CA Fish and game inspections

[sharptail]

I believe the term 'INALIENABLE RIGHTS' is part of the Decleration of Indepandance. What this means to me is that even though you may choose not to 'remain silent', you still retain that right along with all of the others. Others on nafex have stated that if your rights are violated that they do no exist. This is incorrect. To me this means that the law has been broken, something that happens constantly.

It is a very basic premice in Constitutional law that any law that contradicts our Supreme Law, our Constitution, is null and void for any purpose, as if it had never been written. So when they come to search/inspect, they are violating your rights, which you still retain, even if you signed a license that they thinks gives your permission. If our courts were not so very corrupt, they would uphold your rights, no matter what you signed. Some courts may still recognise and uphold your rights, while others will not.

[WILL HUNT]

I believe the term 'INALIENABLE RIGHTS' is part of the Decleration of Indepandance. What this means to me is that even though you may choose not to 'remain silent', you still retain that right along with all of the others. Others on nafex have stated that if your rights are violated that they do no exist. This is incorrect. To me this means that the law has been broken, something that happens constantly.

It is a very basic premice in Constitutional law that any law that contradicts our Supreme Law, our Constitution, is null and void for any purpose, as if it had never been written. So when they come to search/inspect, they are violating your rights, which you still retain, even if you signed a license that they thinks gives your permission. If our courts were not so very corrupt, they would uphold your rights, no matter what you signed. Some courts may still recognise and uphold your rights, while others will not.

This issue does not even rise to the level of a federal case in that the state of California's legislator has not authorized the game department to conduct these searches and in fact the courts have said so, including the California Supreme Court. Still we have administrative agencies acting as if they answer to nobody, not the law law makers, not the courts, and the people should submit as though it is written by the hand of god. Even our state falconry orginazation says we must obey which is really disappointing since they admit they don't really understand the issue. I guess they feel it is easier to submit.. Sad.

[WILL HUNT]

The date stamp is 2013 and appears to be as all States had.......open public meetings to the new State regs changing over from the Feds........so is this what is really is a discussion. Or a recent post 2 years old of New proposed Falconry regs that had to be made and adopted by Jan 2014. Also, most assigned permits allow for such inspections. It was also on the Federal regs and simply carried over.

The federal regulations attempted to add inspections to federal falconry regulations, however based upon objections from the Americam Falconry Conservancy UFWS took the question to the Justice Department, the US

Justice Department agreed that these federal inspections by USFWS are not allowed. In an attempt to circumvent this decision they simply added that the states must add this illegal search authority to be conducted by the states... Can anyone make sense of this?
.