Post by: IBspoiled on February 27, 2013, 10:20:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 27, 2013, 10:30:46 AM
There also is no law that says you can't cover any part of your muzzleloader to try to keep water out.
Post by: TheHunt on February 27, 2013, 10:41:04 AM
The state has no case on this person...
Post by: Sabotloader on February 27, 2013, 01:21:45 PM
We ran into a guy last week and were swapping stories about hunting. He said his hunting partner had a run in last year with a game warden at his elk camp. Story goes, they were sitting around after their hunt and he strolled into camp with a muzzleloader. They assumed he was another hunter. After chatting for a few minutes he shows them his badge and asks to see their license. Then he asks to see their muzzleloaders. The guy said his gun was in his tent. The warden barged into the tent and found his gun with tape or something over it to keep it dry, wrote him a ticket for that. But also said he could have written him a ticket for having the cap on it inside his tent. The questions I have are: Can the warden legally just barge into your tent in the woods without permission? Can he give you a ticket for a capped muzzleloader inside your tent? I'm thinking in terms of if this is your only weapon in camp and you can't have it capped at night, what do you do if a bear comes in? Tell him to wait while you cap your gun? :bash: Just looking for some input as to what you guys think? I know having the breech covered is against the rules, but what about the rest? Also this is how the story was told to us, so as to the validity of it, we are not sure.
I believe the written in your regulations is something like the cap must be exposed to the elements... The rifle can have nothing intregal to the rifle that might protect the ignition source from the elements. Putting some thing you have made that is not a permanent fixture on the rifle to protect the cap should not be a violation. Just as muzzle protection should not be a violation...
Personally, I would call your local enforcement officer in the office and discuss this with him is really in order... even if you have to follow up at the head office...
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 27, 2013, 01:31:32 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on February 27, 2013, 01:46:37 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on February 27, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 27, 2013, 02:12:30 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on February 27, 2013, 02:21:47 PM
They way I interpret the law is that we can cover the exposed areas as long as the cover is not a integral part of the gun, meaning that it is not permanently attached to the gun.
If the story is true then one has to consider why the WDFW allows us to hunt in the first place. Is it for the sake of maintaining wildlife population numbers through good conservation and humane harvesting of animals OR so that the WDFW can make a few bucks from ticketing hunters, because the way I see it is if the story is true then the game officer in question has very pore ethics for not allowing the hunter to protect the powder in his gun from the elements (as it is written in the regulations) so that he may humanly harvest an animal. Just my :twocents:
Post by: deerslyr on February 27, 2013, 03:11:57 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
and all of you would probably be suffering gun shot wounds and federal charges.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 27, 2013, 03:20:51 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
and all of you would probably be suffering gun shot wounds and federal charges.
Not necessarily. There are cases where police have failed to identify themselves correctly and/or violated rights while they have been 'serving justice' and been shot. In those cases the shooters have had charges dropped. One of the cases that comes to mind involved police busting into a drug house and some of them were shot/killed. The shooters went to jail for the drug charges, but all the shooting charges were dropped; the warrant wasn't signed or had expired or something.
Post by: washelkhunter on February 27, 2013, 03:39:34 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
and all of you would probably be suffering gun shot wounds and federal charges.
Right. As if we dont pack heat while sitting around the campfire. I dont give a rats ass who you think you are. You come to our door you best be respectfull and on your best behavior. Besides we're old, we dont take chit from nobody. :tup:
Post by: deerslyr on February 27, 2013, 06:06:14 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
and all of you would probably be suffering gun shot wounds and federal charges.
Right. As if we dont pack heat while sitting around the campfire. I dont give a rats ass who you think you are. You come to our door you best be respectfull and on your best behavior. Besides we're old, we dont take chit from nobody. :tup:
LOL brilliant.
Post by: deerslyr on February 27, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
and all of you would probably be suffering gun shot wounds and federal charges.
