A decision by the Virginia Senate to repeal Virginia’s ban on Sunday hunting has drawn opposition from some unexpected quarters, and it highlights the commonwealth’s continuing struggle to define the limits of property rights.

Virginia is one of 11 states that does not allow hunting on Sunday. The idea behind the ban is that everybody involved — the animals, the hunters and the non-hunting neighbors — can use a break from gunfire and dogs running one day out of every seven.

Those who would have the state repeal the ban couch their arguments in terms of property rights and even public safety. Regarding the former, they say, folks should be allowed to use their own property however (and whenever) they wish, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. Regarding the public safety argument, they say that Sunday hunting will help thin Virginia’s growing deer herd, an action that could cut down on the number of dangerous and costly vehicle-deer collisions.

Those who want to continue the ban argue primarily against the first contention regarding property rights, which, they point out, are regularly limited. Hunting is never allowed at night, for instance, and there are seasons outside of which it is illegal to hunt, whether on private or public land. Therefore, they conclude, the Sunday hunting ban is not really a property-rights issue. Continuing the ban, they say, will allow folks one day a week when they can take a walk in the woods on their own property without worrying about being shot by a hunter.

The Senate seems to have taken the side of those in favor of loosening the restrictions on hunters. There’s plenty of historical precedent to do so — blue laws for hunting are a relatively modern constraint, after all. And the property-rights argument is philosophically consistent with a state trend toward protecting the rights of property owners.

There are clearly some good arguments on both sides of the issue, and in the end, it’s a pretty close call. Considering those facts, perhaps the smartest move would be for the House of Delegates to appoint a committee to explore the matter in more detail before making a decision. Another year of waiting for the ban to be repealed would hurt nobody. Ill-advisedly lifting the ban, however, could be very dangerous.