NRA slows hunting, fishing bill

COLUMBIA --- Many of the Legislature's most fervent gun enthusiasts asked the National Rifle Association on Tuesday to stop opposing a hunting and fishing proposal and allow it to pass this year.

"We ask the NRA to back off," said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-Clinton, an avid hunter and chairman of the House Sportsman's Caucus.

Members of the House and Senate Sportsman's Caucuses said a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would prevent gun control backers from trying to restrict hunting and fishing might die because of specific wording the NRA wants.

The lawmakers said the phrase, to guarantee hunting and fishing "by traditional means and methods," would ban any future tweaking that might be needed to preserve species.

While protecting the sports, "we also want to protect the ability to be good stewards of our natural resources," said Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, another avid hunter.

Last year, for example, legislators banned using hooks to impale fish near a hydroelectric dam, and they banned shooting elk, in case the animals wander down from western North Carolina. Such modifications would be impossible under what the NRA wants, Mr. Campsen said.

Though South Carolina is known as a gun-friendly state, the legislators contend the constitutional amendment is needed. They cite dove hunting bans in other states and fear efforts that eventually could be successful here as people continue to move to South Carolina.

Legislation asking voters whether the rights to hunt and fish should be guaranteed was approved by the House in January. If passed, the measure would put the question to voters in November.

Legislators say NRA opposition is preventing a vote on the Senate floor because some senators fear crossing the group. The session ends Thursday. The bill would have to be reintroduced next year and could next go on the ballots in 2010.

"It's either do or die," said Rep. Mike Pitts, a National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses committee member who is known for pushing pro-gun legislation. "I am absolutely disappointed that I find myself at odds with the NRA when I've been such a go-to guy for them."

But an NRA spokesman said taking out the phrase -- a change made by a Senate panel, as a compromise with the state Department of Natural Resources -- makes the proposed constitutional amendment useless.

The NRA considers the measure important and says that 10 states, including Alabama and Georgia, have already changed their constitutions.

"Just to say with a wink and a nod this is a pro-hunting state and we need not worry about it is callous," Andrew Arulanandam said.