Post by: Kain on April 13, 2009, 01:53:16 PM
Mr. Mikitik,
Thank you for your response. I have included your response and have added my comments to each paragraph in bold. My original email and your response are also included below.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Wildthing (DFW) <Wildthing.Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov> wrote:
"Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the recently amended archery regulation now authorizing bowhunters with a valid concealed pistol license to carry a sidearm while archery hunting. Your e-mail has been forwarded to me for a response."
"Please be advised that the chief of our enforcement program has no authority to mandate any hunting rules or regulations. The chief—along with all of our Fish and Wildlife Officers—is responsible for enforcing hunting laws and rules, not making them."
I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Officers have an impossible job when it comes to enforcement of our hunting and fishing regulations. All hunters that I know would love to see more resources going towards enforcement. It doesnt matter how many regulations the WDFW imposes, good or bad, if there is no enforcement. I have taken the C.O.R.T. certification and will continue to do all I can to let WDFW management and state legislature know how important our officers are to wildlife management and our hunting future. We are all on the same side.
"RCW 9.41.060(8), Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….” The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.” Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle. The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity. Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted."
The statement above is true as I understand the law. The problem with it is that it would only apply to carrying concealed without a CPL. Something that our elected state legislature has deemed acceptable while hunting. The WDFW has the authority to impose whatever restrictions they want on archery big game tags to make using them a "lawful" outdoor activity. I do not think this means forcing a citizen to surrender their rights that are guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution.
Washington State constitution, SECTION 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
The operative words to pay attention to is "shall not be impaired". A citizen of this state is not required to have a CPL to carry a weapon, in defense of himself, openly. The "because we can" attitude I see coming from WDFW on this issue is awful. Eliminating the right to carry concealed while enjoying the outdoors provided to citizen through RCW 9.41.060(8), with a loophole, to just two minority hunting groups is very disturbing to say the least. A CPL has nothing to do with the wildlife management or hunter safety and should not be a concern of the WDFW. If it did, the WDFW would be requiring all hunter groups and other outdoor users to have one. I mean a fisherman might shoot a sea lion if he has a concealed weapon. A modern firearms hunter might use his stub nose revolver to shoot a deer if he is carrying without a CPL. The excuse that CPL holders are some how more law abiding citizens is ridiculous.
"The commission has always been concerned about the potential for individual bowhunters to use a sidearm to unlawfully kill big game. Knowing that individuals with concealed pistol licenses (CPL) are thoroughly vetted through a criminal background history check, the commission has a high level of confidence that CPL holders will not wish to jeopardize their license. There is no such assurance with the general hunter who does not possess a CPL."
The commissions concern is already addressed by the rule says: "Modern handguns cannot be used to hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big game hunting season." Imposing another level of restrictions on us is not only redundant it is insulting. I am a citizen of this state and I am tired of being treated like I am some potential criminal. Unless your officers are going to frisk all archery and muzzleload hunter this new rule is also almost impossible to enforce except for those who are carrying openly. As I have said above carrying openly for protection is a right guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution and "shall not be impaired".
"You should also know that representatives of the bowhunting community—not WDFW staff—are the ones that proposed this regulation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission and they are the ones that sought to distinguish between CPL holders and non-CPL holding archers."
I dont know who these "representatives" are but I did not vote for them and they do not represent me or anyone in my family. I would like to know who they are and what kind relationship they have with WDFW that gives them such clout within a government organization. This rule change was added last minute after the on-line survey that WDFW put on. If it had been part of the original rule change I'm sure you would have seen a more diverse opinion on this than just some pet organization. WDFW's recent effort to involve the public in their drafting of the new hunting regulations is a wonderful thing. I would hate to see my complaint have any adverse effect on future collaborations with the public. At the same time I would hate to see WDFW use the recommendations of a few hunters override the majority. I would also like to think that the WDFW would make sure that any rules they adopt are for the management of wildlife and hunter and public safety and not to promote some political agenda and most of all do not contradict or impair state law or the constitutions of the state of Washington and the United States.
