Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Fishing a Right? Legislation for open carry?

  1. #1
    Regular Member greengum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    I know this isn't exactly a gun discussion, but it is related I think. If anything I would like some information or a discussion and at the very least I hope you are entertained.

    I was out shopping for a new gun at Turner's outdoors for the purpose of open carry in California and Nevada. While I was shopping I came across a sign that said you could buy a fishing license there. I remembered awhile back while looking at the California State Constitution that the people have a Right to fish upon it's lands. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html article 25 section 1. I then asked the salesman behind the counter why I would need a license or "permission" to fish if I have the inalienable Right to do so. Needless to say i got a blank look and he asked if i wanted a license or not. Well now i got really curious and decided to call the department of fish and game. After a few minutes with a computer and a lady answering phones I was connected to a ranger station. After asking why I needed permission and to pay for something that I have a Right to do the lady responded with a "wow that is the most interesting question I have ever got." She then put me on speaker phone with the others in the office and we discussed the issue for about 15 minutes. They all agreed with me but they also said the money goes to their paycheck and to maintain the waters, but that I should not HAVE to pay unless I wanted to since it is a Right and not a privledge. They gave me a number to call in Sacramento to the head noob in charge of fish and game. Spoke briefly to the lady who answers his phone then he got on the phone after a short time on hold. I explained my question to him and his response was what I had expected. "Listen smart ass I am not a constitutional lawyer but if you are caught fishing without a license you will be fined" then he hung up on me. So much for our state officials working for us.

    The way i see it, fishing just like the Right to keep and bear arms is open to various views. I am still rather new to OC.Org but are there any plans to get a voter sponsored bill on the ballot in a city, county, or state level to make more clear our Rights? The way I see it is if the people in Sacramento can pass legislation or regulate our Right to fish, could we not also do the same in reverse?





  2. #2
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    greengum wrote:
    They gave me a number to call in Sacramento to the head noob in charge of fish and game. Spoke briefly to the lady who answers his phone then he got on the phone after a short time on hold. I explained my question to him and his response was what I had expected. "Listen smart ass I am not a constitutional lawyer but if you are caught fishing without a license you will be fined" then he hung up on me. So much for our state officials working for us.
    I would say you got schooled on how things work here in the PRK. When it comes to taxing thesubjects in this state you better just back off mister!
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    greengum wrote:
    but are there any plans to get a voter sponsored bill on the ballot in a city, county, or state level to make more clear our Rights? The way I see it is if the people in Sacramento can pass legislation or regulate our Right to fish, could we not also do the same in reverse?
    Paying Alan Gura to do it for us will be a lot more effective and cost less when the partywe are suing will eventually get the bill! Alan what do you know about fishing rights?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    That is a damned good story and quite thought-provoking.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    greengum wrote:
    [SNIP]I remembered awhile back while looking at the California State Constitution that the people have a Right to fish upon it's lands. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html article1 section 25. [SNIP]


    You for that corrected.

    Love this story.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    I'm sure that if you pressed the issue further, some smartass official willargue that fishing is free if you are fishing from a public pier. In other words, your right is meaninglessunless you are standing on a man-made structure paid for, typically, with your taxes.

    How's that for twisted?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    I just emailed Rep Jon Woods of Arkansas on the issue if that will be the case in Arkansas. Hopefully he will have an idea or knows someone who does. Arkansas will have the vote to make fishing a constitutional right in 2010.

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4735#

  8. #8
    Regular Member greengum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    The senate joint resolution 3 bill link doesn't work I would have liked to have read it. I guess the same question could be posed for hunting as well. Let me know if they e-mail you back, I am really interested on how all this works.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Yeah greengum, your right on !

    It is our right I studyed this 10 years ago. That law was passed back in 1879

    before they made the F&G codes their using today.

    That came out around 1909 F&G code 1-89 Interestingly number 3 saids that any

    laws passed before this code are still valid. Meaning that it still IS your right.

    Just like OCing. however as time moved on we loss, what we don't exersize.

    If many Californians fished with out buying permission, and pointed to the F&G Codes and The Cal- Constitution, we might be able to take our right back.

    Freedom is a constant war, agains't evil Intentions. Money and Control ETC !

    Yes it is your right to fish not just from a peir, but any water in the state of California

    Yeah Article 1, section 25 "Right to fish". Cal- Consitution.

    Robin47



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    By the way I forgot, the only lagitemate law they can inforce according to the Cal-Constitution is "The season when you can fish and how many of the differant spieces you can catch".

