Lawmakers want hunting to be a constitutional right.

Over the course of this legislative session, there have been more than a few wrongheaded, irrational and just-plain-dumb policies proposed by our public servants. None has been more jaw-dropping in its absurdity than a committee’s decision today to refer to voters an amendment creating a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

There are two very major problems with this amendment. One is that, since the legislature can only refer three amendments to voters, it bumps from consideration more serious proposals that might actually help the people of Arkansas. The second is that the idea of a right to hunt and fish is dubious on its face.

To deal with the first problem first. This is a bill that will not benefit regular Arkansans.  The sponsors’ argument for the amendment is that PETA is struggling to ban hunting across the U.S.  Yet the only actual ban they could cite was a Michigan prohibition on dove hunting. That dearth of evidence offers proof, as if any were needed, that the idea of a left-wing interest group getting hunting prohibited in Arkansas is ludicrous.

Like so much culturally charged legislation, the amendment changes absolutely nothing. It does, however, benefit lawmakers who could use the support of the NRA in their next campaign. The NRA is in full support of the amendment and testified in its favor.

Two legislators deserve particular opprobrium for their actions today. One is Sen. Gilbert Baker, who grandstanded his support for the amendment in the course of a condescending speech to Rep. Butch Wilkins, who had asked some very reasonable questions  about lawsuits that could result from the amendment. (“This is for the Baker boys!” the senator said in reference to his seven hunting sons.)

The worst performance, however, was that of Sen. Steve Faris, who as chair of the committee was able to push through the amendment — which he is the lead sponsor of — before the nine other proposals on the table were even considered. Those proposals included three finance amendments that would allow the state to attract investment to Arkansas — a more important priority, I would submit, than promising the state’s hunters that no one will take their sport away. As a chairman, Sen. Faris should know better than to ram through legislation that prioritizes himself and the interests of the NRA over the people of Arkansas. Shame on him.

Then there’s the second issue: should anyone really have a right to hunt and fish? A right? Rights should be a bit more exclusive than that. Free speech, free exercise of religion, due process — these are rights. But if you’re going to insert a ‘right’ for one special interest into the constitution you might as well crumple the document and wipe your bum with it.

Maybe if the legislature is running around giving out rights they’ll decide to pass the ERA, too. Anyone want to lay the odds?

PS. The committee did manage to pass one real amendment proposal — voters will have to decide whether to lower the requirements an economic development project must meet before Arkansas can issue bonds to support it.

That leaves the committee with one more amendment to refer next week. Talks are currently in the works to combine two amendments into one. The Frankenstein amendment would allow the state to issue bonds for energy conservation projects and would also allow the state to pay higher yields on bond issues.

Open-carry bill flops.

Yet another weapons bill hit committee this afternoon as the House Judiciary Committee considered Rep. Mark Martin’s legislation to allow people to carry firearms in plain sight. The bill’s lack of provisions for training and its apparent permissiveness toward the open-carry of machine guns was too much for the committee. Though Rep. Martin did not agree with these criticisms, he pulled the bill down for amendment to ensure that it would not be legal for children to wield a gun.

Several legislators suggested they might vote for the bill if it required some sort of permit or training for open carry, but Rep. Martin firmly resisted making a change. He argued that such a requirement would place a financial burden on impoverished people. The poor who couldn’t pay would be unable to exercise what Rep. Martin considers a constitutional right to bear arms in the open. In response to the comment that anyone who owns a gun can also afford a training course, Rep. Martin responded that a gun might be inherited or earned from some sort of program.

“[A fee] would have a chilling effect on people who were discriminated against before,” Rep. Martin said in reference to the 19^th century slave laws he cited to justify the necessity of open-carry legislation.

“At what point do what stop expecting a training program to teach people and start trusting them to act responsibly?” Rep. Martin inquired.

There was some questioning about the relationship of the proposed law to current concealed-carry requirements. It was discussed whether the bill would grant greater lenience toward concealed-carriers who violate certain provisions of their permits. For example, there would no longer be ramifications for a concealed-carry holder who commits “inadvertent revealing of the weapon,” as Rep. Martin phrased it, since the open-carry law would override concealed-carry.

Rep. Steve Harrelson said the bill appears to allow people to carry machine guns in public. Rep. Martin responded that current law is ridiculous and needs to be corrected; as it is now, kids could be prosecuted for carrying baseball bats, he said, or hunters could be arrested for carrying a gun to a duck camp.

Among the flaws committee members pointed out, Rep. Martin would only concede that the bill does not explicitly prevent children from availing themselves of open-carry privileges. He will likely offer the measure again after amendment.

Sympathy for trial lawyers and chiropractors.

Are unwanted solicitations annoying? Sure. But should they be criminal? No, said the House Judiciary Committee this morning, as it failed Sen. Denny Altes’s measure to prevent trial lawyers and chiropractors from using accident reports to solicit business. Actually, the bill would be better described as the bidding of Fort Smith trial lawyer Joey McCutchen, who argued for it futilely for about half an hour.

