Posted on 01/10/2009 10:36:44 AM PST by marktwain
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," he said.
Being approached by a warden on public land is different, Palan said.
"If you are on public ground and a warden stops you and wants to see your license, you should ask him for his credentials, then you show him your license," he said. "And when he says, give me your gun, you show him your gun. You set it down on the ground or you can hand it to him. But your right is that you do not have to give him your gun. And if you set it down on the ground and he picks it up, now he's taken your gun without your permission. I've been teaching that for 14 years."
A ping for your Upper Midwest/outdoors/rural list.
This is the way they are disarming you.
Although I loathe poachers, I loathe any form of pre-conviction asset forfeiture even more.
One effect of asset forfeiture is that the penalties of a crime are rather open ended and inconsistently applied as you noted in the case of one man losing a Lexus and another losing a POS for the same crime.
Giving up a person’s right to bear arms is the first step towards totalitarianism.
DNR SWAT Teams - coming soon to the woods nearest you.
Amen brother! Hellinois gun control gained them increased gun crime while also making its citizenry helpless. Got to get that “VOIT” card; NEVER!
My son in law and bro in law were in the mountains on public land target shooting. They saw a state game officer pulling up to them (female, BTW). My rat bastard son in law, wanted to make her fell more comfortable and leaned his .22 rifle against his pickup tailgate and stepped away from the gun. She returned the favor by writting him up for having a loaded weapon in a vehicle.
Many sources I read lately is that military commanders have all the proof they need that if Obama issues any order they can legally decline to follow it.
Our military is aware of the legal repercussions of taking orders illegally.
If it came down to either an Obama army or LEOs forcing themselves upon the US the military may be our weapon of defense.
Possi comitotus in reverse would be a bitch Barry.
The key to present law is to deliberately create vague ambiguous situations. Vagueness and ambiguity then create a question of fact. A question of fact then creates the need for a trial(with all the burden and expense unaffordable to most people). A trial generally results in an appeal. An appeal then allows the judiciary to formulate “POLICY.” Everyone knows the general drift of “POLICY” i.e. eternally leftward.
That's BS. If the warden needs to check to see if there is a plug in your auto-5, he should be allowed to inspect your gun, he should just not be allowed to confiscate it.
Indeed an excellent article. The writer seems to be a real journalist of the old school, which is a great compliment.
A real practical issue in this misunderstanding is safety. No one wants to have an officer expecting one thing, and the citizen expecting another. That is why the DNR’s pushing the limits is even more than just an attempt to shade the law: it creates the chance of a dangerous misjudgment.
I have heard too many accounts of accidents occurring in ordinary traffic cases, such that in the last decades whenever I have been stopped while driving, I keep my hands on the steering wheel, or on the edge of the window, so that the officer cannot possibly misinterpret.
I know a young chap who was stopped at night returning home with friends after a party. The officer asked the boy for his driver’s license, and the kid responded by reaching under his seat (where he habitually placed his wallet). The next thing he knew, he heard a click, and felt a large barrel against his head.
I am not saying that this is good police procedure, but police are often injured or killed in what seemed at the time like a routine stop. I would never reach under a seat like that without explaining what I was doing. It is absolutely necessary to understand what is going on both sides of the “interview.” It is good fortune that nothing bad happened in the case of my friend (he didn’t even get any sort of ticket), but to my way of thinking that is a close call.
Likewise, it would be good if the courts figured out (correctly) this matter with the DNR in Wisconsin.
Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.
There is nothing unconstitutional about revolution.
yup and it is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It started long before this. Long before katrina when the government confiscated peoples personal firearms saying it was for safety and law and order. The government will disarm the very people who will make up the militias to back them up in case of attack by a foriegn or domestic terrorists.
It started long before this. Long before katrina when the government confiscated peoples personal firearms saying it was for safety and law and order. The government will disarm the very people who will make up the militias to back them up in case of attack by a foriegn enemies or domestic terrorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.