Tvandermyde Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:32 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:32 PM Update 2/22/14So if you have been watching most of the gun bills are being sent to committees and then on to sub-committees. I don’t see anything happening before the primary. And the mood with a bunch of less than pro-gun legislators is they got their fill of gun stuff last year. As you can see, not only are the sore losers trying to whittle away at what we got in the carry law, they have dreamed up some new things. We kinda had bets as to how long it would take for them to get to 3D printers and now we know. We also see the one mag one gun limit. On one level it looks like ICHV is trying to dream up new things to stay relevant – like 3D printers. It looks like Chicago has slacked off a bit on stuff, but there is still plenty of time for other things to pop up. As they looked to restrict carry, we looked to open it up. The feeling I am getting around the capitol is that things and attitudes are moving our way. You would be surprised by some of the legislators coming to me asking where to get training. It makes me believe that like most other states, given a little bit of time, things will loosen up.On another level, they seem to be scrambling as they know their big ticket items are going nowhere. There are a couple of bills I would like to draw your attention to. One is HB-5894. This bill would stop conservation cops from going on to private property without first having probable cause or a warrant. Right now they seem to feel that because of the way the statute is written they have some sort of exemption to the 4th Amendment and the Constitution. I had a little run in with a couple of the CPOs while deer hunting, actually going to my stand this past fall. I got a ticket and a couple of warnings over it. But not without them giving me a hard time and wrecking my hunt that afternoon for a monster buck. There is something about them believeing they don’t have to have probable cause to go on private property that just isn’t right. We don’t let any other law enforcement agency, except the Boarder Patrol, get away with that. And wearing camo, and toting a gun on private property doesn’ t raise to the level of PC in my book. Just because we are engaged in a regulated activity does not give them cart blanch to come on to private property at ay time to go on a “fishing” expedition. DNR is saying they think this will let poachers run wild and the CPOs won’t be able to do their jobs and the sky is falling. But we wouldn’t stand for the ISP claiming they could come into our houses to check on our guns to see if they were legal. So it seems the DNR needs an education on the 4th amendment. Please call your State Representative and ask them to co-sponsor and vote for this bill when it comes up. On another front, HB-5706 would prevent the DNR from seizing vehicles, like ATVs and UTVs where the person is only being issued a ticket or maybe a class B misdemeanor. But they can threaten someone with the loss of a $5000-$10,000 vehicle for an offense they are getting a ticket. Imagine of the cops were to threaten you with seizing your car for a speeding offense. Does that make any sense? And again the DNR is going on about how this is going to tie their hands. So a couple of points on that.If DNR cops treated hunters like hunters and not poachers maybe these things would not be necessary. WE need to quit making the hunting laws for the 2% of people that are going to try and break the law and leave the rest of the hunters alone. If the laws are in conflict with the criminal code, or impossible to comply with, then they need to be fixed. And no the wildlife code is not that special that it can’t be changed.More to follow as I keep going through things. Lots going on waiting for Monday to see what SCOTUS does. The Cali carry case, Illinois litigation issues and carry implementation along with keeping tabs on the legislature. Time to go clean out the truck. Todd p.s. please make the calls on those two bills Monday it would be really nice to have 40 co-sponsors next week. And I will write about my encounter some other time.
RANDY Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:41 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 05:41 PM I will be contacting my reps over HB-5894, I totally agree they shouldn't have any more authority than any other officer. I hope you make a big stink over them violating your 4th amendment rights. I know I would be giving it one heck of a try, if I was in that position.. Just had something similar to what you are talking about will have a conversation with a CPO this past fall, and told him if he tried that with me, plan on going to federal court. Read or heard some place that other states are removing the authority to enter private land without PC. Seem like I also heard, about a state getting sued over this, and having it ruled unconstitutional.
Mr. Fife Posted February 22, 2014 at 06:14 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 06:14 PM I'll bet they singled you out because of who you are when they came on your property. Maybe some shennanigans going on?
Tvandermyde Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:01 PM Author Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:01 PM nope they had no idea who I was. at one point the CPO said I just enforce the laws I don't write them. to Which I replied, but I do
jagt48 Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:11 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:11 PM nope they had no idea who I was. at one point the CPO said I just enforce the laws I don't write them. to Which I replied, but I do Ha! Classic. Thanks for the update. I will be sure to make my calls as this is just silly nonsense. Actually it is about them trying to remain relevant and increase their power as much as possible. On second thought, I think I had it right the first time; it's nonsense.
