I'd like you to think about this for a minute. Sunday hunting, that is. Is there an issue here? The first question is whether this should be a debate at all. No doubt, the current illegality of Sunday hunting is the result of the "Blue Laws" of Pilgrim times. Hunting was then illegal because it was another individual pursuit not to be followed on the Puritan day of worship. It was also illegal to till one's fields, open one's store for business or drink alcoholic beverages. The only acceptable behaviors for Sunday were forms of communion with a Christian God. All other behaviors were deemed illegal.

Time passes and states change. Of course, now we allow individual liberties to a significantly greater degree than the Pilgrims did back then. Now we engage in business, enjoy our recreation and may even relax our religious devotion without violation of the law. That is, all of us may pursue any activity legal on any other day of the week except hunting.

On closer inspection, it isn't even very clear why the law barring hunting on Sunday remains on the books except that we removed all the other Blue Laws piecemeal (usually as a result of business pressure) and have now logically gotten around to this one. I say logically because there can be no basis in civil liberty for its continuance. And furthermore, there is no question that hunting, as a recreational pastime, is as reasonable as the Sunday drive or boating or hiking or cutting wood or any of the other individual pursuits of men and women everywhere.

Unless...the old Blue Law is now being used as a means of personal discrimination by the few as it was once used as a vehicle for religious restriction by the many. And there appears to be ample evidence for this conjecture.

I'll say here that this should not be a question for the proponents or the adversaries of hunting per se. The law should not be used to force the views of one ideological group upon another. Not in these United States, at least. Here, the law is formulated for the good of the society. Law are meant to enforce and model by both content and process reasonable behavior for the population as a whole. In this country, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ( when these don't unduly threaten the safety of the community) are the reasonable behaviors we base our society upon.

Putting aside the question of discriminatory application of the law for a bit, is hunting a reasonable liberty and pursuit of the population? Does hunting unduly threaten the safety of the individual or endanger the fabric of our community? Let's briefly examine these points.

What is a reasonable liberty? By our own standards of behavior, driving a vehicle is reasonable. It is also likely to be the most dangerous behavior we engage in for both ourselves and others around us. But we consider this reasonable nonetheless and not unduly threatening. So too, power boating. Despite the very high risk of accidental drowning and injury, and the obvious risks of sharing finite water space with swimmers (who enjoy similar risks) and sailors, boating is accepted as reasonable. Hiking is also reasonable. Hikers erode trails, damage wild plants and harass wildlife. Unintentionally or not the nature of hiking is intrusion into non-human dominated spaces. Hiking also results in unwanted contact between strangers in remote places and (accidental?) trespass but hiking too is deemed a reasonable individual recreation. The list goes on. The cutting of wood is permitted. It too may encompass real risks for the person and the environment along with the air and noise pollution it creates, nonetheless it too is reasonable.

All of the outdoor activities noted above are reasonable and all are legal to pursue on Sunday but not hunting. Is hunting riskier to the participant or the non-participant than these? No. The insurance actuarial tables are clear on the greater risks of injury and death from driving, swimming, boating, hiking, chain sawing, bicycling, etc. All of these are greater risks to the individual and the community than hunting. Therefore, we allow reasonable people to make reasonable efforts to pursue these interests at their liberty on Sunday.

Just to underscore the point made above, we also allow citizens of the Commonwealth to also consume alcohol and then consider it reasonable for them to use good judgment while under the influence of a known mind altering drug in their further choices of behavior. We even allow them to alter their minds with alcohol and THEN drive and partake in the various dangerous and destructive activities listed above! This is certainly a notable recognition of the value personal liberty has for us.

By way of comparison of their behavior and/or threat to the community, hunters are certainly less numerous than hikers and by necessity they utilize out of the way locales. Hunting is so much more difficult than hiking or biking that it is often ruined just by the presence of others regardless of their willingness to share the natural resources or not. Hunters are certainly quieter than sawyers and pollute less than any engine driven vehicle. They are responsible for the operation of significantly less dangerous machinery than a car or a boat (according to the insurance companies) and often have no cause to operate their bow or firearm at all in the course of a day afield. Think about it, how many people just sit in their car or boat without ever starting it up and going somewhere?

In addition, hunters must have demonstrated, by test or experience, both a knowledge of the law and their responsibilities under it to be licensed for their activity. Only automobile operators have a similar responsibility. Sawyers, bikers, riders, boaters, sailors and such have no such requirement to demonstrate their awareness of the dangers or impact of their pastimes in shared public places.

It is also important to recognize and honor that hunters pay the state a license fee directly to support the environment of their pursuit. These are the same environmental resource that others do not pay a cent to enjoy as well. Do hikers pay? Boaters? Campers? Swimmers? I could go on.

Now that we have a broader view of the what is reasonable and realistic behavior in public places, let's expand upon an earlier point. Times change. In these times, it is not uncommon for a working person trying to care for their family to work two jobs or six days a week or a weekend job. This is certainly a laudable though often necessary sacrifice and I think you would agree that such individuals should be respected for their efforts and for their responsibility to their family and community. Then isn't it unreasonable to deny this person the opportunity to pursue their interests on the one day they are likely to have any time off for themselves? Do we really expect everyone to be so well off that they can and should take a weekday or a Saturday off from work if they want to go hunting? Is it our intent nowadays to support a law against Sunday hunting that means that responsible hard working individuals should just accept loosing out because they have put their family first? It sure looks like the "haves" are unwilling to share what is in the public trust with the "have nots".
It is time to join the 21st Century. The "Blue Laws" of the 19th Century no longer apply to today's society. Today's society is a 7 day work week with little time spent pursuing ones chosen recreational activities. The continued balking at the issue of Sunday hunting is tantamount to "Recreational Discrimination" There are many arguments that arise in the presence of this issue. All of which hold no weight when really scrutinized. It seems that the biggest debate is the religious belief that Sunday is a day of worship. Isn't there a thing nowadays supported by the constitution called the separation of Church and State. It seems that the continued use of this argument is unconstitutional.
I implore you to vote in the affirmative on these issues when they come to vote. I also implore you to do as much research on the subject as possible. If it works in 43 other states it can't be as bad as others would have you believe.