Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 05:30:33 PM
Update: 2100hrs
The Sign (found the same one online):
Post by: Bango skank on January 06, 2020, 06:18:01 PM
Post by: deerhuntr4885 on January 06, 2020, 06:43:01 PM
If they were to say no shooting, i would understand. But no guns? B.S. its not a federal building, its not a school, its not a private business. Its public land. Id carry there, and do so openly. Screw them.
And you are lawyer with what law firm? He will most likely need your services.
Post by: lewy on January 06, 2020, 06:43:18 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 06, 2020, 06:46:50 PM
Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno:
Saying no trapping or no hunting is one thing, thats not a constitutional right.
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2020, 06:51:33 PM
Post by: the1rod on January 06, 2020, 07:45:05 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 07:46:09 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 07:52:00 PM
Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.
I’ve always assumed that WDFW land IS public land, although the way they act sometimes you would think it’s their own personal property, even though Joe Hunter/taxpayer is footing the bill! That topic could take up a whole new thread altogether though in my humble opinion! :chuckle:
Post by: Lumpy Taters on January 06, 2020, 07:57:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 08:02:01 PM
Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Post by: the1rod on January 06, 2020, 08:06:51 PM
Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:08:59 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:10:11 PM
Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
Post by: Bango skank on January 06, 2020, 08:12:43 PM
Are there armed guards manning a metal detector at the entrance? If no, im carrying.
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 08:14:13 PM
Sorry but that's incorrect. Call up the local county assessor's office and they'll set you straight.Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Some states (like Colorado) do not allow public access to most state land, but this discussion isn't about Colorado.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on January 06, 2020, 08:15:35 PM
Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
So is he.
Any land that we the people own is public. Not all public land has the same rules.
An elementary school is public land. So is the Wenatchee National Forest. You can target shoot at one of these locations, and you’ll be arrested for carrying a gun on to the other.
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 08:16:35 PM
Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:18:21 PM
No need to be confused. Here is how i determine if i can carry a gun somewhere. Its a simple proccess really.I hear ya! I honestly want them to take those signs down if WDFW is making a false statement, which is what I believe they are doing in this case. Anyone can put up an official-looking sign, doesn’t mean they have the law to back it up.
Are there armed guards manning a metal detector at the entrance? If no, im carrying.
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 08:23:07 PM
Looks like WDFW Took control of it outright with land donations from the Bureau of reclamation and state fund purchases?The majority of it is BOR land which is managed by WDFW, that's why the website you stated says "Billy Clapp Lake Unit was transferred to WDFW control through a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation". Of the 4,000 acres within the unit only 290 acres is actually owned by WDFW, the rest is BOR owned but simply managed by WDFW. In reality, the vast majority of WDFW lands/wildlife areas in the Columbia Basin are actually not owned by WDFW but rather by BOR. However, for over 60 years there's been an agreement between WDFW and BOR where BOR will "own" the land but WDFW will "manage" the land.
Post by: the1rod on January 06, 2020, 08:24:16 PM
Your the only one here talking about Colorado, don't know why you brought it up :dunno:Sorry but that's incorrect. Call up the local county assessor's office and they'll set you straight.Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Some states (like Colorado) do not allow public access to most state land, but this discussion isn't about Colorado.
My whole point was the difference between public land, and state owned. And as I stated if it's state land, then they can decide what you can and can't do on it.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:25:56 PM
Yeah, that didn’t make much sense to me I think it even said something on the DFW page like “use your public lands wisely” or something like that. I also understand as well that certain public lands are off-limits to firearms; I just couldn’t find anything in any state laws whatsoever that gave DFW the right to restrict firearms on any WDFW controlled public land. Plenty of RCW’s on hunting restrictions and legal/illegal wildlife handling/transportation, but nothing specifically prohibiting firearms themselves.Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
So is he.
Any land that we the people own is public. Not all public land has the same rules.
An elementary school is public land. So is the Wenatchee National Forest. You can target shoot at one of these locations, and you’ll be arrested for carrying a gun on to the other.
Post by: Bango skank on January 06, 2020, 08:30:12 PM
Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
So is he.
Any land that we the people own is public. Not all public land has the same rules.