Thank you for your time and I hope that you can forward these concerns to the people with the authority to change this unconstitutional rule.
Sincerely,
Naithan Kain
Wildthing (DFW) to me
show details 8:17 AM
Reply
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the recently amended archery regulation now authorizing bowhunters with a valid concealed pistol license to carry a sidearm while archery hunting. Your e-mail has been forwarded to me for a response.
Please be advised that the chief of our enforcement program has no authority to mandate any hunting rules or regulations. The chief—along with all of our Fish and Wildlife Officers—is responsible for enforcing hunting laws and rules, not making them.
RCW 9.41.060(8), Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….” The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.” Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle. The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity. Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted.
The commission has always been concerned about the potential for individual bowhunters to use a sidearm to unlawfully kill big game. Knowing that individuals with concealed pistol licenses (CPL) are thoroughly vetted through a criminal background history check, the commission has a high level of confidence that CPL holders will not wish to jeopardize their license. There is no such assurance with the general hunter who does not possess a CPL.
You should also know that representatives of the bowhunting community—not WDFW staff—are the ones that proposed this regulation to the Fish and Wildlife Commission and they are the ones that sought to distinguish between CPL holders and non-CPL holding archers.
Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division
(360) 902-8408
from Naithan Kain <naithankain@gmail.com>
to commission@dfw.wa.gov,
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov,
director@dfw.wa.gov,
turcocmt@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamSpokane@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamEphrata@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamYakima@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamVancouver@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov
date Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM
subject Complaint on the new CPL requirment.
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details Apr 10 (3 days ago)
Reply
Explanation of complaint:
My Complaint is with the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. They recently made a change in the hunting regulations. They are now requiring a concealed pistol license (CPL) to carry a pistol for personal protection while hunting during an archery or muzzleloader season. My complaint is that this requirement is in violation of my rights as stated in the Washington State constitution, SECTION 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
A citizen is not required to have a CPL to carry openly and according to RCW 9.41.060 a citizen is not required to have a CPL while engaging in a legal outdoor activity and carrying concealed. My complaint is that the WDFW has created this rule not only in contradiction to the US and State constitutions and state law but has unfairly targeted archery and muzzleload hunters rights while not making the same requirement of modern firearm hunters and fisherman. I am a legal citizen of Washington and the United States and have no criminal history.
Thank you for your action on this matter
Naithan M. Kain
Post by: JoshT on April 13, 2009, 02:02:06 PM
RCW 9.41.060(8), Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….” The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.” Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle. The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity. Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted.
Wait for it..... ahhhhhh, wait for it........ TOLD YOU!!! :IBCOOL:
Just messin' with you Kain... you know how I feel about the subject... but this is the exact line of reasoning that I was following in defense of this proposition. Notice that RCW 9.41.060 is only an adendum to the "lawful outdoor activity" part of the clause... they could do nothing about the CPL holder, so they had to allow it... just as I suspected.
Post by: Kain on April 13, 2009, 02:08:05 PM
RCW 9.41.060(8), Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms, authorizes an exception to the restriction on carrying firearms for “…any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping….” The operative word to pay attention to is “lawful.” Bowhunters in Washington State are regulated by rules promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Those rules are specific to bowhunters who choose to purchase a Washington State license to hunt big game with archery tackle. The commission has delegated authority from the legislature to adopt rules governing the time, place and manner of lawful hunting activity. Those rules can be as restrictive or as relaxed as they deem appropriate to the species hunted.
Wait for it..... ahhhhhh, wait for it........ TOLD YOU!!! :IBCOOL:
Just messin' with you Kain... you know how I feel about the subject... but this is the exact line of reasoning that I was following in defense of this proposition. Notice that RCW 9.41.060 is only an adendum to the "lawful outdoor activity" part of the clause... they could do nothing about the CPL holder, so they had to allow it... just as I suspected.
