Do fish and game laws supersede constitutional rights?

[wapitibob]

Used to be a notation on our Oregon license that signing was agreeing to follow regulations, which include stopping at checkpoints as well as producing a license when asked by any law enforcement.

 

[ClearCreek]

No one has probably ever pushed it too hard and it hasn't went all the way up the courts. It seems as though often the game wardens make it up as they go along, and go based off of their own interpretations, not hard facts. Nowadays it's the kings land, the kings deer, and the kings rules, but we just call it the government....

Can you explain what you mean in the bolded and underlined sentence?

Are you saying that when a game warden writes a citation for a violation they are just making up the violation?


ClearCreek

 

[mt terry d]

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.

Each state regulates voting, too.
If a state decides only white male property owners vote, that's okay, right?

 

[NMJM]

Part of the reason these laws are considered constitutional is they are rarely challenged. The vast majority of game violations are misdemeanors. To challenge the constitutionality of a law is a long and very expensive process. Look at the corner crossing case. Look how long that took and look at the total cost. Luckily the defendants had help with legal bills or it probably would not have gone as far as it did.

 

[Fujicon]

Blathering opinions here are perhaps interesting to read, but the only definitive answer will come through the courts. That requires someone to put their money where their offended sensibilities are. If that hasn't happened yet, and apparently it hasn't in many of the situations cited above, then by definition the actual sense of governmental offense is rather low-level at best.

 

[mtwarden]

Blathering opinions here

Indeed


I want to know what we're going to do with traffic laws that supersede constitutional rights? I can't drive 55