DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand

Lakeland Times ^ | 9 January, 2009 | Richard Moore

[marktwain]

Oops! “peach officer” should be “peace officer”!

[Beagle8U]

You have to look, but the key to where this problem started is hidden in the article.

“”About 8 years ago the International Hunter Education Association raised the question about what is being taught in hunter education courses relative to how hunters should handle their firearms during license checks in the field,” Lawhern wrote. “

Do you see it? “International Hunter Education Association”.

Much of what comes from that group, which sets the standards and rules for all hunter safety instruction, is nanny-statist horse$hit drawn up by nincompoops in foreign countries with no gun rights!

I am also a hunter safety instructor and have been for more than 25 years. Rather than challenge the BS parts of the courses, they just get skipped over in every class that I have taught in.

One part of all the instructor manuals that always ground my grits was the parts that direct you to teach the students to be ashamed of the fact that they hunt!

ie... Never wear hunting cloths until you get to the field, always change your cloths before going where non-hunters might see you and be offended.

I'm not real sure where the idiots that came up with that hunt, but I've never hunted where there was a dressing room in the field.

Why should kids be ashamed that they are going, or have been hunting? They shouldn't be, and it doesn't matter what the anti-hunting nutballs are offended by!

[Lurker]

Do you disagree with that?

Nope.

[OKSooner]

Hey guys - the dude's name is spelled PALAN. Not to be confused with a name we're all familiar with, PALIN.

Please don't misspell it and confuse folks with the idea that someone named Palin is involved in it.

[Beagle8U]

“The round in the chamber rule is ridiculous IMO.”

I'm quite sure that “3 rounds in the chamber and magazine combined capacity” rule is from the federal governing body that sets rules for migratory game birds ( ie..ducks , geese, etc) and many years ago was requested by the duck hunters themselves.

When market hunting for waterfowl was outlawed, hunters wanted some of the old methods outlawed that they didn't feel should be used for sport hunting for waterfowl.

The three shot rule was put in place to control “sky blasting”.

[SJackson]

Thanks for the additional information. I didn't mean to suggest that wardens have the ability to search private property at will, rather that in the context of the article that they can enter private property to enforce the game laws, which includes checking licenses of hunters, and checking for proper ammunition, or magizine plugs of waterfowl hunters. IMO the advice given to resist such requests if on private property will result in a bad outcome for the new hunter.

And I admit to being put off by the articles implication that the WIDNR is going to be out there during hunting season trying to confiscate firearms. I simply don't believe it, and would like to see the April, 2008 "directive" that's based on.

[BCR #226]

Well, I was going to go to Wisconson at the invitation of a friend for a hunt. I’ll be politely declining now based on this Nazi attitude of their DNR officers.

Sorry fella’s, I don’t care what the law says, I’m not handing over any of my guns to anyone. If you don’t like it, too bad.

Wisconson just lost some more revenue from a hunter from out of state. Good job DNR!!!

Mike

[Hodar]

Around here, your car gets confiscated on the first DWI offense and is sold at auction long before the case is adjudicated.

So, what happens if one is found 'not guilty'?

[El Gato]

The Joint Chiefs are advisors to the President and nothing more.

Not quite true, they are responsible for training, procurement and other "prepare to fight" things. But they are not in the "fight" chain of command.

[marktwain]

SJackson posted:
“I didn't mean to suggest that wardens have the ability to search private property at will,”

marktwain replies:
I think there is some cross talk going on. Different interpretations are possible. When I read the article, I thought the implication was that once the warden had checked for violations, that the landowner could then demand that he leave the property. I think that is correct, though I do not know of a test case. The closest I could recall was the zoning case, where an official of the state was convicted of trespass.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Bad advice, wardens can enter private property to enforce the game laws at will.

Not legally. The law states that they must still have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to go onto private property.

A student following his advice will end up with an expensive citation and probably a suspension of hunting privledges for several years.

Nothing in his teachings was explicitly illegal. Barring other illegal activities or vindictiveness amongst the DNR wardens, those following this advice in a polite and respectful manner are no more likely to incur an added penalty.

The police will not charge the warden with tresspassing, because he's not,

Of course he may be trespassing. DNR wardens, or any law enforcement officers for that matter, are in no way above the law even in the performance of their duties. Although the trespassing offense may not be enforced at the discretion of the responding officers, there is nothing wrong with reporting the infraction and asking to file a complaint. Certainly getting other law enforcement involved or even other witnesses is a positive step in deescalating these sorts of situations.

though if the student makes a big enough scene, they'll probably arrest him for disturbing the peace.

Hardly. Generally neither side wants to escalate the situation, and usually DNR wardens are reluctant to file non-regulatory citations without non-DNR law enforcement present. The best part of this instructor’s advice, however, was in putting the firearm in question on the ground rather than handing it directly to the officer. From a legal as well as a firearm handling viewpoint, this is excellent advice and is clearly to the benefit and safety of both parties.