An elementary school is public land. So is the Wenatchee National Forest. You can target shoot at one of these locations, and you’ll be arrested for carrying a gun on to the other.
Public schools being "gun free zones" is federal law. There is no federal law against carrying a gun on a wdfw wildlife area.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:30:33 PM
Great! So what’s the Bureau of Reclamation’s stance on firearms? WDFW is the entity that put up the sign... :dunno:Looks like WDFW Took control of it outright with land donations from the Bureau of reclamation and state fund purchases?The majority of it is BOR land which is managed by WDFW, that's why the website you stated says "Billy Clapp Lake Unit was transferred to WDFW control through a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation". Of the 4,000 acres within the unit only 290 acres is actually owned by WDFW, the rest is BOR owned but simply managed by WDFW. In reality, the vast majority of WDFW lands/wildlife areas in the Columbia Basin are actually not owned by WDFW but rather by BOR. However, for over 60 years there's been an agreement between WDFW and BOR where BOR will "own" the land but WDFW will "manage" the land.
Post by: the1rod on January 06, 2020, 08:32:14 PM
And just what am I confused about? "any land that we the people own is public land" your quote, but isn't that the same thing I said? I was defining the difference between state owned land and public land, I'm sorry I didn't go into every detail and every exception like schools, that have nothing to do with the conversation.Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
So is he.
Any land that we the people own is public. Not all public land has the same rules.
An elementary school is public land. So is the Wenatchee National Forest. You can target shoot at one of these locations, and you’ll be arrested for carrying a gun on to the other.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:34:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 08:36:04 PM
WA state law does not agree with your personal definitionsAnd just what am I confused about? "any land that we the people own is public land" your quote, but isn't that the same thing I said? I was defining the difference between state owned land and public land, I'm sorry I didn't go into every detail and every exception like schools, that have nothing to do with the conversation.Now I’m really confused? :chuckle:Is it public land, or is it land owned by wdfw? I believe this would make the difference, just how any business can ask you to leave if you are carrying, their land their rules. If it is public owned land, then i don't know if they could stop you legally.The two things you mentioned are the same thing. Land owned by WDFW is public land. Public land is owned by some agency. There's no difference.
Public land is owned by the people of the united states of America, and managed by agencies like the USFS and BLM. US government cannot own land, just manage public land. State government like wdfw can own land and do with it as the please, there for it is not public land, it is private land that generally allows public access.
So is he.
Any land that we the people own is public. Not all public land has the same rules.
An elementary school is public land. So is the Wenatchee National Forest. You can target shoot at one of these locations, and you’ll be arrested for carrying a gun on to the other.
RCW 79.02.010(12): "Public lands" means lands of the state of Washington administered by the department including but not limited to state lands, state forestlands, lands included in a state forestland pool, and aquatic lands.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 06, 2020, 08:45:20 PM
Post by: the1rod on January 06, 2020, 08:56:42 PM
Chevy rod - You said that WDFW land That was state purchased was private land, that’s what I was confused about?
If it is owned by the state, then it is their land and they can make the decision on what you can and cannot do on it, just like you could choose not to allow guns on your property.
Bigtex, the rcw you posted, is that referring to "public land" as designated by the state of Washington, or is it referring to public land as owned by we the people? If there is state land that is owned by we the people, I was not aware of it.
Post by: KFhunter on January 06, 2020, 09:18:30 PM
It's not defined in RCW 9.41.300 (gun free zones)
Post by: MADMAX on January 06, 2020, 09:32:57 PM
Put it on (CC lisence ) and don’t make a big deal out of it
90% + chance nobody will ever say a word
Post by: bornhunter on January 06, 2020, 09:46:00 PM
No need to be confused. Here is how i determine if i can carry a gun somewhere. Its a simple proccess really.
