mp510 and bejay, if you take that pushed over attitude, you loose and indeed we all loose because of your attitude. bejay, that just plays right into the socialists hand! No way any educated game warden is going to ticket you, and if he does, you are a fool if you let it ride by doing anything less than assuring that he loose his job for harassment! You are saying that some ***** can adjust the Constitution to his liking? Talk about bending over and letting them pack you full of sand!!! What a looser attitude! mp510, prima facia my butt!! You and I have a right, and if you buy that BS, pitty you and us both. If I've offended anyone, I'm NOT sorry!!! Don't stand there like a limp lilly and give it away!!
Can a unlicensed partner go while hunting ?
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
moosehunt a gamewarden isnt adjusting the constitution by writing a ticket for hunting without a permit, it is just that evidence suggest you are hunting even though in some cases you may not be, its up to you to prove that you wasnt hunting in court if you want out of it, but I doubt that just bringing up the 2nd amendment right is enough to get you out of the fine, any moron could say that whether he was hunting or not.
while I would try to get out of it if I was ticketed and not actually hunting but im not going to hire a lawyer for a 60 dollar fine that doesnt affect your hunting rights or right to bear arms and yes I have been ticketed for it before but I guess I deserved it as I was hunting without a permit
while I would try to get out of it if I was ticketed and not actually hunting but im not going to hire a lawyer for a 60 dollar fine that doesnt affect your hunting rights or right to bear arms and yes I have been ticketed for it before but I guess I deserved it as I was hunting without a permit
skers69
Member
Check your state regs. In Kansas you need do need a permint.
I realize that some states have a regulation that says you have to have a permit to hunt anything, suggesting that you can't be out in the woods (or "game areas") with a gun if you don't have a license. I maintain that if you are not hunting, they cannot enforce it. What if you have a gun and no ammo in it? Or to a greater extreme, no ammo with you for the gun in question? All of which is immaterial. You cannot be barred from pocessing a firearm just because some season is open. What about places where there is always a season open? In some (many?) states, rabbit season never closes--same for coyotes. A license is required to hunt rabbits, but not coyotes. By your reasoning, you could not hunt coyotes without a license because rabbit season is open. The fact that you insert deer, or whatever, in the open season species wording doesn't matter. Basically, the point is that you cannot be barred from carrying a firearm on public land. Incidently, Bejay, one does not have to prove innocense in this country. You are innocent until proven guilty. It has to be proven that you are hunting, not just hunting, but hunting an animal for which you are not licensed. Consider a somewhat synonymous situation: Pheasant season is open, you are licensed for pheasant and hunting them. There are sloughs in the area and ducks. Duck season is open. You occasionally jump ducks. You do not have a Duck Stamp. Also, you have lead shot. You can not be charged with hunting ducks without a stamp and/or with lead shot UNLESS you take a shot at a duck, no matter how many ducks you jump up and no matter how few (none?) pheasants you jump or shoot. Even if you choose to have non-toxic shot in your gun, until you take a shot at a duck, you are not hunting ducks and can't be cited for not having a stamp. It is the same scenerio. It has to be shown that you are hunting something before you can be cited for carrying a firearm on public property.
wyocarp
Member
moosehunt, I couldn't agree more. The wardens don't like it when they can't catch you doing something wrong, but I don't let that bother me.
That is not the issue, bensdad. It is whether or not one can be in the woods with a firearm without a license. That said, I have to wonder about the socialist "regulation" in MN saying that one can't even accompany w/o a license. Just what might be considered accompany? If we drive out together and you wander off hunting deer, I wander off looking for mushrooms, how close are we "allowed" to be? As the morning progresses, our two paths unknowingly come close together. Does that mean me, with no license, am off to jail if a warden comes along? "OK, buddy! You're too close and I think you might be together. Let's go!" What if we meet for lunch out there in the wild woods? I really wonder if they could enforce barring one from being in the woods without a hunting license? Now if I'm assisting you in your hunt, I understand, but just being there enjoying the outdoors, happens to be in your pressence? I think not an enforceable crime! Or what about a situationwhere we didn't even start out together. You went deer hunting this AM, me, I went mushroom hunting. 11:45 AM and we bump into each other: "Hey, Bensdad, how are you? Long time no see! What have you been up too lately?" "Oh, not much. Just out looking for a buckskin this morning. I was just fixing to have a cup of coffee. Want one? I got plenty." "Sure, thanks." Now from behind a tree steps Joe G. Warden. "Hello, boys. Let's see your licenses. What? You don't have one? And you're out here with Bensdad? Let's go!"
Now, realistically, I see why MN might have such a rule, so that there really aren't two guys hunting on one license. And in reality, there aren't many situations where a guy would be with you and wouldn't be helping you hunt. But maybeso your cook or your girlfriend IS along purely for the outdoors (indeed, more of a hinderance than a help), or your young pup who is too young to legally poccess a license. Is it right that these folks are criminals because the haven't shelled out $50 (or whatever the local fee) for a license for something they aren't hunting, or in the one case, can't hunt?
Now, realistically, I see why MN might have such a rule, so that there really aren't two guys hunting on one license. And in reality, there aren't many situations where a guy would be with you and wouldn't be helping you hunt. But maybeso your cook or your girlfriend IS along purely for the outdoors (indeed, more of a hinderance than a help), or your young pup who is too young to legally poccess a license. Is it right that these folks are criminals because the haven't shelled out $50 (or whatever the local fee) for a license for something they aren't hunting, or in the one case, can't hunt?
Last edited:
- Status