The DNR's clear objective in censoring this instructor and by issuing this new unlawful order is to further the lie that they are above the law as well as furthering the misbelief that citizens need to comply with their every order. This isn't in anyone's long term interest, particularly not for the safety of DNR personnel. To the contrary, Wisconsin is a state where citizens have a explicit legal right to disobey unlawful orders by law enforcement. Having a state regulatory agency engage in un-lawful confiscations will increase the likelihood of confrontation and violence for both sides.

[El Gato]

A lot of the regulations are like this - since they can't read your mind and know whether your intent is poaching or legal hunting, and since they usually can't catch anyone red-handed given the nature of the wilderness, they come up with concrete, specific restrictions that can be determined in a legalistic, black-and-white fashion, such as whether you have a plug in your magazine limiting the number of rounds it can accept.

Well they can't tell if that handgun on your waist is going to used only for self defense, or to rob someone, so I guess banning you from wearing it is OK?

[DoughtyOne]

IMO, granting ownership of wild animals on personal property to the state, is just wrong. If you have a 15,000 acre property, you are going to have plenty of wild animals on it. They are yours. More specifically, any animal at any given time on your property, is your property. If they roam off of your property, they are then the property of the land owner they are then residing on. If an animal is listed as an endangered species, then I would agree that the collective as a vested interest. Otherwise, they do not. Either way, the game warden should have to come up to the main house, and check in with the property owner to gain access. If he didn’t, he would be committing an unlawful act.

If the laws are not structured e in this manner, then there is a serious problem with the law. It doesn’t comply with my understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

I appreciate your point of view on this. You take care.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. You may be right.

[marktwain]

“I am also a hunter safety instructor and have been for more than 25 years. Rather than challenge the BS parts of the courses, they just get skipped over in every class that I have taught in.”

---

My recollection is that the hunter safety instruction in Wisconsin started as an NRA hunter safety course, but then the State wanted to put their own indoctrination in, so they created their own course and set of teaching credentials.

You can end up with a lot of indoctrination going on in the name of “safety”.

[marktwain]

“Well, I was going to go to Wisconson at the invitation of a friend for a hunt.”

---

Go ahead! Wisconsin has some great hunting and a huge deer herd. Do get the idea that Wisconsin wardens are much worse than other wardens. I interacted with a number of wardens when I was one, from at least three different states, and I was surprised at how similar their attitude was.

With any peace officer, you have to know some of the law, know your rights, and be careful. You are always at some element of risk when interacting with one.

[SJackson]

I think there is some cross talk going on. Different interpretations are possible. When I read the article, I thought the implication was that once the warden had checked for violations, that the landowner could then demand that he leave the property. I think that is correct, though I do not know of a test case. The closest I could recall was the zoning case, where an official of the state was convicted of trespass.

Wouldn't be the first time. Asking the warden to leave after he's checked for violations is perfectly reasonable, though in most cases unnecessary, I hope. I was reacting to the instructors statement that

The first thing he teaches is, he said, when a person is on private property and a warden stops and asks to see a license, the first thing to do is ask the warden for his credentials. The second thing, Palan said, is to boot the warden off the property because he's trespassing.

"And when they start throwing their weight around, you just reach in your pocket and dial 911 and have the police come out and have them removed,"

Clearly he's advocating resistance, and imo that approach will yield nothing other than citations, possibly arrest.

The zoning thing is interesting, our local assessor routinely checks property for improvements. For tax purposes, without notification.

In the real world this is a non issue, and extrapolating it into the DNR as a gun confiscation agency is a real stretch.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your insight MarkTwain. There seemed to be some things that were troubling in there, but there also seemed to be some rather reasonable things too. I kind of got the impression that the unreasonable could out-weigh the reasonable if a warden wanted it to.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Lurker. I’m glad we could find agreement.

[SJackson]

Bad advice, wardens can enter private property to enforce the game laws at will....Not legally. The law states that they must still have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to go onto private property.

I'll defer to marktwain on this one, but I believe you're mistaken. Under state law a warden can enter property to check things like license, proper ammunition, or the tagging of a deer. He doesn't have to suspect wrongdoing.

Nothing in his teachings was explicitly illegal. Barring other illegal activities or vindictiveness amongst the DNR wardens, those following this advice in a polite and respectful manner are no more likely to incur an added penalty.

If I'm right, while his teachings may not be "illegal", by refusing to cooperate with a request to see a license, or display proper ammunition, the ill advised student will be breaking the law, and will pay an unnecessary price. As to calling the Sheriff to have the warden arrested for tresspass, not a good idea, imo.