TacticalVideo Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:12 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:12 PM nope they had no idea who I was. at one point the CPO said I just enforce the laws I don't write them. to Which I replied, but I doLove it! What a rebel I'll be on the phone on Monday. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tvandermyde Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:36 PM Author Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:36 PM they figured out who i was by the end. and I kept whistling and twiddiling my thumbs. No arguement, just kept my mouth shut. He's the CPO with the ticket book. I knew I had recourse later. I paid the ticket and now, will set out to fix this. I heard from one of my friends that a CPO made the comment what can he do to us. I guess we are going to find out
azone5 Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:43 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 07:43 PM they figured out who i was by the end. and I kept whistling and twiddiling my thumbs. No arguement, just kept my mouth shut. He's the CPO with the ticket book. I knew I had recourse later. I paid the ticket and now, will set out to fix this. I heard from one of my friends that a CPO made the comment what can he do to us. I guess we are going to find out Thanks for the warning. This definitely needs to be nipped in the bud. I'll be at a dinner tonight with my Rep. I'll bend his ear a little.
IH8IL Posted February 22, 2014 at 08:02 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 08:02 PM Even though, what would stop them from making up a probable cause? I read about it everyday, of some police officers searching vehicles and what not without probable cause.
Houndawg Posted February 22, 2014 at 08:33 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 08:33 PM I've always heard that game wardens had more power than the cops and that they could go anywhere they wanted with no repercussions. I've always thought it wrong that they had that kind of power. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
ilfedup Posted February 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM As I understand, DNR delegated this power to their selves and basically no one has ever contested it! If it was ever contested we would not need a state law, since there is already a law it's called the constitution! But then we wouldn't need a CC law either because it's in that piece of paper too!
GAS3987 Posted February 22, 2014 at 10:12 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 10:12 PM I've always heard that game wardens had more power than the cops and that they could go anywhere they wanted with no repercussions. I've always thought it wrong that they had that kind of power. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk Me too. I email my current rep directly, and just sent these two over to him. I don't currently hunt, but hope to in the future. Edit: Thanks for the update, Todd!
papa Posted February 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM Posted February 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM I will contact my Rep. Mon. I know 2 guys that were out Duck hunting and having a good day . Then they saw a CPO boat approaching . Since they had their ducks separated like they were supposed to , when the CPO boat got close ( 20 yrds or less ) they put all the ducks together so they could be checked easier. They got a ticket for not having the birds separated. That's just wrong.
GAS3987 Posted February 23, 2014 at 12:58 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 12:58 AM Rep. Anthony for the 75th says he is supportive. We will see if he jumps on and co sponsors.
Mr. Fife Posted February 23, 2014 at 02:46 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 02:46 AM DNR has these same powers in Wisconsin. I heard a story of some fishermen who took a sturgeon that was under the size limit, and then they fined them $1000, which was cheap considering the maximum is much higher plus they could have confiscated their car. It turns out that during the bust one of the officers misplaced his binoculars, or maybe these fishermen people took them after the cops drove away. Since the DNR had the information were they were living, DNR camre in the middle of the night and marched them out in their underwear, their wives included, and totally ransacked their living area looking for the binoculars, which they never found. A friend of mine who saw this happen said they were really p*****.
speedbump Posted February 23, 2014 at 06:53 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 06:53 AM Todd, I understand your frustration, but I think you're going to run face first into some pretty substantial case law on this. I would personally like to see clarification on FCCA preempting the wildlife code when it comes to a concealable handgun in the field. Pick your (our) battles carefully, and not while p1$$ ed off over a personal aggravation.I
fletcher969 Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:59 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:59 AM nope they had no idea who I was. at one point the CPO said I just enforce the laws I don't write them. to Which I replied, but I do Funny!
fletcher969 Posted February 23, 2014 at 08:04 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 08:04 AM I will contact my Rep. Mon. I know 2 guys that were out Duck hunting and having a good day . Then they saw a CPO boat approaching . Since they had their ducks separated like they were supposed to , when the CPO boat got close ( 20 yrds or less ) they put all the ducks together so they could be checked easier. They got a ticket for not having the birds separated. That's just wrong. There was a day when LE was part of the community in which it had jurisdiction. Now more and more, they seem to have segregated themselves from us, and act more like they have jurisdiction OVER us, law abiding or not.
III Posted February 23, 2014 at 10:46 AM Posted February 23, 2014 at 10:46 AM Todd, I understand your frustration, but I think you're going to run face first into some pretty substantial case law on this. I would personally like to see clarification on FCCA preempting the wildlife code when it comes to a concealable handgun in the field. Pick your (our) battles carefully, and not while p1$$ ed off over a personal aggravation.I Doesn't mean that it is good case law...