Are there armed guards manning a metal detector at the entrance? If no, im carrying.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 06, 2020, 09:54:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 06, 2020, 10:50:03 PM
Similar but different... National Parks used to have a no gun policy and stated it on their signs. This changed back in 2010, I believe due to a lawsuit in Alaska and now guns are allowed to be carried though a lot of their signage still says no firearms allowed. State is different, but I think there would be a hard row to hoe for the state if it were made an issue of constitutional (and legal pursuant to state laws governing concealed or open carry) carry in an area without a distinct “need” to be gun free (schools, airports, etc.). I’d personally carry as normal, not a bird gun or hunting rifle as I don’t carry those unless hunting or shooting as a general rule.It wasn't a lawsuit but actually a piece of legislation tacked on to a credit card bill in Congress. Prior to that time guns could not be carried on National Park Service or US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) lands except for hunting. This ban however is still in place for US Army Corps of Engineers lands where you can only possess firearms for hunting, at shooting ranges, or with permission of the local District Commander.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 07, 2020, 05:25:12 AM
If they were to say no shooting, i would understand. But no guns? B.S. its not a federal building, its not a school, its not a private business. Its public land. Id carry there, and do so openly. Screw them.:yeah: OUR land!
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on January 07, 2020, 07:56:31 AM
Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.:yeah:
Post by: Ghost Hunter on January 07, 2020, 08:26:25 AM
Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.
There ya go with logic again. :chuckle: :tup:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 08:36:46 AM
Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.Hey, all it takes is one bad apple...or sign in this case apparently. If Fish and Wildlife screwed up they should fix it period. If they were intentionally pulling a “mall cop” on us and making up their own restrictions while infringing on our rights, then they should be ashamed of themselves!
Post by: Fidelk on January 07, 2020, 08:38:54 AM
National Parks used to have a no gun policy and stated it on their signs. This changed back in 2010, I believe due to a lawsuit in Alaska and now guns are allowed to be carried though a lot of their signage still says no firearms allowed.It wasn't a lawsuit but actually a piece of legislation tacked on to a credit card bill in Congress. Prior to that time guns could not be carried on National Park Service or US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) lands except for hunting. I'm not sure what the lack of bullet holes in the red triangular sign means.
I believe the no gun policy in National Parks was signed by Reagan and unsigned by Obama. Originally, I believe it allowed you to carry concealed in NP and USFW lands if you possessed a CCW and you could carry on those lands in your own and other states that honored your state's CCW (with the WA license, I am legal to carry in MT Parks but not so in CA Parks). No idea is this would also apply to "open carry" or to a rifle/shotgun. Even with this policy in place, I recently saw a "No Firearms" sign in Olympic NP...….but the sign was old and wooden and it was ignored. This particular sign was on a heavily used trail, so they probably leave them up (even in contradiction to current policy) to deter as many guns being carried as possible.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 08:39:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2020, 08:40:53 AM
PS-I made mention earlier that I will contact the local WDFW office in Ephrata shortly and get back to you guys. If they don’t have the answer I’ll give Olympia a jingle
:tup:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 11:26:44 AM
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 11:32:28 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 07, 2020, 11:33:57 AM
Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!
She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 11:44:06 AM
Oh yeah, I agree. She was polite and let me explain the situation, and hopefully led me down the right path! I’m not buying the unloaded firearm statement though. Only WAC/RCW I could find was the “unlawful to hunt with loaded firearm in a vehicle.” http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!
She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?
Post by: bigtex on January 07, 2020, 12:05:39 PM
Apparently you did not read my earlier post citing a WAC which states you must abide by all posted signs on WDFW lands..Oh yeah, I agree. She was polite and let me explain the situation, and hopefully led me down the right path! I’m not buying the unloaded firearm statement though. Only WAC/RCW I could find was the “unlawful to hunt with loaded firearm in a vehicle.” http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.460Just talked with customer service representative “Wendy“ at the Ephrata office. Asked her about the sign and she basically said well of course there’s no guns because it’s a game reserve! She went on to explain that those laws have been on the books in the WAC for years. I questioned her further and stated that I understood that there are plenty of laws that authorize fish and wildlife to regulate hunting and fishing, but no law that I could find that specifically authorizes them to restrict my gun rights. I explained a scenario to her; someone just passing through or hiking with a firearm for personal protection or to get to another lawful hunting area etc. She then backpedaled somewhat and stated that carrying a firearm in that case would be okay, “AS LONG AS IT WAS UNLOADED...” I decided not to argue the loaded versus unloaded point further and focused on the sign. Told her my opinion that the sign should come down then if it simply says “no guns.” She referred me to Chad Edson with the Columbia Basin Division, Who is apparently involved in policymaking for the area. More phone calls to be continued!
