Do fish and game laws supersede constitutional rights?

[MoeFaux]

That's because he's completely wrong. Both the supremacy clause(article 6) and the equal protection clause (section 1) of the 14th amendment applies the entire constitution to the states as well. The states are not allowed to violate anything in the federal constitution.
There's 140 years of jurisprudence on that and it's not remotely debated at this point.

States passing laws that govern firearms don't categorically violate the constitution. This is demonstrated by the fact that all 50 states have laws that govern ownership and/or use of firearms.

If the point I think you're making were true, then any one of these laws could have been struck down by SCOTUS in a decision that would declare all of them illegal. The many decades of these laws standing are evidence that they are not in violation of the constitution.

Just for a fun little number - states have enacted at least 620 individual gun laws since 2012.

 

[mt terry d]

The many decades of these laws standing are evidence that they are not in violation of the constitution.

No. That's evidence that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Your line of reasoning could conclude that slavery is not immoral as centuries of
slavery in multiple cultures world wide has been common practice.

Just for a fun little number - states have enacted at least 620 individual gun laws since 2012.

Because "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment is so vague ?

I asked before, why then can't a state declare only white male landowners may vote?
You do realize that's exactly how the constitution was originally ratified.

 

[CMP70306]

It’s the activity of hunting that they are regulating, not your choice to carry. You cannot hunt with (insert detail here). But if you aren’t hunting they are not taking away any right. You have the choice to hunt or not. Similar to open container laws, you can have an open container and you can drive, but you can’t do them at the same time. Driving is being regulated, not your right to drink alcohol.

In PA our Game laws are the reason that nobody can have a loaded long gun in a vehicle regardless of whether you hunt or not. It was originally done to stop road hunting so it applies to everyone so that you couldn’t use the “I wasn’t hunting” excuse.

Additionally their definition of loaded includes loaded magazines and or ammo in the same case which means I always have to carry a separate bag for my ammo and magazines.

As far as sitting in a blind after you’ve tagged out with the intent to shoot some other animal that’s legal. It’s not illegal unless you do something illegal, IE shoot another deer you don’t have a tag for. Many places have concurrent seasons for different game animals and common sense would tell you that you can hunt one after you’ve finished hunting the other.

Except here in PA you can’t, you want to hear the stupidest one? A few years back they opened a muzzleloader bear season that overlapped our archery deer season and our muzzleloader doe season. Many people at this time would carry both a bow and a muzzleloader, that way you could use the muzzleloader for does but still have the bow for if a buck showed up first.

However because it was muzzleloader bear and not archery bear it was unlawful to hunt bears if you were carrying both a bow and a muzzleloader. So for that first year you had to choose if you wanted to hunt bucks or bears more. After they got called out for it they opened archery bear season that week and made a change in the regulations that it was legal to carry both a bow and a muzzleloader for bears.

Additionally they make no distinction between firearms during archery, even though small game is open it is illegal to carry a firearm for small game while archery hunting despite the fact there is zero overlap in legal arms between small game and deer.

 

[MoeFaux]

No. That's evidence that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Your line of reasoning could conclude that slavery is not immoral as centuries of
slavery in multiple cultures world wide has been common practice.

Just for a fun little number - states have enacted at least 620 individual gun laws since 2012.

Because "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment is so vague ?

I asked before, why then can't a state declare only white male landowners may vote?
You do realize that's exactly how the constitution was originally ratified.

Your comparison is inaccurate. I've made no statement concerning the morality of anything - I've only stated facts about legality. It's a fact that state's laws are legal as demonstrated by the fact that nobody has ever succeeded in arguing that they are illegal, despite the opinions and well-funded efforts of a great many people. A different case in front a different supreme court could change that in the future, but these are still the facts of the present.

"Shall not be infringed" is exactly one ninth of the amendment. If you look at the whole text instead of cherry picking words that seem to support your point, there's plenty of vagary to be found. See post 53 in this thread for more on that.

The answer to your question about voting rights is simple. States are forbidden from making such laws because they would be in direct violation of the clear and concise text of the 14th and 19th amendments. The 2nd amendment does not enjoy the same clarity of language or purpose as those other two.

 

[taskswap]

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.

On this topic, a good term to add to the discussion is "prima facie evidence" which is evidence that strong enough that just seeing it is enough to flip the burden of proof onto the accused. For example, carrying a rifle in the woods during hunting season is prima facie evidence of "hunting" in every jurisdiction I know of. This is one of the reasons why any game warden can demand to see your hunting license/tag - any reasonable person would assume you are hunting, and nobody needs to see you pull the trigger to prove that you were. But they could not do that to an unarmed hiker (although they can still ask).

If the person carrying the rifle refuses to show their license (or doesn't have one) they could be arrested and it would be on them to prove that they were not hunting. However, the hiker would have a pretty strong false-arrest claim if they were arrested for the same thing.