:chuckle: yeah I said you right on the "lawful outdoor activity" part. It is the carrying openly that they are in violation. I still dont know why you think a CPL gives you more right to carry openly than non-CPL citizen? But we have exhausted that discussion. I posted this so others might get involved as well. A CPL is a good thing to have, but for the WDFW to decide that they can make it so you have to have one for reasons that have nothing to do with wildlife management or hunter safety is just wrong IMHO.
Post by: JoshT on April 13, 2009, 02:15:32 PM
Post by: Kain on April 13, 2009, 02:28:13 PM
Post by: JoshT on April 13, 2009, 02:37:20 PM
Requiring a CPL to make it a lawful activity so it qualifies for not needing a CPL. :dunno: Only in government. :chuckle:
Classic... lmao!
Post by: jackelope on April 13, 2009, 02:39:30 PM
Post by: Kain on April 13, 2009, 03:03:47 PM
:peep:
We are being good....so far. Beside anyone who would quote some 'Tallica in their signature cant be all bad :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on April 13, 2009, 03:07:40 PM
Post by: Machias on April 13, 2009, 03:49:11 PM
Post by: Kain on April 13, 2009, 04:10:38 PM
"Sorry kid that tweeker mugged you for your $1000 bow, $150 dollar camo, $200 dollar range finder, $100 boots, $200 bino's, that custom knife your gramps gave you and the keys to your car and house along with your wallet with your address and I.D. and left you miles in the woods. And because you are a law abiding citizen he knew you would not have a gun on you."
Teenage archery hunters are gold mines. Hope he can shoot that arrow good he only gets one.
Post by: Snapshot on April 13, 2009, 09:39:17 PM
Mik Mikitik is ignorant of the facts on the matter. His claim that bowhunting representatives pushed for the change is provocative and irresponsible (whether he intends it that way or not). Further, it is a matter of public record that the Commissioners asked for Enforcement’s input and opinion, and that, while they don’t set policy, Enforcement supported a permit requirement. It is also a matter of public record that organized bowhunting leadership told the Commission that because the Archery Coalition wasn’t who asked for the sidearm restriction to be removed in the first place that it didn’t care how it was done.
This simply wasn't the bowhunters' fight; bowhunting organizations didn't ask for it; they didn't push for it; the organizations told the department and the commission that however they chose to do deal with the issue was up to them.
Dale Sharp
TBW President
Post by: Kain on April 14, 2009, 01:22:13 AM
They had to give up the changes on bear season because of the amount of negative response about it. If they were really concerned about bear population they would have kept at least some of the changes. I saw a lot of negative comments on the cougar season changes but they went with them anyways claiming it was for management purposes. :dunno: I want to believe I can trust them and that they really care what us hunters think but will still make good decisions based on wildlife management needs. But making rules based what is "socially unacceptable" and other nonsense makes me wonder.
Post by: billythekidrock on April 14, 2009, 06:27:39 AM
Post by: BULLZ-i on April 15, 2009, 05:31:42 PM
MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE WILL SEE MECHANICAL BROADHEADS OR LIGHTED NOCKS. ITEMS THAT WILL HELP TO RESPONSABLY AND HUMAINLY HARVEST THE ANIMALS IN A FASTER AND MORE PROFICIENT MANNER VERSUS POSSIBLE BAD HITS AND WOUNDED ANIMALS.
ALSO ON MY CHRISTMAS LIST IS LESS REDUCTION OF ARCHERY HUNTING GMU's AND SPECIAL TAGS.
(very sorry about the caps as I forgot, and didnt want to forget what i wante to say)
Post by: Shannon on April 16, 2009, 08:25:52 AM
Post by: JoshT on April 16, 2009, 08:31:30 AM
Post by: Kain on April 16, 2009, 11:53:53 AM
Or... they could just get a CPL.