She just answers the phone and helps how she can. That was a smart move she made transferring you, I doubt she was correct in telling you that you can't have a self defense weapon loaded. I'm interested to hear what the WDFW policy is regarding packing a self defense weapon?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2020, 12:14:05 PM
Post by: Henrydog on January 07, 2020, 12:45:44 PM
Tagging along. I appreciate Bigtex as LEO chiming in but if you are doing one of the above RCW clearly states you can carry...but my understanding is a sign trumps a general law...ie like a private business posting no gun. I don't agree with it, but want to follow along
Post by: Curly on January 07, 2020, 01:07:28 PM
Seems like a case could be made where wdfw could be liable if someone were attacked by a cougar, wolf, tweaker, or whatever while on the subject property and adhering to the law dictated by said sign saying no guns. :twocents:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 01:13:13 PM
That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 01:36:19 PM
Hmm, 3 pages with lots of assumptions and bunched panties. Has the OP called the WDFW for clarification on this "infringement"? I suppose that if you found that you could indeed carry a firearm for protection that you could petition the WDFW to change the signs...with money taken out of an already stretched budget. Make the call. Get back to us. Then you can worry about something more troubling, like what our legislature is doing to our gun rights. Pick your battles. Have a nice day.PS -
You think I’m going to feel guilty over tight budgeting with an outfit that hires the WOLF LADY for a HALF MILLION dollars for “expert” advice?!? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on January 07, 2020, 01:40:19 PM
Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.
WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!
Post by: Bango skank on January 07, 2020, 01:44:00 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 01:46:49 PM
https://www.capitalpress.com/state/washington/wdfw-pens-contract-extension-with-wolf-consultant/article_d2742d60-8209-5248-84a4-83d1f799b943.html
Post by: ghosthunter on January 07, 2020, 01:48:23 PM
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality
This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.
So to answer the OP question . Post title NO :twocents:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 01:51:41 PM
Interesting! So you’re basically saying that WDFW could put up a sign on public land, “NO METHODISTS ALLOWED” and we would have to abide by it...Yup, makes perfect sense to me...Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.
WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!
Post by: bigtex on January 07, 2020, 01:55:26 PM
Actually yes, but will it fly in court, probably not. It all depends on the issue.Interesting! So WDFW can put up a sign on public land, “NO METHODISTS ALLOWED” and we have to abide by it...Yup, makes perfect sense to me...Sorry but you are mistaken in your interpretation. RCW 77.15.230 states it is unlawful to violate a rule of the department on department land.That is only pursuant to RCW 77.15.230. Which states that “unlawful use” of lands is defined by a “violation of any rule of the department.” WDFW rules are defined by state law, which just circles us back to the fact that there is no law (on the books that I could find?) authorizing WDFW to exert any form of gun control that I’m aware of? (other than the loaded/unloaded when hunting in a vehicle which is a law)Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
"Rules" are found in the WAC, not the RCW.
WAC 220-500-030(3) which states you must follow the signs that are posted on department land is the rule that RCW 77.15.230 is talking about!
This is how they go about placing signs to deal with local issues. You have certain WDFW areas that are closed outside of daylight hours, closed to the possession of alcohol, closed to the possession of glass bottles, etc. Instead of WDFW having to create rules for all of those local issues and constantly updating them to add/remove areas to the prohibited areas they can fall under the failing to obey signs regulation.
Like I said in my original post, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
Post by: bigtex on January 07, 2020, 01:57:41 PM
RCW 9.41.290That RCW only applies to "Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities" WDFW isn't a city, town, county, or other municipality.
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality
This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.
So to answer the OP question . Post title NO :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on January 07, 2020, 02:02:21 PM
RCW 9.41.290That RCW only applies to "Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities" WDFW isn't a city, town, county, or other municipality.
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality
This is the WA 2 A Golden Egg.
This keeps every city from writing their own laws and Every Agency.
So to answer the OP question . Post title NO :twocents:
The Agency tried to say no one could carry a firearm while Archery hunting. That was reversed because they could not restrict the carry of self defense firearms.
Post by: boneaddict on January 07, 2020, 02:11:27 PM
THe least of your 2A concerns.
I'd like to cross reference anyone complaining about poaching on here or lack of enforcement yet trying to argue to carry on a game reserve.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 02:21:12 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/wdfw-lands/public-conduct#vehicles
Post by: bigtex on January 07, 2020, 02:27:39 PM
Piss moan and complain all you want. They could say. NO ENTRY period. That's the way a lot of game preserves are. I think its also a way to deter tribal hunting where its ok to "trespass".:yeah:
THe least of your 2A concerns.
I'd like to cross reference anyone complaining about poaching on here or lack of enforcement yet trying to argue to carry on a game reserve.
Post by: fishngamereaper on January 07, 2020, 02:29:17 PM
Well said Bone.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 07, 2020, 02:46:33 PM
Piss moan and complain all you want. They could say. NO ENTRY period. That's the way a lot of game preserves are. I think its also a way to deter tribal hunting where its ok to "trespass".Yes they certainly could. Pretty sickening, eh? Click click click
THe least of your 2A concerns.
I'd like to cross reference anyone complaining about poaching on here or lack of enforcement yet trying to argue to carry on a game reserve.
Post by: JWEBB on January 07, 2020, 03:22:17 PM
Post by: snowshoes22 on January 07, 2020, 03:31:52 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2020, 04:03:56 PM
Post by: Humptulips on January 07, 2020, 06:23:32 PM
Post by: follow maggie on January 07, 2020, 09:31:57 PM
No need to be confused. Here is how i determine if i can carry a gun somewhere. Its a simple proccess really.:yeah:
Are there armed guards manning a metal detector at the entrance? If no, im carrying.
Post by: Buck Rub Jr on January 07, 2020, 09:45:01 PM
Post by: full choke on January 07, 2020, 09:51:17 PM
I just got a $150 ticket for walking past a sign that was vague to me. The ticket was literally given to me for walking on a dirt road even with no intent to hunt(was in jeans and Sweat shirt, no gun) because I didn’t understand the sign 100% correctly. So yeah..I wouldn’t test it by carrying a gun in there, but hey that’s just me.
What did the sign say- "No Trespassing"? :chuckle:
Post by: Buck Rub Jr on January 07, 2020, 09:55:50 PM
Ya he didn’t believe me when I said “No Habla Ingles!” :chuckle:I just got a $150 ticket for walking past a sign that was vague to me. The ticket was literally given to me for walking on a dirt road even with no intent to hunt(was in jeans and Sweat shirt, no gun) because I didn’t understand the sign 100% correctly. So yeah..I wouldn’t test it by carrying a gun in there, but hey that’s just me.
What did the sign say- "No Trespassing"? :chuckle:
Post by: full choke on January 07, 2020, 10:04:23 PM
That said- I really don't see a problem with this sign. I think there is too much being made out of it. And Boneaddict is correct- just be glad they let you in there at all.
Post by: boneaddict on January 08, 2020, 05:16:25 AM
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/05/wa-gov-signs-new-gun-bans-confiscation-laws/ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/05/wa-gov-signs-new-gun-bans-confiscation-laws/)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 08, 2020, 05:23:05 AM
Post by: JWEBB on January 08, 2020, 10:47:16 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 09, 2020, 06:17:50 PM
Where’s OH MAH when you need him? :dunno::yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 09, 2020, 06:18:45 PM
Post by: AL WORRELLS KID on January 09, 2020, 10:09:00 PM
What I don’t understand though, is how they can just blatantly state “NO GUNS” on public DFW land, whether it’s off-limits to hunting or not?
As you can see the "NO GUNS" statement, is nothing new on their Signs.....I do wonder how much of our Taxes they spent redesigning the New Sign with a Crab on it instead of a Pheasant?) :yike:
Doug
Post by: TriggerMike on January 10, 2020, 09:58:00 AM
Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
Is the same for the Arthur Coffin Game Reserve up in the Colockum? It's the same sign :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2020, 11:59:04 AM
YesIs the same for the Arthur Coffin Game Reserve up in the Colockum? It's the same sign :dunno:Those signs have been around for decades, some say no traps as well. As far as your question goes I’d imagine it would be hard for them to enforce you carrying for personal protection but :dunno::yeah:
Basically they are old signs from a time when people would simply follow the orders of the sign and wouldn't think anything of it (sorry but it's true.)
