Originally Posted by jawbone
Originally Posted by Clem
Originally Posted by jawbone
While it may sound confusing to those that haven't studied or lived it, the standards are pretty well set in stone. What the PA case will do is now involve a GW having to have a Search Warrant every time they want to check out a Dove Shoot. That is really just not practical. The judges that get called away from their Penn State football game to approve the warrant aren't going to be happy either after a while.


So the solution is to allow Fourth Amendement violations because it's easier and more simple for the GW and the judges will be unhappy?


It's simple, or should be. Be like other law enforcement and get a warrant. Or stay off private property, especially if anyone is hanging cameras for surveillance (like in Tennessee).
Did you read what I wrote? The answer is to hold to the standard that is outlined in Terry v. Ohio. How can a GW get Probable Cause to ever check a Dove Field unless they are allowed on it. You are supposing that every GW is evil and only wants to ruin hunts. In my experiences nothing could be further from the truth so I'm not celebrating making their job practically impossible. I do however, celebrate legal hunting.

Um, no. I DO NOT think every GW is 'evil' and want them to do their jobs, and do them well because I hate poachers and violators.

But I also want them to not be able to slip and slink around willy-nilly or put up cameras for unlawful surveillance. Get a warrant.

"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter

"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013

"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020