    Robin47

  11. #11
    Regular Member greengum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    I did some research and thumbed through some books that I have, and I think I came up the first time the government required people to ask permission to fish. According to Howard Zinn's book (a peoples history of the United States, required reading in most Kalifornia colleges.) the first fishing regulations were imposed on native Americans by local fisheries to increase profits through legislation. The strange part is I discussed this with a friend of mine who is part Native American and he told me that he never needs a license because of his race. (he lives in Colorado)

    According to Micheal Badnarik (former Presidential candidate Lib. party) in his online Constitution class, most licenses were brought into action right after the civil war to restrict African Americans after they were free. He quoted Blacks Law book circa 1870 that the first marriage license was created if an African American and a white person wanted to "intermarriage". The same goes for gun permits. The first gun regulation was enacted after the civil war because according to Mr. Badnarik " The white people didn't think it would be a good idea that all freed slaves have the Right to have a gun. They might be a little pissed off."
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...rik&hl=en#

    I know that I have brought up race in both examples. It is not my intention to stir up any group against another. I am simply pointing out were my research has taken me. Unfortunatly times were different then. I know this isn't supposed to be a forum for political discussion either but I wanted to refference where I was getting my information from like the video I linked and the book I listed. I simply want to know how and when we lost all these Right!! Like this website says "A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost" I also don't know where to go from here to fix our Rights from being hijacked from us. Maybe I'm acting like a nerd and this is all a waste of time but I find this stuff fascinating. I have a few more stories like the fishing one that pertain to our Rights I might post at a future time. If I have broken any of the forum rules it was not done on purpose, and please PM me if of any infractions.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    greengum wrote:
    The strange part is I discussed this with a friend of mine who is part Native American and he told me that he never needs a license because of his race. (he lives in Colorado)

    He quoted Blacks Law book circa 1870 that the first marriage license was created if an African American and a white person wanted to "intermarriage".
    These are both excellent points. The first one seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. One race can do something and another race cannot? Totally bogus.

    The right to marry isn't something I've thought about before (outside of the right of homosexuals to marry), but it seems like the state shouldn't have anything to do with it. A right is a right, and surely a state couldn't deny a marriage license to any normal couple (except for related people, and apparently, people of the same sex), so why is there a license anyway. This is similar to our right to bear arms since felons and mentally deficient people can't get firearms, but everybody else cannot be denied the ability to acquire one (well...soon thanks to the coming incorporation).

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Excellent thread and posts Greengum.

    Much like our carry laws, I think you'll find that the vast majority of crimes created ('created', that is, by the passage of new laws) since the civil war are the direct result of racism or similar forms of hateful bigotry toward particular groups.

    Gun crimes
    Drug crimes
    Marriage regulations
    (Pretty much anything designed to prohibit behavior or to create a tax.)
    etc, etc, etc.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    The right can be regulated. Here's what it says:

    Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
    the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
    upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
    State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
    people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
    passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
    lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
    containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
    provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
    when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
    may be taken.
    You may not think that licenses and fees are reasonable "conditions" but I'll bet that's where they fall.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Missed reading the part where it saids", " And no law shall ever be passed making it a Crime".

    So I am still right taking the whole paragrafe, in context.

    " A licence" Is needing "Permission" to do something.

    Remembering this Constitution of Cal was make in 1879, and the "Conditions"

    were" how many fish you can catch of a certain speices, no "licence was in there mind".

    Refer to the above" No Crime" ! Robin47

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    greengum wrote:
    The strange part is I discussed this with a friend of mine who is part Native American and he told me that he never needs a license because of his race. (he lives in Colorado)

    He quoted Blacks Law book circa 1870 that the first marriage license was created if an African American and a white person wanted to "intermarriage".
    These are both excellent points. The first one seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. One race can do something and another race cannot? Totally bogus.
    A little misleading, that isn't a race issue it is a treaty issuewith sovereign nations.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    We I guess you could say "We Were Sovereign" till this is signed in December !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ll0cvUfcBw

    Robin47

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    Robin47 wrote:
    Yeah greengum, your right on !

    It is our right I studyed this 10 years ago. That law was passed back in 1879

    before they made the F&G codes their using today.

    That came out around 1909 F&G code 1-89 Interestingly number 3 saids that any

    laws passed before this code are still valid.


    Can you give me a link to the F&G code? I can't find that section.

  19. #19
    Regular Member greengum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/fgc_..._contents.html sections 700-714 are very interesting. For a fee based on your age (see section 714) you can get a lifetime license!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    greengum wrote:
    They gave me a number to call in Sacramento to the head noob in charge of fish and game. Spoke briefly to the lady who answers his phone then he got on the phone after a short time on hold. I explained my question to him and his response was what I had expected. "Listen smart ass I am not a constitutional lawyer but if you are caught fishing without a license you will be fined" then he hung up on me. So much for our state officials working for us.
    I would say you got schooled on how things work here in the PRK. When it comes to taxing thesubjects in this state you better just back off mister!