It would be enforced under WAC 220-500-030(3) which states: "Pursuant to RCW 77.15.230, it is unlawful to use department lands in a manner or for a purpose contrary to signs or notices posted on those lands, waters, or access areas. Violating this subsection is a misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 77.15.230"
That being said, as long as it looks like you are just carrying for personal protection and not actively hunting you'd be hardpressed to have an LEO hassle you about it.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 10, 2020, 12:02:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2020, 12:18:28 PM
Post by: TriggerMike on January 10, 2020, 01:48:36 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2020, 01:52:45 PM
open carry is not a hunting weapon, I think you're good to go open carry in a game reserve as its not a "hunting weapon"
Still, a badge heavy zealot could cause you grief perhaps.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2020, 02:44:24 PM
"use of other hunting weapons"
open carry is not a hunting weapon, I think you're good to go open carry in a game reserve as its not a "hunting weapon"
Still, a badge heavy zealot could cause you grief perhaps.
I'm going by the regulation as stated above that says concealed permit is required.
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
IF
"if the person uses" Ok, can't shoot nothing
Post by: Bango skank on January 10, 2020, 02:54:13 PM
It say's clearly open carry is lawful.
IF
"if the person uses" Ok, can't shoot nothing
I agree. "using" a gun and possessing a gun are two entirely different things. as long as you don't shoot it, youre not "using" it. so if its just for self defense, well, when you have to use it because you feel your safety is in danger, at that point that's more important than the possibility of getting a ticket.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 10, 2020, 02:56:21 PM
It say's clearly open carry is lawful
Where?
Post by: Cougartail on January 10, 2020, 03:46:20 PM
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!
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 29, 2020, 03:37:29 PM
Post by: Twispriver on January 29, 2020, 03:41:27 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 29, 2020, 03:43:48 PM
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.
:twocents:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 29, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
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?
Post by: Jingles on January 29, 2020, 05:23:07 PM
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.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 29, 2020, 08:20:40 PM
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.
:yeah: 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
Post by: Curly on January 30, 2020, 11:05:49 AM
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.
Post by: the1rod on January 30, 2020, 03:11:50 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 30, 2020, 05:46:03 PM
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-landsIt 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.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.
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.
Post by: Bango skank on January 30, 2020, 08:10:43 PM
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-landsIt 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.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.
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.
Hey, if he wants to believe the public land that his tax dollars pay for is actually private land, let him.
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 31, 2020, 12:20:45 PM
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-landsIt 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.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.
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.
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.
Post by: Henrydog on January 31, 2020, 12:26:51 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 31, 2020, 08:39:25 PM
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.
Post by: blackdog on January 31, 2020, 09:44:00 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 31, 2020, 09:50:24 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 31, 2020, 10:01:54 PM
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-landsIt 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.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.
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.
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?
My constitutional rights. Publicly owned land, common public rights. I can protect myself. That right shall not be infringed.
Post by: KFhunter on January 31, 2020, 10:20:27 PM
Post by: Bango skank on January 31, 2020, 10:27:03 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 05, 2020, 08:37:58 AM
Had some time off, so went for a spin up north of Moses Lake to the Billy Clapp Lake Wildlife area. Noticed a red triangular WDFW sign at Pinto Dam that said “WDFW game reserve, NO GUNS, NO DOGS, NO TRAPS.” Did a little research on the area and read that the land is part of the “Stratford Game Reserve,” which is closed to hunting. What I don’t understand though, is how they can just blatantly state “NO GUNS” on public DFW land, whether it’s off-limits to hunting or not? Am I not fully within my Second Amendment rights to strap on a rifle or handgun for personal protection and just go hiking around the lake? The area is fully open to fishing and wildlife viewing from what I understand? Any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated.
Update: 2100hrs
The Sign (found the same one online):
I have seen those and similar ones around the Arthur Coffin Game Reserve for about 55 years