Search my boat ??

[huskminn]

Basspastor,

I also think that tried and true Civil Libertarians who adhere to the party platform are a little too extreme (in my opinion!). I certainly agree with them on some issues, but by no means all.

That having been said, the final comment in your post is an indication of exactly how far away from the Constitution we as a country have landed.

The Constitution was drafted to give the citizenry power over its government and to specifically define how the gov't was to function, how officials were to be elected and how the checks and balances were to play out. The underlying function of the Constitution was to try to ensure that the federal gov't never got too big for its britches, too powerful, uncontrollable. The Constitution is what protects the citizen from his/her own government.

The Bill of Rights was drafted to acknowledge and protect what were perceived to be the God given rights and freedoms of INDIVIDUALS. Our entire system of justice, governance and economy is based on the rights of every INDIVIDUAL to exercise their given freedoms.

What has changed about our system in my lifetime, and prior, is that we are moving away from the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights and towards the protection of GROUP rights. Laws have been passed that afford more protection, reward or power to members of certain groups than to individuals in general. Many of these laws are based on race, gender, sexual preference, physical ability, certain professions and/or income. Some of these laws have been ruled unconstitutional and others have not.

The law that gave more power to MN CO's than other MN law enforcement officers was recently deemed to be unconstitutional.

I am of the opinion that when a gov't rewards or punishes individuals according to which group they do or do not fit into, the system is no longer protecting the individual's rights. Either the government ensures that we ALL have the same rights, freedoms and protections, or they don't.

From the get-go, both state and federal gov't has done nothing but become more powerful, tax the citizens more, regulate the citizens more, and employee more of the citizens (thereby determining their economic future). I believe that the individual, the citizen, should take ground from the gov't when he/she can get it, because that opportunity doesn't come often.

I would agree with you that this country is increasingly less "for the people, by the people" and I think that trial lawyers have had a lot to do with that trend. However, lawyers also have a lot to do with reversing that trend. At some point, we've got to have lawyers no matter what we're trying to do within our system.

Judicial activism is nothing new and is seen as a "problem" by us if any decision is contrary to what we believe it should have been. The judicial system is supposed to interpret laws according to their constitutionality and according to legal precedence. The judicial system is supposed to ensure that everyone gets equal protection under the law.

I don't know if you actually read the ruling, but it's very easy to see why they arrived at the ruling that they did. You may not agree with the ruling, but base on what they had to work with, it makes LOGICAL sense. I try to avoid using "Common Sense" because everyone has their own interpretation of what that is....including you.

I completely disagree with your statement that "there is more to the Constitution and The American system than individual rights, freedoms, and liberties". Oh, contrar! Individual rights, freedoms and protection are the underpinning of the American System and are exactly what the Constitution was intended to provide, protect and foster.

One cannot pick and choose where the Constitution applies to state and federal law. To many chinks and the armor is useless.

Or so I think! Great discussion.

[Guest]

Shaking my head........

Basspastor,

Calling me a "civil libertarian" is ridiculous!!! I do not align with the civil liberties movement, but once and awhile, even they get something right. I don't feel it necessary to give up my rights as a U.S. citizen, because the DNR is too lazy to do their job properly.

Going through law enforcement schooling, I've sat next to people who are going to be sheriff's deputies, Minneapolis police officers, and DNR conservation officers. We all studied the same laws, and the same constitution. We all patrol the same PUBLIC lands, roads, and get this... WATERWAYS.

Now someone explain to me why a DNR officer should be able to do something, and a regular police officer should not? You drive on public roads who according to JUST4FUN would have you believe is the property of what... the State Patrol??? So you must follow their rules.

Wrong, public land is EVERYONES property. We all pay the taxes, and one government organization should not be able to bully everyone else around because it's "their jurisdiction".

I wouldn't have such a problem with the C.O.'s checking your fish or deer, but they must follow strict rules. No random searches of the rod locker because their might be fish in there. When they perform searches like that, they are "fishing" (looking for something to nail you with) themselves.

Imagine the stink if the State Patrol decided to pull cars over at random and perform full out searches. Front page news, and most of you would be appalled. As Huskminn said perfectly, EVERYONE must abide by the same rules.

What's ridiculous is ruling the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional!!!

Good Luck,
Rusty

[GooseSlayer]

I believe, since the co's can't search a persons boat they should make the fines for over harvest outragesly high.I for one have no problem with giving them my permision to look through my boat.But I have a 12 year old fishing buddy(my son),that I am teaching to enjoy fishing the right and lawful way.I see people catch they'er limit,go home ,drop them off,and go back to catch more.If the laws are hard to enforce,make the law breakers pay through their teeth.Law abiding fisherman have nothing to hide.Just my opinion.

Keep setting hook!
Dave

[Guest]

Bass Pastor,

"Why should judges have any say in how proper law enforcement is done?
Where in the Constitution are they given the power to micro manage this way?"

The judges have the final power in judging the constitution. The judicial system is that of checks and balances, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the final decision maker. They have everything to do with proper law enforcement!!! They judge whether or not a police officer is following/interpreting the law correctly, and if they are acting according to the constitution. They were given this power from the very beginning when our justice system was established.

Goose Slayer illustrated the main point that "WE" need to take action when witnessing violations with this:

"I see people catch they'er limit,go home ,drop them off,and go back to catch more."