Originally this was a really bad bill, as it unconstitutionally restricted access to accident reports to all but a few people. The newest version erased that part and made it a crime to use information obtained from an accident report to scrounge up clients. But the committee was still unconvinced that the new version provided an equitable application of the law. Rep. Steve Harrelson summed up this argument in a question to McCutchen: “Have you considered expanding this to all public documents?”

Sen. Altes briefly argued that people who have undergone accidents should not be harassed with phone calls and junk mail. But sympathy for the client was not much of an issue for McCutchen, whose support might seem odd considering that he’s a member of a group the bill targeted. Though he professed that the bill was an attempt to clean up trial lawyers’ image, McCutchen’s tirade against lawyers who pay runners to track down potential clients suggested that he may be upset about being undersold.

The proceeding did have some entertaining fireworks. Using a dramatic term very, very loosely, McCutchen said, “We have had George W. Bush in the White House for the past eight years and he has demonized trial lawyers. That’s a tragedy.”

It also emerged that McCutchen was once arrested for picketing a George W. Bush speech. This is likely the only time you’ll see the deep-red Altes team up with such a flaming Dem.

Nullification act nullified.

Arkansas spared itself yet another national embarrassment this morning as the House State Agencies Committee rejected a resolution saying that Arkansas is a sovereign entity, dammit, and the federal government better lay the hell off. As usual in this committee, the vote was split mainly along partisan lines, with 8 for and 10 against.

Supporters of the resolution said it was in defense of the 10th Amendment, which reserves certain powers not given to the federal government to the states. Yet the resolution did not indicate any specific violations; it opined only that certain mandates and proposals from the current administration may be in breach of the Constitution.

Rep. Steve Harrelson spoke most effectively against the bill. “I really don’t want my name going on a resolution to Mike Ross telling the federal government to cease and desist. If I want to tell him that I’ll call him on the phone and tell him myself. Can we tone down the cavalier language?”

Rep. Harrelson went on to object that the resolution’s hostile tone indicates that the state would take action if the federal government ignores it. “What exactly are we giving notice for?” he asked.

Rep. Debra Hobbs defended the resolution by saying other states were considering similar measures, including Oklahoma. Oklahoma passed its resolution last month, according to the always helpful John Birch Society website.

Jeannie Burlsworth, leader of the anti-immigrant outfit Secure Arkansas, also testified in favor of the resolution. She said she represented the people of all 75 counties of Arkansas, a fact previously unbeknownst to me, her constituent.

With the defeat of the resolution dies one more measure with no practical impact other than to make a lot of people real mad.

Southwestern Energy: more commendable than Barack Obama.

That’s what the Arkansas Legislature says. A few hours after the House State Agencies Committee defeated a resolution to congratulate Barack Obama on his election, the Joint Energy Committee decided to applaud Southwestern Energy with a ceremonial measure I pointed out last week. The latter resolution now goes the the full House.

Unfortunately I was squirreled away in another committee meeting this morning, so I missed the Obama backlash. The very fact of the rejection is head-scratching. But even more mystifying is the justification opponents gave for saying no, according to reports: they took issue with language saying that the U.S. was founded by slave owners.

Now, the role of slavery in this country’s past is an obvious and indisputable fact to anyone who is even remotely familiar with American history. I’ll assume that the resolution’s opponents are more than remotely familiar — which means there’s much more than the slavery issue at play here. As with the Thomas Paine showdown yesterday, it appears that some members are making dubious historical claims in order to fight a political battle.

Look, if I were a Republican legislator, I would be more than a little irked with the Obama resolution as drafted. I would probably even want to defeat it. Its triumphal language — it references Obama’s ‘smashing electoral college victory’ — seems deliberately geared to add insult to the GOP’s injury. But if you’re going to kill the thing, please, have the honesty to do so without the assistance of a specious historical argument.

From cell phone to jail cell.

Rep. Donna Hutchinson wants to get tough on people who surreptitiously snap photos on their cell phones and send them across the internet. At least that’s the short version of a bill she presented in the House Judiciary Committee today.

In reality, the issue is a bit more complicated. And much more ridiculous.

The bill is an amplification of current law that makes it an offense to photograph or videotape another person without his consent. The new proposal would make it Class A Misdemeanor — which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $1,000 fine — to give such an image to someone else or post it on the internet.

The law would apply to all voyeurs, but Hutchinson has one particular group in mind:  high-schoolers. Apparently there has been a rash of teenage boys in Hutchinson’s district who sneak into the girls’ locker room with cell phone cameras and send the material to friends.

I’m all for quashing that kind of thing, but I somehow think we don’t need this bill if its primary target is teens.  School discipline and confiscation of cell phones might be a better measure than prosecution. (Remarkably, Hutchinson said principals and others she talked to wanted to make transmission of a secretly acquired image a felony. She added that she declined because she was uncomfortable making high schoolers felons.)

The committee didn’t seem to think much of the bill, which had several problems in drafting. Read on for details.