The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a simple, blunt message for hunters in Wisconsin: When a DNR warden asks you to give up your legal firearm, do so, plain and simple, no matter what.Huh. You don't say.
What's more, that goes for all citizens, the agency has asserted. Citizens with firearms, the DNR argues, should always do exactly what law enforcement officers tell them to do, regardless of the circumstances of the situation. [More]
I can think of a few "circumstances" and "situations" where I might not want someone else to be the "Only One" armed simply because he works for the state.
How about you?
You might want to tell them that.
[Via SameNoKami]
11 comments:
I told them. Oh, I am in a pissy mood today, and saying things politely is very hard. Then things like this come up.
I wrote them and was impressed with a quick reply. I don't usually get one at all. anyway here is what I got. I pull the names because it is the internet after all and I don't give out name and phone numbers with out asking them first. . .:
J, it is unfortunate that the author of the article you have read has misrepresented the entire issue. Nowhere in our policies or our instructions to hunters or our law enforcement communities have we instructed our officers to "Take and Keep" firearms during a normal encounter in the field or elsewhere. All we were doing is teaching our students in hunter education what they need to do to make our encounters safe, polite and allow us to do our jobs. At no time have we even mentioned "taking to keep" anyone's firearm.
So.....as I hope you can see.....one can't believe everything they read in the paper especially when it is misrepresented. Call me if you wish (---) ---------
TL
Hunter Education Administrator
Conservation Warden
Bureau of Law Enforcement
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
That's the thing about public "servants" - many of them are great honest people with integrity who will treat you exactly the way they would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed. Some of them are shitbags.
You'll have to learn to discern because schools don't teach that skillset.
I wasn't even thinking they were "taking to keep", just "taking". Taking to keep would even make me MORE angry. If they are not acting like thuggish parasites, there is no reason for them to even temporarily take a gun from its owner.
"Safe"? It's up to them.
"Polite"? Once again, who is accosting strangers? Not the hunters.
"Do our jobs"? Yeah, we all want to make sure our "masters" don't get nervous while out committing acts of illegitimate statism.
For those who worship the Constitution, I wonder where it says that the state owns the animals within its borders.
Here's what I got:
Sir: thanks for sharing. I now know an article has been posted on a blog. Too bad the author of the article has completely misrepresented the facts. At no time have we ever taught our students in hunter education that they have to "surrender" their firearms when in a normal legal compliance check in the field. Sometimes we assist the hunter by holding their firearm while they search for their licenses....then give them back when we have the license in hand. We sometimes ask to see a firearm to verify that it is in compliance with magazine capacity laws such as a plug for waterfowl hunting. Again, this article completely misrepresents the facts. You have fallen prey to the media sir. Call me if you wish to discuss the facts (608) 266-1317.
Tim Lawhern
Hunter Education Administrator
Conservation Warden
Bureau of Law Enforcement
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
>For those who worship the Constitution, I wonder where it says that the state owns the animals within its borders.
The Tenth Amendment, although [i]State of Missouri v. Holland[/i] resulted in migratory birds being put under the protection of Federal wildlife law.
So, the 10th Amendment outranks the 9th? Since when? Individuals first, "states" second, the feds dead last.
Quote:"Sometimes we assist the hunter by holding their firearm while they search for their licenses...."
That is priceless. So, Mr. Game Warden approaches and says, "Lemme see yer license..."
I reply, "First lemme see yer creds, Mr. DNR Official, and while you are searchin' for your creds, why don't you hand me your sidearm there. I just wanna help you..."
How do you think that would work out?
I have a radical idea. If I am violating no law, you leave me the hell alone! If you want to see my huntin' license, I'll show it to you. Lets just leave it there.
Most cops these days, and yes I said MOST, as in "the vast majority", have the attitude than anything they do is justified or justifiable. If a cop gives you an order you think in inappropriate, you are supposed to submit and go along, and then let the courts sort it out.
How about when a cop tells you to drop your drawers in public? How about when some cop wants to give you the finger-wave...you know, checking for drugs, for officer safety? How about a situation where, as in the video a couple of days ago, a cop grabs your penis, gives it a good feel and says, "whats that"?
Do you just go along? Submit, comply, and be passive...and hope the judge will see things your way, and maybe give the cop a stern finger-waggling? Or do you tell Johnny Law to go fornicate with himself?
We, as a society have sunk to the depths of depravity when we permit this kind of treatment, which is worse because we have not taught our kids the difference between right and wrong. I'm talking about the ones in the academy now.
Longbow
18 USC 241 (and 18 USC 242, as applicable)
John Bad Elk v United States
Marbury v Madison
I think the law is QUITE clear on how Americans are able to behave when confronted by criminals regardless of the garb they wear.
Along with the above goes the matter of due process mentioned in the Fifth Amendment
Post a Comment