: "The people shall have the right to bear arms..." so it would seem that people would be guaranteed unfettered access to such parts. However, the clause goes on to say that the right is "for the defence of themselves, and the State." The clause does not necessarily guarantee a right to bear arms for any purpose whatsoever.
Firstly, no part of HB 4046 expressly restricts the use of bear arms for defense, and provisions could certainly be made in statutes governing the possession of them for such purposes. Regardless, the actual text of HB 4046 simply applies to "paws" and not the entire arm, and really, who's to say where the arm ends and the paws begin? (Although, regardless, no one should really be taking any part of a bear, because we're typically using them, and frankly: *ouch*!)
As for the U.S. Constitution, that's clearly talking about guns.
-PB
Comentarios