Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Senate Bill 175 - Game Wardens to be shifted out of DCNR to Public Safety

I'm late to this conversation, but.... as far as going on land that is posted, fenced, etc. ALL LEOs have the authority to be on that land per the USSC. It is called the Open Field Doctrine. Look it up. They can not enter an building or curtilage of that building without a warrant unless there are extenuating circumstances that necessitate entry prior to obtaining a warrant. This is how mary jane fields are found and why GW's can look for corn or baited dove fields.

I'm a bit late to this discussion, so I'll be short..but probably not sweet.
The malady of managing the outdoorsman more and more, over the initial impetus of conservation by way of habitat is overtaking more and more state agencies in this country. For those states that have not seen this happen yet, just wait, coming to your neighborhood soon. It first has to do with money, then power, then control. Wildlife and hunters along with those who fish are nothing but a resource to be managed and exploited by those in
government who ideologically have a need for all three. WE ARE JUST ANOTHER MEANS TO THEIR END.

Only if you choose to be:

Seems to me, Jawbone is referring to case law. Mr 49er has posted state law as a rebuttal. Which is how the argument probably went during the case that established open field doctrine. Back on point. Im in agreement with those who believe that where the GWs currently are and how they are currently constituted should be how they remain. All arguments Ive heard for them going, either makes them more money, or gives the GWS more promotional opportunity. Also those for moving them are unhappy with The GWs current leadership. I have heard no arguments for how this will make things better for hunters, the wildlife resources, Outdoor Alabama in general

YA'LL NEED TO LISTEN TO THIS MAN^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

sftred,


You're not paying attention if you haven't heard it.





OK. Here's you some case law:



Brooks v. Hobbie, 631 So. 2d 883 - Ala: Supreme Court 1993

http://www.aldeer.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...p;what=showflat




... also this from a US Supreme Court Jusice:



William J. Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,90 Harv. L. Rev. 489, 491 (1977)

Here's you some more case law:

See: Swartz v. United States Steel Corporation, 304 So. 2d 881 - Ala: Supreme Court 1974 concerning
evolvement of common law.

link *** click here ***




304 U.S. 64 (1938)
ERIE RAILROAD CO.
v.
TOMPKINS.
No. 367.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 31, 1938.
Decided April 25, 1938.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.


The Erie had contended that application of the Pennsylvania rule was required, among other things, by � 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 28 U.S.C. � 725, which provides:

"The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply."

Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, we granted certiorari...


... Third. Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. And whether the law of the State shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State whether they be local in their nature or "general," be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. As stated by Mr. Justice Field when protesting in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368, 401, against ignoring the Ohio common law of fellow servant liability:
"I am aware that what has been termed the general law of the country � which is often little less than what the judge advancing the doctrine thinks at the time should be the general law on a particular subject � has been often advanced in judicial opinions of this court to control a conflicting law of a State. I admit that learned judges have fallen into the habit of repeating this doctrine as a convenient mode of brushing aside the law of a State in conflict with their views. And I confess that, moved and governed by the authority of the great names of those judges, I have, myself, in many instances, unhesitatingly and confidently, but I think now erroneously, repeated the same doctrine. But, notwithstanding the great names which may be cited in favor of the doctrine, and notwithstanding the frequency with which the doctrine has been reiterated, there stands, as a perpetual protest against its repetition, the Constitution of the United States, which recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the States � independence in their legislative and independence in their judicial departments. Supervision over either the legislative or the judicial action of the States is in no case permissible except as to matters by the Constitution specifically authorized or delegated to the United States. Any interference with either, except as thus permitted, is an invasion of the authority of the State and, to that extent, a denial of its independence."
The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes. The doctrine rests upon the assumption that there is "a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute," that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what the rules of common law are; and that in the federal courts "the parties are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law":

"but law in the sense in which courts speak of it today does not exist without some definite authority behind it. The common law so far as it is enforced in a State, whether called common law or not, is not the common law generally but the law of that State existing by the authority of that State without regard to what it may have been in England or anywhere else. . . . "the authority and only authority is the State, and if that be so, the voice adopted by the State as its own [whether it be of its Legislature or of its Supreme Court] should utter the last word."

Thus the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson, is, as Mr. Justice Holmes said, "an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct." In disapproving that doctrine we do not hold unconstitutional � 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any other Act of Congress. We merely declare that in applying the doctrine this Court and the lower courts have invaded rights which in our opinion are reserved by the Constitution to the several States.


Link *** click here ***

49er can be told of the Ten Commandemnts in the Bible. He will then cut and paste from the Koran and argue with God about what the Commandments mean.

49er,

If you just read the bold caps at the end of my post, you will be able to read the meaning that is inside of the statement.

(hint: we the people are the means to their end)

well said....and quite accurate

If you can't prove the message wrong, attack the messenger.


I expect that from some of the more immature members. You guys know better.



The Holy Bible

The Scribes: Which Is the First Commandment of All?

blahdeblah....

Who seems to have the info that backs up the the more money and promotions? The only person I seem to have found with this info is Marsh himself. He has gotten a couple influential people on his side now even some of the GW's but everything I can find says this is bad, bad, bad. Why else would only a couple of states in the union choose to do it this way if it was the way to go?

I hope the GW's that are going along with this understand how far down hill they will truly be.... and we all know what runs down hill

Yes. My info has 74% for statewide.

Lets Discuss this 74%. Not all GWS were polled, Some votes were taken in front of supervisors who were very pro moving. Some votes were taken in front of Dept of Law enforcement[DPS] personnel. Some votes , the officers answer was assumed and counted by the poll taker. Some Officers who voted no, were threatened. Subsequent votes have been taken that contradict the original vote. There is no way that anyone can verify the validity of the vote, no records or documentation, Just have to trust that the poll takers reported their results accurately . All poll takers were pro moving to ADLE [DPS} LASTLY, If this makes Hunting fishing better, Im for it, If it doesn't Im against it. I just don't see how a vote whether 100% for or Against is relevant to improving Outdoor Alabama. and the long term longevity of Outdoor Alabama.

I may have missed this earlier but who conducted the poll, when, where, etc.?

If it was done as sgtred described then it's bullshit and the results are bullshit.

ACE Magazine


"From the Trenches" (page 3 of 59)

Page 3 of 59 *** click here ***



Here's a FAQ webpage on it:

FAQ *** click here ***


... and some more info:

Transistion info *** click here ***

The poll was conducted by Officer association board members. late summer. The others things I mentioned Happened. There were two meetings sponsored by The association with Spencer Colliers representative's. Votes were taken at these meetings where pro moving Supervisors were present and in fairness at one meeting there were two anti- moving subordinate supervisors. Also there was a telephonic poll taken by only pro moving association board members and One on the fence board member, One antimoving board member did not participate in the poll taking. His District was polled by the president of the association who is very pro -moving. Again, My thoughts on this if this relavant to improving Outdoor Alabama, Im for it. But its seems the vote was about money ,promotions and not being left behind. How does that improve and secure and protect Alabamas wildlife resources.

If they want to have a fair and likely accurate "poll" or vote or whatever, it would have to be done outside of any meetings with supervisors present, anyone who could intimidate pro or con, etc.

Putting people on the spot in front of a supervisor is poor leadership because there will be reprisals down the line at some point, no matter what profession you're in. People don't forget things. They may say it's OK to be honest, OK to go against the grain ... but they never forget.

Nothing new for the DCNR, though.