    Typical arrogance for California Fish & Game. You should see the crap they pull, and the attitude they give, in regards to ferret ownership and legalization here.



  21. #21
    Regular Member greengum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    I skimmed through the F&G codes for about an hour. All i know is that they have one thing pretty well covered. That is how much to charge to "allow" you to do things that are protected in our State Constitution and how if you do not submit, how much they can charge for that as well. Good thing that our state did set up a "blueberry commission" recently. That will give me something else to read and not understand or if I do understand no one will understand me talking about it!!!

    Lets recap a typical day. I wake up in the morning, flip the TV on which is censored by the government. I take a shower and head out for my morning addictions. A pack of smokes that has gone up 3-3.5 bucks a pack over the past few years in a new tax and a monster drink which I have to pay sales tax on AND a CRV tax. (In Nevada they don't have either the sales or CRV tax) I then say a little prayer and give thanks to our all knowing and powerful government for allowing me the opportunity to drive a car that I own out right all the while making sure I have all the documentation I need or else I lose my property to them. I get some gas that is taxed multiple times, but just smile knowing that people who are a lot smarter then me are putting all this money to good use. I Navigate through traffic on my way to work being careful not to break any rules or else I get to pay a speeding tax.

    I get to work and buy some materials for a job and inform the store to not charge me sales tax because it is resale. As luck would have it the government let me get a special number to do that!! What a deal!! Until you realize that whenever you accept a resale number you must keep it all documented and file the forms with our government thus forcing me to be a de facto tax collector.

    As I stare at the bright yellow tape that surrounds each piece of machinery I simply give thanks to OSHA because without them Helen Keller might walk into a 200 ton punch press. My business license is on the wall which I have to renew each year along with other random government permission slips. The phone is taxed, we get audited, more inspections, comply with fire extinguishers..........


    Then some desk government lifer tells me that he will own me if I dare to catch a fish, which is in our Constitution, without asking and paying for permission.


  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    +1 Greengum.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I should not be laughing while reading that.
    Because when its on paper...it just seems so farcical as to be hilarious!?

    But...then its not.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    greengum wrote:
    I know this isn't exactly a gun discussion, but it is related I think. If anything I would like some information or a discussion and at the very least I hope you are entertained.

    I was out shopping for a new gun at Turner's outdoors for the purpose of open carry in California and Nevada. While I was shopping I came across a sign that said you could buy a fishing license there. I remembered awhile back while looking at the California State Constitution that the people have a Right to fish upon it's lands. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html article 25 section 1. I then asked the salesman behind the counter why I would need a license or "permission" to fish if I have the inalienable Right to do so. Needless to say i got a blank look and he asked if i wanted a license or not. Well now i got really curious and decided to call the department of fish and game. After a few minutes with a computer and a lady answering phones I was connected to a ranger station. After asking why I needed permission and to pay for something that I have a Right to do the lady responded with a "wow that is the most interesting question I have ever got." She then put me on speaker phone with the others in the office and we discussed the issue for about 15 minutes. They all agreed with me but they also said the money goes to their paycheck and to maintain the waters, but that I should not HAVE to pay unless I wanted to since it is a Right and not a privledge. They gave me a number to call in Sacramento to the head noob in charge of fish and game. Spoke briefly to the lady who answers his phone then he got on the phone after a short time on hold. I explained my question to him and his response was what I had expected. "Listen smart ass I am not a constitutional lawyer but if you are caught fishing without a license you will be fined" then he hung up on me. So much for our state officials working for us.

    The way i see it, fishing just like the Right to keep and bear arms is open to various views. I am still rather new to OC.Org but are there any plans to get a voter sponsored bill on the ballot in a city, county, or state level to make more clear our Rights? The way I see it is if the people in Sacramento can pass legislation or regulate our Right to fish, could we not also do the same in reverse?



    You are correct in assuming this has nothing to do with the Open Carry forum. Limits for fishing were legislated by far thinking individuals when it became obvious that early settlers in the new world were depleting existing fisheries with alarming alacrity.

    Five foot cod are commonly documented in many historical texts. Here is but one example: The Unnatural History of the Sea.

    But our rape of the environment has nothing to do with firearms. So, as fascinating as our complete victory of destroying millions of marine creatures, it should not be addressed here.

    This is an open carry forum. For firearms. It is just really lucky we can't shoot fish. Or, can we?

    So, do we really have a right to fish upon California lands? By law? Or should we back off and .... let the fish farms control our taste for fresh fish? Or better yet, let the ocean grow fish again?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •