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.

Dunno. Maybe it's just me, but wardens should be limited to going on property after a complaint or tip, with a warrant. Public land, so what they want. Or at request of a homeowner for someone poaching.

But that's just me. They aren't special and should have no special rights whatsoever. For that matter, they should be rolled into county law enforcement and not even have game wardens. Never should have existed in the first place.

Character is not developed in moments of temptation and trial. That is when it is intended to be used.