Field Notes

From the Washington Post:

With its term coming to an end, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning is expected to issue its ruling on the District's handgun-ownership ban in a case that could result in a landmark interpretation of the Second Amendment. . . .

The ruling could settle a decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own firearms or only confers a collective right for states to form armed militias.

And from the ABA Journal:

SCOTUSblog predicts that Justice Antonin Scalia will write the majority opinion in the gun case, District of Columbia v. Heller. During oral arguments in the case Scalia appeared to endorse the individual rights interpretation of the amendment, which reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

So, are you on the edge of your seat?

Look for an update later today.

From the Associated Press:

Officials from northern Canada were in Washington on Monday to make an unpopular argument: Let U.S. hunters continue to kill polar bears for sport. . . .

The recent decision to declare the polar bear threatened under the Endangered Species Act also means U.S. sportsmen may no longer bring home trophy skins—which is what hunting's high-rollers actually prize.

This "will effectively wipe out our sports hunting industry," Bob McLeod, the Northwest Territory's minister for energy, industry and tourism, said Monday in an interview. . . .

He said hunters, mostly from the United States, spend an estimated $1.6 million annually during the polar bear hunts, much of it going into the economies of the isolated villages where the hunts are organized and concentrated. . . .

[He] insists continued hunting and protecting the species can go hand in hand.”

What do you think?

From the Chicago Tribune:

Elkhart[, Indiana,] resident Dottie Arnold said her home has been peppered with buckshot pellets from [duck] hunters across the St. Joseph River for a few years. . . .

"I don't care if people want to hunt," Arnold said. "That's fine. But I don't want it around my house."

The issue has drawn the attention of state Rep. Craig Fry, D-Mishawaka. He introduced a bill last session that would have prohibited hunting in counties with more than 250,000 people along any spot in a river less than 750 feet from a densely populated shoreline. . . .

"Sporting groups think this is some sort of infringement," said Fry, who's a member of the National Rifle Association. "I think it's a safety issue.”



What do you think?

(And, by the way, what do you think of newspaper editors who insist reporters get their facts and terminology (such as “buckshot”) correct—except when it come to guns and hunting?)


For more on this story, see also “Taking Aim At Hunters,” from the South Bend Tribune.

From Vermont’s Rutland Herald:

Saying their son was "silenced" by his teacher for talking about hunting in the classroom, the parents of a fourth-grade student at North Bennington Graded School took their son out of school and have taken their case to the local school board.

 . . .

Jared Harrington's mother, Wendy Bordwell . . . said that, during snack time, Jared was discussing the recent spring turkey hunting season with a classmate when [Teacher Kathleen] Backus interrupted the conversation, insisting that there be no talk of "killing" in her classroom.

Check out the full story and tell us your reaction.