Not necessarily. There are cases where police have failed to identify themselves correctly and/or violated rights while they have been 'serving justice' and been shot. In those cases the shooters have had charges dropped. One of the cases that comes to mind involved police busting into a drug house and some of them were shot/killed. The shooters went to jail for the drug charges, but all the shooting charges were dropped; the warrant wasn't signed or had expired or something.
That isnt the case here obviously if you read the thread. Warden identified himself, "barged into tent" and saw said fire arm. If you shoot a LEO or beat him up after he has identified himself because he didnt have a search warrant or violated your rights be expected to be charged and found guilty. I guarantee it wont be dropped.
Post by: washelkhunter on February 27, 2013, 06:40:07 PM
Post by: IBspoiled on February 27, 2013, 07:39:21 PM
Wife :hello:
Post by: jackelope on February 27, 2013, 08:03:37 PM
He can barge into our tent all he wants; but hes going to probably be crawling out on all four leaving a blood trail and some teeth behind. If hes conscious mind you. >:(
So you'd really beat a law enforcement officer bloody because he walked into your tent?
I could see if some tweaker- walked into your camp and barged into your tent but really...a guy who identifies himself and shows you his ID walks into your tent and you beat him bloody?
Wow.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 27, 2013, 08:26:59 PM
However I have never heard of one entering a tent or camper,trailer without a invite.
We have had officers enter our camp and call out game agent. But they always waited for us to come out and greet them.
The whole gun thing sounds flimsy. You can be camping in the woods with a loaded firearm in your tent. No violation there.
I have both long guns and handguns in the woods with me all the time. Doesn't mean I am hunting.
Means I like guns.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 27, 2013, 08:55:08 PM
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers — Inspection authority.
(1) Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title. Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers also may request that the person write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on his or her fishing, harvesting, or hunting license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. Fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age sixteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.
(2) Based upon articulable facts that a person is transporting a prohibited aquatic animal species or any aquatic plant, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and inspect the watercraft to ensure that the watercraft and associated equipment are not transporting prohibited aquatic animal species or aquatic plants.
[2012 c 176 § 9; 2002 c 281 § 8. Prior: 2001 c 306 § 1; 2001 c 253 § 23; 2000 c 107 § 233; 1998 c 190 § 113.]
Notes:
Purpose -- 2002 c 281: See note following RCW 77.08.010.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 27, 2013, 09:03:40 PM
RCW 77.15.094
Search without warrant — Seizure of evidence, property — Limitation.
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law.
[2001 c 253 § 25; 2000 c 107 § 214; 1998 c 190 § 115; 1987 c 506 § 20; 1980 c 78 § 21; 1955 c 36 § 77.12.090. Prior: 1947 c 275 § 19; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 5992-29. Formerly RCW 77.12.090.]
Notes:
Legislative findings and intent -- 1987 c 506: See note following RCW 77.04.020.
Effective date -- Intent, construction -- Savings -- Severability -- 1980 c 78: See notes following RCW 77.04.010.
Post by: bear hunter on February 28, 2013, 02:04:56 AM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on February 28, 2013, 09:09:12 AM
"Exposed to the weather" means the
percussion cap or the frizzen must
be visible and not capable of being
enclosed by an integral part of the
weapon proper.
The way I understand it is as long as the cover is not permanently attached to the gun and the cap is visible then it would be legal to wrap clear plastic wrap around the breach or percussion cap correct?
Post by: Sabotloader on February 28, 2013, 09:37:11 AM
Here is the way it reads in the regulations:
"Exposed to the weather" means the
percussion cap or the frizzen must
be visible and not capable of being
enclosed by an integral part of the
weapon proper.
The way I understand it is as long as the cover is not permanently attached to the gun and the cap is visible then it would be legal to wrap clear plastic wrap around the breach or percussion cap correct?
That is explanation that I have recieved many times... A permanent part attached to the gun that would not allow the cap to be visible is against the rule. But a protection device that were fashioned as an accessory and not a part of the rifle could be used for protection.
Shoot even a lot of CF people use a muzzle cover to protect the bore - especially you guys 'over there' where it rains a bit!