If you have to get a CPL to carry even openly then why not just roll over and accept full blown registration for everyone. What you are accepting is that we need to have a license just to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. I just cant believe you are OK with this. And what about people under 21? They cant carry to protect themselves?
Post by: JoshT on April 16, 2009, 12:59:03 PM
If you buy the tag... you place the limits on yourself... we've been over this. You don't like it... just get the CPL... or hunt with a rifle. I think Full blown registration... and not being able to carry a MODERN FIREARM durring ARCHERY or MZ season without the proper CPL... are a looooooooooooooooong ways appart. This chicken little thing is going a little too far.
Post by: Kain on April 16, 2009, 02:06:18 PM
They can't even buy rounds... let alone the pistol that fires them... how is packing one any different?
If you buy the tag... you place the limits on yourself... we've been over this. You don't like it... just get the CPL... or hunt with a rifle. I think Full blown registration... and not being able to carry a MODERN FIREARM durring ARCHERY or MZ season without the proper CPL... are a looooooooooooooooong ways appart. This chicken little thing is going a little too far.
People under 21 can carry a weapon. I am not placing the limit on myself. I am being forced to choose between my placing restriction on my rights or not hunting the way I want. Requiring a license to carry concealed or open IS full blown registration but I guess if only applies to a few thousand hunters its Ok. If we just keep letting them chip away at your rights without any complaint they will just keep taking more. Make a big fuss they will think twice about expanding on it in the future. You like CPL's and think everyone should have one and that's fine. I feel the CPL itself is stepping on our rights but I am willing accept that it is here to stay. But I dont have to accept it being used for something it was never intended for by a government agency that has nothing to do with it. You seem like a nice guy and you can have any opinion you want but this thread and others were created because some people have a problem with the new rule. When you come on and keep saying that we should just give in "just get a CPL" it is just insulting the way we feel about it.
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2009, 02:10:27 PM
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: Kain on April 16, 2009, 02:17:15 PM
Give it up Kain, JoshT does not bowhunt or muzzleload hunt so really this is a pointless arugument with him. That is why I stopped, your just
:beatdeadhorse: :beatdeadhorse:
I guess so. I am trying to be nice and not trying to change his mind, Im just trying let him know how some people feel about it. Again, I started this thread and you started yours to try to get other people involved that feel the same way. It wasnt my intention to try and change anyones mind.
Post by: JoshT on April 16, 2009, 02:24:07 PM
The way I see it... the WDFW has the right to restrict the access a hunter has to a firearm for bow and mz hunters... you accept that right... so quit bitching. They're not infringing on your right to keep and bear arms... you are... with the purchase of that tag. Why should bow hunters get a different set of seasons? Why should mz hunters get a different set of seasons? Answer... because the rules are different and accepted by all who participate in said season... if you don't like the rules... don't play.
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2009, 02:33:43 PM
Post by: Kain on April 16, 2009, 02:35:52 PM
Post by: JoshT on April 16, 2009, 02:37:52 PM
Post by: Machias on April 16, 2009, 02:38:34 PM
Post by: JoshT on April 16, 2009, 02:41:27 PM
Post by: Kain on April 16, 2009, 02:49:31 PM
I think it SUCKS... you know that... I'm just saying I... A: see the logic (squed as it may be) behind it... and B: see that's there's a provision that allows it.
Your right I should have said "you think it is acceptable and I think it is not." :P
Post by: SHANE(WA) on April 20, 2009, 11:36:02 PM
Post by: bearhunter59 on April 21, 2009, 03:56:08 PM
I find it interesting that you guys choose to go out there with a bow and arrow, and then claim..."Oh, I need my handgun to protect myself." Pretty weak argument in my opinion. You chose to go out there with a bow and arrow. If your that worried about your "safety", then maybe you should stay home or take up modern firearm season.
