Do fish and game laws supersede constitutional rights?

[huntsd]

the issue that comes to my mind is wyo non residents in wilderness. SO we can fish there but not hunt there? I would think this is unconstitutional but hell im not an attorney and I don't know how it works.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I'm sure glad I don't live where you gents live. The last time I saw a warden in the field was 1975. The last time I saw one on the road was 2020 and that sums up the total number of times I have talked to a warden in 50 years - twice.

I have never been in the field with an unloaded gun except when I get on my horse and I still have a loaded handgun. I think you have too many rules.

 

[CorbLand]

the issue that comes to my mind is wyo non residents in wilderness. SO we can fish there but not hunt there? I would think this is unconstitutional but hell im not an attorney and I don't know how it works.

You should read Amendment 10.

 

[mtnbiker208]

I don't think the constitution holds the power people want it to.
case in point, the 1st amendment was tossed out the door during the pandemic. The right to assemble.

 

[hereinaz]

Hypothetical questions, speculation and “I heard” never play well when discussing law in my experience

Definitions matter, and it’s “language” that is muddy. Until you try to write something so it can’t be misunderstood by an idiot, you don’t know how hard it is to deal with the law.

For instance, what is “hunting” mean in English? I don’t tell my wife I am merely going hiking with binoculars looking for deer with a friend. I am either scouting or hunting, it all depends if one of us have a tag. I tell her, hey, my buddy has a tag so I am going hunting with him. I don’t split hairs. I have communicated enough.

In the law, it depends whether/how well the definition for “hunting” is written by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. If it isn’t specifically defined by the legislature then the courts will use common law methods of interpretation to give the word legal meaning. Dictionaries are only one way the court finds meaning intended by the legislature.

Look at dictionary definitions of hunting. Consider definitions of “hunting party” as well.

So, my answer is always “it depends” and I ask as many clarifying questions to nail down specifics.

The OP is getting into areas of highly technical interpretation and enforcement questions. There are so many layers from all three branches of government that it is impossible to give answers.

The best I could do is point out all the ways that your reasoning is wrong, correct with how to analyze, and where to look.

Throw in the Constitutional conflict between make no law “infringing” and the right to manage state wildlife and you have another balancing test after you figure out what game laws say.

I never engage in these campfire discussions because I am a wet blanket,

 

[hereinaz]

I don't think the constitution holds the power people want it to.
case in point, the 1st amendment was tossed out the door during the pandemic. The right to assemble.

There are exceptions, and health is one. Try to assemble people in excess of fire codes.

Time of panic always result in govt overreach. Most of what was done was tragically wrong during the pandemic and built on lies.

Vote like your life depends on it, because it does.

 

[mt terry d]

Here is the definition of hunting in Idaho:
Hunting means chasing, driving, flushing, attracting, pursuing, worrying, following or on the trail of, shooting at, stalking, or lying in wait for any wildlife whether or not such wildlife is then/ or subsequently captured, killed, taken or wounded.

If you are in the woods with a gun, the way the definition is written, you are hunting. It doesn't take much to "worry" the animals.

By that definition if I'm out sitting on a bank birdwatching I'm "hunting".

 

[mt terry d]

Until you try to write something so it can’t be misunderstood by an idiot,

Like "shall not be infringed". You have Supreme Court Justices who cannot agree on what that means
and they ALL get it wrong.

Law is just a game. And all the(ir) rules are not in the rulebook.

 

[Customweld]

By that definition if I'm out sitting on a bank birdwatching I'm "hunting".

Throw a broad net to catch everything. By the definition, CO's basically have a reason to question everyone.

 

[mt terry d]

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime".

^^That's why laws are currently written as they are.

 

[hereinaz]

Like "shall not be infringed". You have Supreme Court Justices who cannot agree on what that means
and they ALL get it wrong.

Law is just a game. And all the(ir) rules are not in the rulebook.

Actually, their rules are in a rulebook, called the “common law”. It’s just there are different ways of interpreting it…

And, new “judge created laws” are always interpreting the old law with some new situation.

