BuzzH
Well-known member
You're clueless...and know everything so I'm not going to bother to hand you your ass...go back to pretending you've lived in Montana and Wyoming your whole life.
Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?
- Thread starter Losing_Sanity
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
We're just talking about a few "common sense" wild game lawsImagine how many gun crimes we could stop by having a check point just for guns outside of major cities. You know just to make sure the persons are in legal possession.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Where does a person or a society draw the line? I think that it is wrong to quantify "right or wrong" based on the amount of inconvenience the request requires. Just because it's not to much of an imposition does not necessarily mean there is not bigger implications. And it can't be quantified equally from person to person.
Then why does it have to be the law or required with punitive repercussions? I don't think it should be based on the amount of imposition place on it but on more important implications.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Good to know your normal style of elevated discussion has not suffered from COVID pandemic.
BuzzH
Well-known member
...and equally good to see you still have 2 ears and 1 mouth and refuse to use them in the correct proportion.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Good question. Really that is THE question that 200 years of jurisprudence has been struggling with. Sometimes its gets it right (Brown) and sometimes it gets it wrong (Plessy), but folks will keep fighting over those lines. For me, I try to bias towards individual rights as far as we can, but there is no libertarian utopia out there, so there must be government constraints, I just prefer less over more.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Foul... I don't think that is lending to the discussion. You usually provide a reasonable argument for consideration.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How are the states going to collect harvest stats, hunter numbers, all that stuff if there's no requirement to stop at check stations?
A couple hints, the harvest data in places like Olney, Blackfoot, Canoe Gulch, Darby, West Yellowstone, Swan have been collecting harvest data since long before I was even old enough to hunt. The check stations have been in place for at least 60 years...if you're a crook and want to avoid them, its not tough to do. Further, as in the case of the Darby check station for example, the season on cow elk closed when the quota's checked through the stations was met.
Care to explain just HTF, they were supposed to know how many cow elk came through to determine the harvest quota if hunters weren't required to stop?
This whole discussion is just ignorance....people whining about constitutional rights for simply stopping at a check station to help with game management.
Is no shortage of folks that aren't one bit afraid of cutting their nose off to spite their face...
Sytes
Well-known member
One factor - Often the extremes are the ones who bring Bill of Rights issues to light.
First Amendment - as crappy as they were, they strengthened our first amendment intent to bring such to SCOTUS - The jack wagons who "peacefully" protested with terrible chants from public areas towards military funeral mourners. Ball-less, crappy however, First Amendment strengthened for all.
Tanner promoted the question (This was in U.S. District Court, not Idaho State) whether F&G check points are able conduct such on people not even involved with hunting or fishing. This will become a case cited in other U.S. cases by US Attorney's for dismissal motions, etc. Doesn't mean the Judge would concur though it has a precedence factor... It would be interesting if a SCOTUS legal firm picks this case to roll into 9th Circuit.
First Amendment - as crappy as they were, they strengthened our first amendment intent to bring such to SCOTUS - The jack wagons who "peacefully" protested with terrible chants from public areas towards military funeral mourners. Ball-less, crappy however, First Amendment strengthened for all.
Tanner promoted the question (This was in U.S. District Court, not Idaho State) whether F&G check points are able conduct such on people not even involved with hunting or fishing. This will become a case cited in other U.S. cases by US Attorney's for dismissal motions, etc. Doesn't mean the Judge would concur though it has a precedence factor... It would be interesting if a SCOTUS legal firm picks this case to roll into 9th Circuit.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Foul... I don't think that is lending to the discussion. You usually provide a reasonable argument for consideration.
Wrong, the foul is listening to people, even when they're told by folks that know better, that they know more. Even worse when they've been hunting "out west" for about 3 years.
Gets tiresome, in particular when its the same guys, over and over again.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Well, at least that's better...
All that could be gathered from voluntarily stopping. It's all good data and no one, to my knowledge is saying otherwise. It should be collected. But that wasn't what was considered from the original news article.
Maybe the discussion is ignorance, but through the discussion, points like your are considered and people might understand it better.
BuzzH
Well-known member
No, it couldn't be.
If only half the people going through the Darby check station decide to voluntarily stop to let their cow elk be counted...then the season doesn't close when it should and the elk take an even bigger beating.
Leaving things like stopping at check stations as "voluntary"...may as well not even bother to have them at all.
Further, if those doing the whining about having to stop at check station being such an imposition of their constitutional rights, exercise your right to not hunt and take up golf.
Its simply mind boggling to listen to pretenders, pretending to care so much about the sport, the management, the wildlife, all that...and then cry about something as beneficial and easy as taking 3 minutes to stop at a check station to help further what they pretend to care about.
Its mind numbing...it truly is.
Last edited:
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
I'm not sure whether you are yelling at me, @VikingsGuy, or everyone... Equally uncertain why you get so upset over what was a peaceful and intelligent conversation.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Childish name calling, half-*ssed arguments bolstered with bullying, persistent argument shifting, etc etc. get tiring too . . . over and over again from the same guy. But many of us persist none the less. I am sure you will too.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Good point and you are probably right. But, do you have facts to prove that people won't see the importance and feel obligated to help out? How do you know that? Remember, we are supposed to be a free, compassionate, and caring group.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
I don't think checkpoints violate the 4th amendment because hunting is a priveledge and not a right to us. If it was a right I think I'd be a little more bent out of shape, but hunting is not a right guaranteed to us by the constitution or bill of rights. As a priveledge I think we are due and up to the individual states we hunt in to whatever they want to enforce.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes, how many people fill out their voluntary harvest reporting in Wyoming?
I'll give you a hint...its not close to 100%....but "we" all "care"...funny.
Last edited:
Apparently check stations in MN are different than the ones in MT. They are running tape measures, pulling teeth and aging birds. They run one just a couple miles out of town and I am there often. Don't recall seeing a warden very often, but do see all the biologists from across the HiLine throughout the season.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Makes sense, but in OPs post, this guy wasn't a hunter - he wasn't exercising his privilege to hunt he was exercising his bill of rights granted protection from unreasonable search while driving to his destination unrelated to hunting. I have no problem with mandatory stops for hunters. I also have no problem with having meth possession being illegal. What I am suggesting is that might not be a great idea is to allow police to pull over 100% of the cars on a road looking for either. Does that mean some guilty folks will get off - yup. But it is the price of the protections in the bill of rights. But again, reasonable folks can disagree - as have many courts over the last 30 years in various jurisdictions - there is no simple single answer.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I do, but like you said, only 3 times
