After having read the complaint (riveting reading indeed...) I am even less enthusiastic about allegations that this lawsuit is a patriotic attempt to defend my rights.

Much of it centers around commercial endeavors. The practice of falconry has nothing to do with one's right to give educational presentations or to use a falconry bird in a movie, commercial or other type of commercial venture. The non-commercial use of wildlife has been a tenet of US wildlife management since Teddy Roosevelt. It does not seem to me that the PLF and the plaintiff's are as interested in the 1st amendment as they are the ability to monetize a falconry permit.

I am also not sold on the allegation that an inspection violates one's 4th amendment rights or that signing one's John Hancock on the application for a falconry permit is a blanket waiver of those rights.
Using the ultra-libertarian line of thinking that these folks are using the health inspector is violating someone's rights when he or she shows up to inspect an establishment which has a permit/license to serve food.

This lawsuit is more about removing unwanted restrictions than it is about constitutional rights. In the video they talk about a falconer who had an appointment for what seemed like a REASONABLE inspection who had officers show up a day early which was not reasonable. The armed distinction clearly added for dramatic effect since most conservation officers, wardens, etc are armed and we don't expect them to leave their firearms in their vehicle when they come indoors.

If this had actually been more about federal and state officials overstepping their authority (think Operation Falcon here) then I would be happy to see someone go to bat for my fellow falconers.
Unfortunately their agenda is not as altruistic as they would like you to believe.

I heartily recommend that falconers read the complaint before they accept this lawsuit at the face value suggested by AFC and PLF.