 

[omicron1792]

I’m no lawyer. But just because you signed something to get your hunting license does not supersede your constitutional rights.

 

[HvyBeams]

They typically violate illegal search and seizure laws. Any checkpoints are a violation. Same as DUI checkpoints. They shouldn't be able to pull you over without cause.

Tanner v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game et al, No. 2:2018cv00456 - Document 103 (D. Idaho 2020)

Tanner v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game et al, No. 2:2018cv00456 - Document 103 (D. Idaho 2020) case opinion from the District of Idaho US Federal District Court

law.justia.com

STEPHEN TANNER, I V. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, No. 20-35886 (9th Cir. 2022)

STEPHEN TANNER, I V. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, No. 20-35886 (9th Cir. 2022) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

law.justia.com

Reasonable suspicion on making a traffic stop, not "cause."

 

[mt terry d]

Your comparison is inaccurate. I've made no statement concerning the morality of anything - I've only stated facts about legality. It's a fact that state's laws are legal as demonstrated by the fact that nobody has ever succeeded in arguing that they are illegal, despite the opinions and well-funded efforts of a great many people. A different case in front a different supreme court could change that in the future, but these are still the facts of the present.

"Shall not be infringed" is exactly one ninth of the amendment. If you look at the whole text instead of cherry picking words that seem to support your point, there's plenty of vagary to be found. See post 53 in this thread for more on that.

The answer to your question about voting rights is simple. States are forbidden from making such laws because they would be in direct violation of the clear and concise text of the 14th and 19th amendments. The 2nd amendment does not enjoy the same clarity of language or purpose as those other two.

So you're saying the 2nd amendment should be declared "void for vagueness". Agreed.
But no one EVER has brought this up to the Supremes. Why, when it's such a fundamental principle
of law?

14th: "equal protection". 1868 Not defined. Why were women not allowed to vote?
Void for vagueness once again. Certainly more vague than the 2nd.

Try the 16th ( since it's tax time). The term "income" was disputed from the start. 1920 the
Supremes defined it as "gain", however we pay income taxes on wages' which is an exchange of equal value, hence, no gain.

It's all a just rigged word game, nothing more. That any law is debated as to its meaning and scope by judges ( especially the Supremes) just proves that it is at it's core "void for vagueness"To pretend the Constitution does ANYTHING to protect our basic God-given/natural rights is just foolish.

That fish and game laws are confusing ( void for vagueness) and up to interpretation by the LEO or the Judge (and if trial by jury the lawyers and judge are forbidden to inform the jury of their right, dare I say duty, to judge the law itself before judging the accused) is just more concrete evidence it's a game. A rigged game in that.

 

[MoeFaux]

So you're saying the 2nd amendment should be declared "void for vagueness". Agreed.
But no one EVER has brought this up to the Supremes. Why, when it's such a fundamental principle
of law?

14th: "equal protection". 1868 Not defined. Why were women not allowed to vote?
Void for vagueness once again. Certainly more vague than the 2nd.

Try the 16th ( since it's tax time). The term "income" was disputed from the start. 1920 the
Supremes defined it as "gain", however we pay income taxes on wages' which is an exchange of equal value, hence, no gain.

It's all a just rigged word game, nothing more. That any law is debated as to its meaning and scope by judges ( especially the Supremes) just proves that it is at it's core "void for vagueness"To pretend the Constitution does ANYTHING to protect our basic God-given/natural rights is just foolish.

That fish and game laws are confusing ( void for vagueness) and up to interpretation by the LEO or the Judge (and if trial by jury the lawyers and judge are forbidden to inform the jury of their right, dare I say duty, to judge the law itself before judging the accused) is just more concrete evidence it's a game. A rigged game in that.

You seem intent to argue some strongly held opinions on a broad topic. I was interested only in discussing facts that pertained to the OP's question.

And for that reason, I'm out.

 

[mt terry d]

You seem intent to argue some strongly held opinions on a broad topic. I was interested only in discussing facts that pertained to the OP's question.

And for that reason, I'm out.

Surrender accepted.

 

[pirogue]

We need more states to make it illegal for the possum cops to roam around on private property, just because they want to. And then, they don’t even comply with the state’s body cam/ FOIA policy. I’ve got trail cam shots of possum cops walking through my woods with thier hand on the body cam, as if thinking, “I’ll turn it on if I see anything”. Then, when I ask for the footage,(my FOIA right), they tell me there is nothing recorded.

 

[Fujicon]

Surrender accepted.

Debate is fine. And generally healthy. Quality debate helps people learn and gain perspective.
But pissing contests to see who "wins" an argument? And who "surrenders"? That kind of ego-driven engagement is ugly and drags down this entire forum. Let's forego that please.

 

[AdvntrSeekr]

For

Can you tell us the specifics of a couple of those instances? Especially the "completely different take on it".