Back to, vote like your life depends on it.

Again, I am a wet blanket at the campfire.

 

[hereinaz]

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime".

^^That's why laws are currently written as they are.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I see at a different level. It’s just not that simple.

There is absolutely no way to avoid this if we live in a society governed by laws. It’s always been this way. If by currently you meant by our earliest state and federal constitutions then we can agree.

But, yes, under the regulatory state we are all violating some law.

It’s why the jury has the right to nullify the law and the state can not convict with double jeopardy. Go back to the founding and you’ll find it.

Even our founding fathers disagreed and left ways for the people to try to stay ahead of government.

It is magical thinking that the Constitution was ever able to control govt. From the beginning the Marbury vs. Madison case and politics surrounding it set the table.

“A republic if you can keep it.”

Jefferson said liberty would require frequent revolutions.

The people are the problem. Government is just the word for stuff we do together.

Vote like your life depends on it, cause it does.

Residential wet blanket out….

 

[MoeFaux]

-In Michigan, specifically while deer hunting but maybe with other species as well, you have to have your weapon unloaded at the end of shooting time. I have received a written warning for this (I was ignorant of the law) and know of others who have been ticketed for it. My question here is how can it be made illegal to open carry my firearm on public land? Isn't that one covered as my right to bear arms?

No. The right to bear arms protects your right to own and use firearms at the federal level. It does NOT grant you the right to carry any weapon any time any where.

State and local governments are free to put restrictions on firearm use. So, when Michigan says you can't have a loaded rifle after dark on public land during hunting season - that is the law of the land and is not in conflict with your rights. If you were on private property, you may be able to argue that the state can't tell you when or how to carry your rifle BUT that argument could quickly be defeated by the fact that you have a hunting license in your pocket, and hunting is an activity that the state regulates regardless of where you.

 

[EdP]

The warrantless search law in Tn was challenged recently and struck down as unconstitutional.

https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/03/23/judges-strike-down-tennessee-law-allowing-warrantless-searches-by-state-wildlife-officials/#:~:text=By%3A%20Anita%20Wadhwani%20%2D%20March%2023%2C%202022%201%3A55%20pm&text=The%20longstanding%20practice%20of%20conducting,County%20Circuit%20Court%20ruled%20Tuesday.

 

[Tjdeerslayer37]

No. The right to bear arms protects your right to own and use firearms at the federal level. It does NOT grant you the right to carry any weapon any time any where.

State and local governments are free to put restrictions on firearm use. So, when Michigan says you can't have a loaded rifle after dark on public land during hunting season - that is the law of the land and is not in conflict with your rights. If you were on private property, you may be able to argue that the state can't tell you when or how to carry your rifle BUT that argument could quickly be defeated by the fact that you have a hunting license in your pocket, and hunting is an activity that the state regulates regardless of where you.

This is a take that nobody in my circle has ever really mentioned. Good point, thanks for this!

 

[huntsd]

You should read Amendment 10.

wilderness areas are on federal ground not state...

 

[Predator_SD]

Maybe somewhere like Canada (I am aware they don’t have rights) but certainly not in the US.

 

[Predator_SD]

This is a take that nobody in my circle has ever really mentioned. Good point, thanks for this!

So you’re telling me you can’t hunt right till closing? Have to be out of the woods before dark? Or you’re cool if it’s unloaded?

 

[CorbLand]

wilderness areas are on federal ground not state...

Can you show me where it says anything about hunting and/or wildlife management in the constitution?

Wyoming not allowing NR to hunt wilderness is in fact, quite constitutional because the federal government has no ownership over the animals. Regardless of whose land the animals reside on, the animals are held in trust by the state for the people of that state.

Is it a stupid rule? Yes, yes it is.
Is it unconstitutional? No, no it is not.

 

[Tjdeerslayer37]

So you’re telling me you can’t hunt right till closing? Have to be out of the woods before dark? Or you’re cool if it’s unloaded?

You can hunt right til end of shooting time (30 min after sunset) then you must unload. So the walk out from blind to truck or treestand to camp or whatever you must be unloaded.