Can WDFW really click their boot heels and take away my gun rights?

[Cougartail]

It say's clearly open carry is lawful

Where?

It isn't in any RCW I'm aware of but a case that was tried in front of the State Supreme Court ruled that all rights not given to the State in the State Constitution are held by the people. So "open carry" is legal except some sensitive areas. Refugees aren't sensitive areas but you might have to go to court to prove them wrong. We fund the government to go to court and defend unconstitutional rules and laws.. Stupid!

[Calvin Rayborn]

UPDATE: Talked with Brian (representative for unit manager Chad Eidson) at the WDFW Columbia basin wildlife area office today. From what I was informed, The law applies to actions that could be taken a suspicion for hunting in the restricted area. He stated that, from what he understood, enforcement officers in the past have been lenient in that area for sportsman/hikers that were just passing through the reserve  to access other areas. He advised that I should check with a local game enforcement officer at the Region 2 headquarters in Ephrata just to be certain. He did mention that the weapon should be unloaded when transporting through the reserve area. I would still like to bring that up with the enforcement officer though. I don’t personally see where keeping the gun loaded would automatically equal probable cause to be hunting in the area? (we are innocent until proven guilty in the good ole USA if I’m not mistaken?)

[Twispriver]

But you can't have a loaded rifle in the truck even if you promise not to road hunt ........

[KFhunter]

about what I thought

being enforced under the "hunting law" umbrella and not the "self defense, right to carry" umbrella. 

I think if someone were popped for having a "gun" in this reserve they could win in court if there was compelling doubt that they were in fact not-hunting....thus WDFW is reluctant to ticket someone carrying a "gun" and clearly not hunting. 

 

[Calvin Rayborn]

But you can't have a loaded rifle in the truck even if you promise not to road hunt ........

Yeah but there’s a WAC law for that if I recall. Why should I have my freedoms restricted with no law to back it up? So I’m just supposed to get in line with the other sheeple whenever the G-man feels like telling me to?

[Jingles]

UPDATE: Talked with Brian (representative for unit manager Chad Eidson) at the WDFW Columbia basin wildlife area office today. From what I was informed, The law applies to actions that could be taken a suspicion for hunting in the restricted area. He stated that, from what he understood, enforcement officers in the past have been lenient in that area for sportsman/hikers that were just passing through the reserve  to access other areas. He advised that I should check with a local game enforcement officer at the Region 2 headquarters in Ephrata just to be certain. He did mention that the weapon should be unloaded when transporting through the reserve area. I would still like to bring that up with the enforcement officer though. I don’t personally see where keeping the gun loaded would automatically equal probable cause to be hunting in the area? (we are innocent until proven guilty in the good ole USA if I’m not mistaken?)

well if you follow the thought of the person that says simply carrying a loaded gun in the area could be taken as suspicion of hunting then anyone with male genitalia could be cause for suspicion of being a rapists or if a female could be cause for suspicion of being a prostitute.
LOL maybe have  female carry a gun through the area and when stopped start screaming rape if stopped by a male officer after all he has the means to rape. Who the heck carries an unloaded weapon makes no sense to me to have to stop and load when needed.

[Calvin Rayborn]

UPDATE: Talked with Brian (representative for unit manager Chad Eidson) at the WDFW Columbia basin wildlife area office today. From what I was informed, The law applies to actions that could be taken a suspicion for hunting in the restricted area. He stated that, from what he understood, enforcement officers in the past have been lenient in that area for sportsman/hikers that were just passing through the reserve  to access other areas. He advised that I should check with a local game enforcement officer at the Region 2 headquarters in Ephrata just to be certain. He did mention that the weapon should be unloaded when transporting through the reserve area. I would still like to bring that up with the enforcement officer though. I don’t personally see where keeping the gun loaded would automatically equal probable cause to be hunting in the area? (we are innocent until proven guilty in the good ole USA if I’m not mistaken?)

well if you follow the thought of the person that says simply carrying a loaded gun in the area could be taken as suspicion of hunting then anyone with male genitalia could be cause for suspicion of being a rapists or if a female could be cause for suspicion of being a prostitute.
LOL maybe have  female carry a gun through the area and when stopped start screaming rape if stopped by a male officer after all he has the means to rape. Who the heck carries an unloaded weapon makes no sense to me to have to stop and load when needed.

  I hear ya! Both the receptionist at the Ephrata Office as well as the guy I talk to today made a point of saying that it would “probably“ be OK if the gun was “unloaded, of course.” I didn’t push the subject with them as neither one of them claim to be experts on the subject, but it did bother me that those quotes were spoken flat out without hesitation, like it was a legal requirement

[Curly]

It seems strange to me the number of people anymore who claim to have the  right to carry a gun anywhere.  Property owners rights supersedes any rights of an individual to claim privilege on another's property. 

The basic litmus test in a court room to determine an individual's rights are simple.  First is the individual the property owner.  If the individual is the property owner then he has a right to determine his own actions and the actions of any others within the bounds of that property.  Second if the individual is not the property owner does he have some form of formal agreement between himself and the property owner to allow him to determine his own actions.

Within the limits of your private property you are guaranteed by the law the authority to determine the limits of another individuals actions.

But this topic is regarding public property.