ClearCreek

Everything from what constitutes baiting to residency requirements.

 

[3325]

Regarding the warrant requirement (4th Amendment):

As far as I know, the exceptions to the warrant requirement for private property are exigent circumstances.

There is an exception for motor vehicles.

A tent camp? Not sure. But one of the recognized exigencies is destruction of evidence, so I suspect a warrantless search of a tent camp might hold up if the warden can articulate probable cause, because he’s going to lose evidence if he leaves the backcountry to get a warrant unless he has enough help to lockdown the scene.

If you’re interested, you can find plenty of information online about what constitutes exigent circumstances and the motor vehicle exception.

 

[mt terry d]

Debate is fine. And generally healthy. Quality debate helps people learn and gain perspective.
But pissing contests to see who "wins" an argument? And who "surrenders"? That kind of ego-driven engagement is ugly and drags down this entire forum. Let's forego that please.

I was trying to debate. Hoping to get others to think.
I gave evidence to support my POV.
He refused to.

You're wrong for assuming my poking him for bailing is "ego-driven".

Carry on.

 

[bluetick78]

I could be off but if I remember correctly in the state of Idaho, hunting is considered a privilege and to participate you agree to many things that could otherwise seem like a violation of your rights. That's part of why you sign your license.
It gives fish and game authority they otherwise wouldn't normally have over regular citizens.

Hunting, fishing, and trapping are RIGHTS under the State Constitution of Idaho. You must be thinking of another state. Washington, Oregon, California perhaps?

 

[fatlander]

I could be off but if I remember correctly in the state of Idaho, hunting is considered a privilege and to participate you agree to many things that could otherwise seem like a violation of your rights. That's part of why you sign your license.
It gives fish and game authority they otherwise wouldn't normally have over regular citizens.

1.) Privileges still don’t give the state the power to supersede and violate your constitutional rights.

2.) By that logic, fish and game couldn’t pursue, investigate, and prosecute poachers who don’t hold a valid and signed license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dioni A]

Title 36 – Idaho State Legislature

legislature.idaho.gov

I haven't read through much yet but this seems like the best resource to sort out what they can and can't do.

 

[ClearCreek]

For

Everything from what constitutes baiting to residency requirements.

Those are not specifics. Tell us spcifically what one game warden said and specifically what the other game warden said to explain the "completely different take on it".

ClearCreek

 

[whaack]

I've debated asking this for a long time but here it goes... This is a discussion we seem to have every year at our deer camp and it pops up throughout the year. The question being, why do fish and game laws seemingly supersede constitutional rights? Or perhaps they don't? I'm hoping to get some discussion points out of this and just spur some conversation in general i suppose. some examples that we have brought up and questioned before-

I live in Michigan so these may be state specific.

-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?

-It is my understanding that DNR does not need a warrant to enter your property, or to search your home as long as they have probable cause. I always wondered why DNR is exempt from requiring a warrant. (i think someone introduced a bill to require a warrant recently)

-Recently saw the hunting public episodes about Ted getting a ticket from the state of Mississippi. They stated he was hunting without a license. the scenario as-told was that he was filming for another hunter with no weapon, call or ammunition on him. Yes the rule book says he has to be licensed to accompany the hunter afield, but my question is how is it any different than taking your camera for a walk in the woods? Is that illegal? It's public ground so it seems odd. ps they said this is a $900+ ticket, which seems wild and a bit of a cash grab.

-I'll paint a scenario. You're sitting in your deer blind during rifle season. You just shot your buck and tagged out but it's midday and you don't want to disturb the woods and head back to camp early. You decide to sit back in the same deer blind with your loaded rifle and see if any coyotes come to the smell of your fresh gut pile or whatever, because you have a legal tag for them. Multiple different officers have told me this would be very likely to get you a ticket for deer hunting with no license simply because you're sitting in your deer blind with your deer rifle and you look like you're a deer hunter, regardless of the legal tag in your pocket for coyote. To me, you're a legal hunter, but even at the base of it you're just out in the woods with your weapon and i cant see how that can be made illegal, even if you weren't actively hunting.

Just to be clear, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Green Jeans and the job they do! I realize this may be a polarizing conversation so i hope we can keep it on track and in good spirits and I'd love to hear opinions on it

These are good questions and my strong libertarian slant already has my blood pressure going up.

The firearm one really gets my goat. When I took my sons to hunter ed I specifically asked for clarification on this from the DNR. The IL law states that you cannot have a loaded firearm in your vehicle, yet, I have a CCW permit which allows me to have a loaded firearm in my vehicle whenever I want. So which law supercedes the other? The DNR wouldn't/couldn't answer.

Also, you cant CCW while bowhunting in IL. So I' supposed to be intentionally unarmed while I'm participating in bowhunting on my own property???