• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: WDFW Seized Firearm Auction!

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Under what constitutional authority?

I never made the claim that there is any. I was merely pointing out that the State purports to be the owner of all wild animals within its geographic boundaries.

The Idaho version:
36-103. Wildlife property of state -- Preservation.
(a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state's policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

As my posts show, I don't agree with the state's use of effective eminent domain over wild animals which should be used by individuals according to their needs and their willingness to put in the work to harvest, butcher, process, etc.
 
Last edited:

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
Under what constitutional authority?

The 10th Amendment, I believe, since it states that those powers not granted to the Federal govt are the realm of the states, or of the people...

We have the ability to change the state rules easily, we just need the ability to get the knuckleheads in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties to change the way they vote...and stand up straight and stop leaning to the left so much.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
The 10th Amendment, I believe, since it states that those powers not granted to the Federal govt are the realm of the states, or of the people...

You are correct about what the 10th Amendment says, but I don't think an argument could be made that the Founders envisioned states declaring that a natural resource, formerly held in common by all people for their personal, discretionary use, is now under the sole dominion of state governments. That would be akin to a state declaring ownership of all water within it, and forbidding people to collect rainwater, dig wells, or fill buckets in creeks without obtaining the proper licenses and tags.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
That would be akin to a state declaring ownership of all water within it, and forbidding people to collect rainwater, dig wells, or fill buckets in creeks without obtaining the proper licenses and tags.

Yeah, a tax on rainwater would NEVER happen in a free America.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741579/posts

http://www.hoosieraccess.com/2011/05/06/monroe-county-considering-a-rain-water-tax/

http://americansforprosperity.org/040610-obamas-new-tax-onrainwater

BTW, permits and inspections are required for wells. Even hand dug surface wells. Regularly taking water form a creek or river also requires a permit afaik.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Yeah, a tax on rainwater would NEVER happen in a free America.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741579/posts

http://www.hoosieraccess.com/2011/05/06/monroe-county-considering-a-rain-water-tax/

http://americansforprosperity.org/040610-obamas-new-tax-onrainwater

BTW, permits and inspections are required for wells. Even hand dug surface wells. Regularly taking water form a creek or river also requires a permit afaik.

In Idaho, domestic wells (under 13,000 gallons/day) are not required to be permitted. We can also divert up to 2,500 gallons/day with no permit.

And while "tax on rainwater" is a catchy title for anti-tax groups (which I wholeheartedly support), your links suggest the tax is really on drainage that goes into the public sewer system (which I think should obviously be private, and charge fees according to what the market will bear).

And I've certainly never claimed that America is free. ;)
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
In Idaho, domestic wells (under 13,000 gallons/day) are not required to be permitted. We can also divert up to 2,500 gallons/day with no permit.

And while "tax on rainwater" is a catchy title for anti-tax groups (which I wholeheartedly support), your links suggest the tax is really on drainage that goes into the public sewer system (which I think should obviously be private, and charge fees according to what the market will bear).

And I've certainly never claimed that America is free. ;)

Welcome to the Washington sub-forum, Mr Idaho. Things are different in Washington.

Hey, you guys can transfer machine guns too. Cool. And I bet you can buy a SBR and SBS too, we can't.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Welcome to the Washington sub-forum, Mr Idaho. Things are different in Washington.

Hey, you guys can transfer machine guns too. Cool. And I bet you can buy a SBR and SBS too, we can't.

I hope you get the stick removed from your rectum post-haste.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If it wasn't a power specifically granted to the Federal Government, then it it belongs to the State. Isn't that what the 10th amendment says?

It's not a matter of "constitutionality". I would imagine that there's a lot of "Common Law" justification as well.

Where in our state constitution doesn't it grant them monopoly on feeding or watering ones self and family?

Don't forget that the tenth amendment also recognizes that our rights as individuals are not limited....
 
Top