Talonap Posted February 23, 2014 at 12:36 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 12:36 PM Todd, I understand your frustration, but I think you're going to run face first into some pretty substantial case law on this. I would personally like to see clarification on FCCA preempting the wildlife code when it comes to a concealable handgun in the field. Pick your (our) battles carefully, and not while p1$$ ed off over a personal aggravation.I Considering the stuff that Todd has to put up with every day, I'd say it takes a lot to take him, "Over the top". He knows what he's doing. ITWT (In Todd We Trust)
cls74 Posted February 23, 2014 at 02:51 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 02:51 PM Email sent, I fully expect to see my Rep. on the cosponsor line. He's solid in our fights
Tvandermyde Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:16 PM Author Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:16 PM Todd, I understand your frustration, but I think you're going to run face first into some pretty substantial case law on this. I would personally like to see clarification on FCCA preempting the wildlife code when it comes to a concealable handgun in the field. Pick your (our) battles carefully, and not while p1$$ ed off over a personal aggravation.I I've looked at the case law I can find. and nothing is on point to support their contention here. They said they would provide it, and I asked for it and still nothing. So I am interested in"their" case law. I am surprised how little stuff is out there that we cna find. and I have had lawyers from 3 different groups look at it. If someone has somehting else on it, I am more than happy to look at it and see the legal aspects. But me thinks this has been a bluff they have pulled off for as long as most people can remember. An additional point, I went to my States Attorney and talked to him. He agreed with my assessement and said he would toss any charges where the CPO did not have PC to be on the land.
RANDY Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:25 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:25 PM I think they are basing their authority on Hester v US, and the open fields doctrine. It is listed in the wildlife about employees having authority under persuant of law, to enter private property to enforce the wildlife code under the guise of the animals are owned by the state. which in my opinion, if that is true then the state should be liable for all damages caused by their animals. I know I saw or read some place about one of the states removing the blanket authority of CPO to enter private land to enforce the wildlife laws. I think it was Pennsylvania, or one of those east coast states.
Tvandermyde Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:52 PM Author Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:52 PM Here is the statute: (520 ILCS 5/1.19) (from Ch. 61, par. 1.19) Sec. 1.19. All authorized employees of the Department are empowered, pursuant to law, to enter all lands and waters to enforce the provisions of this Act. Authorized employees are further empowered to examine all buildings, private or public clubs (except dwellings), fish markets, cold storage houses, locker plants, camps, vessels, cars (except sealed railroad cars or other sealed common carrier), conveyances, vehicles, watercraft or other means of transportation or shipping whatsoever, tents, game bags, game coats or other receptacles, and to open and examine any box, barrel, package, or other receptacle in the possession of a common carrier, which they have reason to believe contains wild birds or any part thereof (their nests or eggs), or wild mammals or any part thereof, taken, destroyed, bought, sold or bartered, shipped or held in possession contrary to any of the provisions of this Act, including administrative rules, or that the receptacle containing the same is falsely labeled. All authorized employees of the Department shall be given free access to and shall not be hindered or interfered with in making such examination, and any license issued by the Department held by the person preventing such free access or interfering with or hindering such authorized employee shall be subject to confiscation by the Department; and no license or permit of any kind whatsoever shall be issued to such person for the period of one year thereafter. Authorized law enforcement employees of the Department are empowered to conduct examination of equipment and devices in the field, pursuant to law, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act. Notice is says "pursuant to law". Well the last time I looked the Constitution is the final arbitor as outlined by the Supreme Court. They don't get to write themselves a permission slip to violate the 4th amend just because they say so.
RANDY Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:55 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 03:55 PM +1 on that one Todd, pursuant to law, is not a do what I want blanket.
shawby1 Posted February 23, 2014 at 06:14 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 06:14 PM Email has been sent to my Rep and asked him to support as well as co-sponsor!
Houndawg Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:04 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:04 PM Hmmm. It exempts dwellings. So all this time the CPOs were entering homes without warrants they were in violation of the law. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
cls74 Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:35 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:35 PM Here's direct links to both bills HB5894 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=5894&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=81199&SessionID=85 HB5706 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=5706&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=80934&SessionID=85
ilfedup Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:37 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:37 PM Is this statue state law or DNR statue? What I am trying to say is that I can write my own laws to, doesn't mean that state law or the constitution will support these laws in court. Please educate me.
RANDY Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:42 PM Posted February 23, 2014 at 07:42 PM State law otherwise known as the "Wildlife Code" DNR has taken the pursuant to law, to the point of "I have blanket authority to go anyplace I want and do what I want."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.