Free: Contests & Raffles.
He will get off! Hide and watch!
I believe it is a felony if you commit more three, or more major game violations at the same time. I could be wrong I am sure there is someone on here that could enlighten us.
RCW 77.15.410Unlawful hunting of big game — Penalty.(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree if the person: (a) Hunts for, takes, or possesses big game and the person does not have and possess all licenses, tags, or permits required under this title; or (b) Violates any department rule regarding seasons, bag or possession limits, closed areas including game reserves, closed times, or any other rule governing the hunting, taking, or possession of big game. (2) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting of big game in the first degree if the person commits the act described in subsection (1) of this section and: (a) The person hunts for, takes, or possesses three or more big game animals within the same course of events; or (b) The act occurs within five years of the date of a prior conviction under this title involving unlawful hunting, killing, possessing, or taking big game. (3)(a) Unlawful hunting of big game in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction of an offense involving killing or possession of big game taken during a closed season, closed area, without the proper license, tag, or permit using an unlawful method, or in excess of the bag or possession limit, the department shall revoke all of the person's hunting licenses and tags and order a suspension of the person's hunting privileges for two years. (b) Unlawful hunting of big game in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke all of the person's hunting licenses or tags and order the person's hunting privileges suspended for ten years. (4) For the purposes of this section, "same course of events" means within one twenty-four hour period, or a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts that are unlawful under subsection (1) of this section, over a period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose.[2012 c 176 § 26; 2011 c 133 § 1; 2005 c 406 § 4; 1999 c 258 § 3; 1998 c 190 § 10.]
One, from September, was bragged up as killed with a 400-yard shot, which means with a rifle, and problematic because according to officers, the man wasn’t allowed to have firearms because of a prior domestic violence conviction.
1117Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic ViolenceThe following is the full text of an announcement that was sent by the Criminal Division to the United States Attorneys' Offices upon the passage of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) in the fall of 1996. This provision amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 by banning the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
I happen to work in the court system and see these type (not this bad) cases. I have never seen anyone get jail time. They get fined and that's it. Most of these idiots pay on an interest free fine, which ends up going to collections over time. There really is no penalty for these folks.