Whiners..whiners...whiners...Looks like that is all this board is turning into....now I know why I don't check it out much anymore...
Post by: Machias on April 21, 2009, 04:10:04 PM
Don't let the internet door hit your ass on the way out. :)
Post by: Kain on April 21, 2009, 05:10:59 PM
"And I'm all for any one of you that gets caught using that to dispatch your wounded game getting your hunting license revoked for life. "
I would be all for punishing this the same as any poacher out there. I just dont think requiring a CPL is gonna do anything to prevent the law breakers from breaking the law.
Post by: KillBilly on April 22, 2009, 06:31:18 AM
I'm not scared, there are no bogey men in my closets..... :twocents:
Post by: JoshT on April 22, 2009, 07:16:46 AM
I always have a pistol on my hip... I refuse to be a victim... I rufuse to allow my family to be victims... I refuse to let my countrymen be victims... I am part of a 'well armed militia'... that is my right and responsibility as an American.
Post by: KillBilly on April 22, 2009, 08:00:02 AM
Chances of you needing a fire extinguisher are pretty slim too... yet I have one of those loaded in my kitchen and bedroom, you probably do too. I can draw my pistol and fire three shots in under 2 seconds... that's faster than an average man can cover 20 feet... I know, because I practice it... daily. I'm not scared of violence... I'm prepared to fend it off... always. I run into some shady characters in the woods every year... particularly when I'm hunting closer to a populated area. I've run across both meth lab dumps and grow opperations... you think these things are on the decrease?
I always have a pistol on my hip... I refuse to be a victim... I rufuse to allow my family to be victims... I refuse to let my countrymen be victims... I am part of a 'well armed militia'... that is my right and responsibility as an American.
And I am skilled enough to accomplish the same with my bow. The difference must be confidence levels.
Post by: JoshT on April 22, 2009, 08:03:47 AM
Post by: Machias on April 22, 2009, 09:16:25 AM
This is amazing to me... I have never carried concealed or in open while Archery Hunting and have never feared for my safety or life once. What has you all so scared? The probabilities of you actually needing a pistol versus actually getting one into action soon enough to protect yourself are slim. In most cases you will never see it coming...
I'm not scared, there are no bogey men in my closets..... :twocents:
Ok one last time. Killbilly what do you carry in your pack when you go hunting? Do you take any firestarter? Purification tablets? First Aid kit, Map and Compass? Knife? Cord? Signal Mirror? Whistle? No? Then your being reckless. Yes? Why? Because they are part of a survival pack, things/tools you probably don't need but might. That is all a sidearm is, another piece of survival gear you probably will never need, but the one time you do and it's in your truck or back home won't do you much good. It has NOTHING to do with being scared and everything to do with being prepared. I carried a sidearm for 20 years, every single day I worked. Never used it once, but I would not have climbed into a patrol car without it. Do you think every cop going to work is scared? No they are being prepared. Why does it bother you so much if I choose to carry one? I'm not requiring you to carry one, your more then welcome to be a victim whenever you want.
Post by: Kain on April 22, 2009, 11:12:46 AM
I guess you are probably right about that. I guess I am just not as Rambo as you are. I dont want to have to protect myself and my family with a hunting knife and a bow.
I think about the "what ifs". Call me scared or paranoid if you want but I like to be prepared. There is an elementary school right across the street from my house. It has a great big sign that says "Drug and weapon free zone". Now to me that is just a great big target sign for anyone that might be looking to do something bad. My point about people under 21 not being able to carry is the same thing. You are just telling any criminally minded person that that person has no way of protecting himself. Well other than a bow, and if you are KillBilly that is enough, but for the rest of us mortals we might want a little more firepower, IF we ever need it.