[the1rod]

It seems strange to me the number of people anymore who claim to have the  right to carry a gun anywhere.  Property owners rights supersedes any rights of an individual to claim privilege on another's property. 

The basic litmus test in a court room to determine an individual's rights are simple.  First is the individual the property owner.  If the individual is the property owner then he has a right to determine his own actions and the actions of any others within the bounds of that property.  Second if the individual is not the property owner does he have some form of formal agreement between himself and the property owner to allow him to determine his own actions.

Within the limits of your private property you are guaranteed by the law the authority to determine the limits of another individuals actions.

That's exactly the point I tried to make on page one,  but no one wanted to acknowledge that this land is owned by the state and therefore not public land.

[bigtex]

It seems strange to me the number of people anymore who claim to have the  right to carry a gun anywhere.  Property owners rights supersedes any rights of an individual to claim privilege on another's property. 

The basic litmus test in a court room to determine an individual's rights are simple.  First is the individual the property owner.  If the individual is the property owner then he has a right to determine his own actions and the actions of any others within the bounds of that property.  Second if the individual is not the property owner does he have some form of formal agreement between himself and the property owner to allow him to determine his own actions.

Within the limits of your private property you are guaranteed by the law the authority to determine the limits of another individuals actions.

That's exactly the point I tried to make on page one,  but no one wanted to acknowledge that this land is owned by the state and therefore not public land.

And we all ignore you because you're wrong. You have had lawyers, law enforcement officers, etc on this site all tell you are wrong regarding this matter. Even the WDFW website disagrees with you: "The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides active management for more than 1 million acres of publicly owned land and over 500 water access areas throughout the state." https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/wdfw-lands

[Bango skank]

It seems strange to me the number of people anymore who claim to have the  right to carry a gun anywhere.  Property owners rights supersedes any rights of an individual to claim privilege on another's property. 

The basic litmus test in a court room to determine an individual's rights are simple.  First is the individual the property owner.  If the individual is the property owner then he has a right to determine his own actions and the actions of any others within the bounds of that property.  Second if the individual is not the property owner does he have some form of formal agreement between himself and the property owner to allow him to determine his own actions.

Within the limits of your private property you are guaranteed by the law the authority to determine the limits of another individuals actions.

That's exactly the point I tried to make on page one,  but no one wanted to acknowledge that this land is owned by the state and therefore not public land.

And we all ignore you because you're wrong. You have had lawyers, law enforcement officers, etc on this site all tell you are wrong regarding this matter. Even the WDFW website disagrees with you: "The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides active management for more than 1 million acres of publicly owned land and over 500 water access areas throughout the state." https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/wdfw-lands

Hey, if he wants to believe the public land that his tax dollars pay for is actually private land, let him.

[Calvin Rayborn]

It seems strange to me the number of people anymore who claim to have the  right to carry a gun anywhere.  Property owners rights supersedes any rights of an individual to claim privilege on another's property. 

The basic litmus test in a court room to determine an individual's rights are simple.  First is the individual the property owner.  If the individual is the property owner then he has a right to determine his own actions and the actions of any others within the bounds of that property.  Second if the individual is not the property owner does he have some form of formal agreement between himself and the property owner to allow him to determine his own actions.

Within the limits of your private property you are guaranteed by the law the authority to determine the limits of another individuals actions.

That's exactly the point I tried to make on page one,  but no one wanted to acknowledge that this land is owned by the state and therefore not public land.

And we all ignore you because you're wrong. You have had lawyers, law enforcement officers, etc on this site all tell you are wrong regarding this matter. Even the WDFW website disagrees with you: "The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) provides active management for more than 1 million acres of publicly owned land and over 500 water access areas throughout the state." https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/wdfw-lands

Hey, if he wants to believe the public land that his tax dollars pay for is actually private land, let him.

Since you believe that public property is "your" property what rights do you feel are conferred on that property?  What are you allowed to do on "your" property?  The answer is whatever the agency that owns that property allows you to do and nothing more.  Does that strike you as property owner's rights in any conventional sense?

What I believe you’re saying is that it is the “agency (WDFW) that owns the property” that gets the right to make decisions? None of these governmental agencies, BLM, DNR, WDFW, “own” any property in the truest sense and are merely stewards for the people’s resources as any other government entity should be. So many people seem to forget that these days....If this basic principle is forgotten and is abused by people in positions of authority,  then we lose our freedoms as Americans.

[Henrydog]

Amen Mr. Rayborn.  It is our land that we pay for.  All too many forget that

[hunter399]

The people own the land.

Managed by
DNR
WDFW
FOREST SERVICE-department agriculture
BLM
WHAT EVER ECT.
Manage by =landlord in some cases they charge you for access(discover pass).
They also write the rules for which you are granted access.
It's very simple if you don't like your landlord YOU MOVE.
You also see this same type of $hi@ on Timber lands which they do own the lands and people break the rules every year like it's there God given right to have access on atv,ebikes,ect.which puts everybody access a jeopardy.
It all boils down.
You poke the bear to much with a stick/everbodys access will be gone from refuge/timber land/public land.

[blackdog]

I have a bill in the legislature to require DNR and DFW to cite their authority on these type of signs. RCW or WAC.