[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.

[marktwain]

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

---

I think I disagree with you a little. In the real world, I rarely would see wardens ordering hunters to hand over their guns. But the point of the article seems to me that we do not want to create an atmosphere where people carrying guns are assumed to be illegal, where the carrying of guns is an act that *of itself* causes police or wardens to take action against the person who is carrying. This is just contrary to the law and the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, as the article pointed out.