The biggest problem is that many people don't call, jot down a license plate #, or boat registration. People just expect the C.O. that's probably not around to take care of it. But as law abiding citizens, WE need to take the responsibility to report such instances.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[Just4fun]

I guess I grew up with the idea that fishing and hunting were privledges, not rights. If I didn't like the rules I would look else where. I feel that if I am allowed to use this land, the least I should do if follow the rules.
If I were to come to your house, or you to mine, there are differences in the rules. Can smoke, can't smoke. Shoes off at the door, leave shoes on. Cursing allowed, no cursing. If these rules are broken someone might be asked to leave, even though you have the RIGHT to do these things. Well, Public land is the house of the DNR. If you ask to come in their house, be prepared to follow their rules. If you feel the rules are to binding on you, don't go.

Nobody likes restrictions, even those WE pay to enforce the rules.

Side note: Everyone keeps throwing in the constitution, but isn't it the constitution that states the Federal government can only tax for the purpose of defense, or make rulings when the State could not? That poor document has been re-interpreted to near death, and bears little resemblance to the current laws.

[Just4fun]

Rusty,
I never said the State Patrol owns the roads. They are an enforcement agency that is given authority to patrol them. You sound like we should be able to do what we want on them because the roads are OURS.
I had to prove that I should be allowed the PRIVLEDGE of using the roads. My drivers license didn't just come in the mail with my social security number giving me the RIGHT to use them. If I'm not willing to follow the rules, I loose the privledge.
I'm ALLOWED to utilize these public facilities as long as I abide by the rules set forth.

[Fish On!]

A few hypotheticals to ask ourselves, why then do we even have DNR officer's

DNR: How many shots do you have in your gun
DUCK HUNTER w/ SHOTGUN, fully loaded, no plug: 3 shots officer.
DNR: May I check your gun.
Duck Hunter: no.
DNR: May I check that bag full of ducks.
Duck Hunter with bag that is actually full of loons, egrets, three shot muskies, and a bald eagle: no.
DNR: You know I have the right to search you and your duckstand to enforce poaching and hunting violations.
Duck Hunter: No you don't.
DNR: You're right, I'm pretty much getting paid by the state to cruise around in my boat all day.

DNR: Just getting back from the stand?
Deer Hunter in his car dressed in full orange: yup.
DNR: I see blood on the bumper, mind if I check your trunk.
Deer Hunter with only an antler permit has two does, 27 grouse, 116 red squirels, a timerwolf, a moose rack, a loon, 350 out of the slots walleye, and a bald eagle in his trunk: No.
DNR: You know I have the right to search your car to enforce poaching and hunting regs.
Deer Hunter: not without probable cause you don't.
DNR: your right. I'm pretty much getting paid by the state to cruise around in my car all day.

[huskminn]

Wow........this thing has digressed.

Just4Fun: Public land is not the house of the DNR. Public land is your house and my house. It doesn't belong to the gov't, it belongs to the public. Following your logic, it would be just fine if the DNR determined that no one was ever allowed to say a bad word about the DNR while on public water-ways or land. Never mind that it violates the 1st Amendment rights to free speech, it's the DNR's house--they can make whatever rules they want and if I don't like it, I just won't go.

Regarding the State Patrol/driving/roads issue. I agree that hunting/fishing is a privelege, as is driving. We all agree to abide by the rules during our use of public roads, land and waterways. That is not part of this debate though. What is at issue is the fact that one of the rules was deemed unconstitutional. Surely you're not saying that we should be forced to abide by unconstitutional rules?

Fish On: C'mon.....you know a guy could never get that much stuff in his trunk!

Instead of continually debating this issue, we should be trying to think of solutions. I personally would like to see the DNR be able to inspect a vehicle/boat, but, that needs to be done within the bounds of the law. I heard some blurb about Iowa....they passed legislation that specifically defined probable cause within the context of game law enforcement. Something to the effect that if one is simply in the act of hunting/fishing, that constitutes probable cause and the CO can search accordingly.

I've no idea if that law has ever been tested and I have no specific details about the law itself, but, it does seem that Iowa realized the constitutional problems associated with allowing CO's to search on demand without taking care of the probable cause issue.

The legislators in Minnesota didn't use that caution when the "old" laws were passed. And now the price is being paid.

[Guest]

Just4fun,

I was refering to your comment "Well, Public land is the house of the DNR. If you ask to come in their house, be prepared to follow their rules. If you feel the rules are to binding on you, don't go."

While it's true hunting and fishing is a priviledge, as is driving, it still doesn't give the law enforcing body the RIGHT to ignore your RIGHTS.

The State Patrol is the "top dog" when it comes to highways, etc... but they CAN'T make up their own rules and randomly ignore peoples civil rights. A state trooper, is no different than the DNR C.O., so therefore neither should be given a special right/priviledge to ignore your rights. They are both protecting an equally important area, and should be treated equally.

"One must abide by the rules or else lose their priviledges" Isn't that the truth!! But, it's also true that the people enforcing the laws must also follow the laws.

Maybe I was misinterpreted, I'm not, nor would I ever say you should do whatever you want because they're "our" roads. What I'm saying is no enforcing agency should make you abide by rules, that are unconstitutional, just because they have jurisdiction there. Hopefully that clears that up.

As Huskminn said, we can debate this until we are blue in the face, but we're not getting much done. I have faith that the judges will never allow violations of the constitution, to become acceptable. I agree that the DNR needs to be allowed to check your catch, but they must do so under strict guidelines, and without busting down your door, just because...

Does anyone have any solutions?

Good Luck,
Rusty