Post by: KillBilly on April 22, 2009, 11:39:28 AM
Post by: Kain on April 22, 2009, 11:58:44 AM
I dont see how this is whining or being scared but I have trouble looking at things from a different point of view. :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Machias on April 22, 2009, 12:47:37 PM
Post by: Kain on April 22, 2009, 01:36:10 PM
MH vs regular hunters. Archery hunters wanting the same right to protect themselves from threats unknown and people that just think they are whiny babies that are scared of the boogeyman. :dunno:
I am asking everyone to just take a deep breath and try to use common courtesy with each other. I honestly dont understand how this went from having a problem with a CPL clause to a debate about if people even need guns for protection.
I used to sell security systems. The number one group of people that bought systems were those who had just been robbed. Makes no sense to me. Everyone think it will never happen to them until it does. People think that the country is safe then a group of terrorist drive planes into some buildings. Eight years later people are already thinking we are safe again. Oh well. :dunno:
The world is not the same as it was 30 years ago and it isnt for the better IMHO.
Post by: KillBilly on April 22, 2009, 01:38:24 PM
Killbilly, you keep making statements to degrad or make fun of someone who would like to carry a sidearm. Why? I"M NOT TELLING YOU, YOU HAVE TO CARRY. Your a tough guy, great, why does it bother you if I want to carry? Why does it make one single bit of difference if I want to carry a sidearm, for WHATEVER my reasons are???? It has nothing to do with being scared, has nothing to do with confidence level, sheesh when you make snid little comments like that... :dunno: You have a sidearm in your truck, Why? Do you have one at home, Why? Is it because you may need to defend your person or property? I mean your line of thinking and reasoning why do you even have a sidearm? 90% of Americans have never had a home invasion, but they still have the right to protect themselves and in my mind should have that capability available to them. Your reasoning about well I couldn't even get to it to use it if I need to cracks me up, you sound like all the other anti-gun nuts out there that arugue against the 2nd Amendment. They are always saying folks can't even get to their weapons in the house so why have them. There is a bunch of reasons that it makes sense to carry one IF YOU WANT TO. Can't think of a single reason why you shouldn't be allowed to, if you know of some reasons please enlighten us.
Fred, I am not trying to degrade anyone seriously... I just stated that I don't understand the need for it or the recent concern for protection. It wasn't there 20 years ago and I still do not personally feel threatened. No degradation intended.. sorry if it came off that way.
Post by: Machias on April 22, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Post by: Machias on April 22, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
Post by: Coasthunterjay on April 22, 2009, 01:46:57 PM
people that just think they are whiny babies that are scared of the boogeyman. :dunno:
know thats funny........and i agree......not that i am that old, but the world isnt what it was 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.
I dont have a CPL yet......YET........but as soon as i get a chance im getting one.......Not sure if this will make sence. But I would rather like to have the ability to be able to carry and not........ then not have the ability to when i needed to...
thats my 2cents. :twocents:
Post by: JoshT on April 22, 2009, 02:01:21 PM
Fred, I am not trying to degrade anyone seriously... I just stated that I don't understand the need for it or the recent concern for protection. It wasn't there 20 years ago and I still do not personally feel threatened. No degradation intended.. sorry if it came off that way.
The world/country was a different 20 years ago... hell, it was a different place 5 years ago. There's a lot more evil and those who perpetuate it now. More drugs, more hardship, more crime... it's not just about "feeling safe"... it's about being prepared. Once again... I refuse to be a victim, or allow anyone else to be a victim. If you just want to accept your fate... and roll the dice everyday... then that's up to you. I will always carry a pistol... hunting, fishing, playing at the park with my kids, racing toy boats, whatever... I pray everyday that I won't need it... but I sure as hell won't be the guy praying for one if the need should arrise.
I'm glad they changed the CPL rule too... even though I understand the argument on both sides.
Post by: buckbrush on April 23, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
Thanks for your pursuit on this matter. I have the same feelings on the matter that you do. I am saying thanks, because you have voiced your opinion.
Post by: Kain on April 23, 2009, 05:37:08 PM
Post by: Slider on April 23, 2009, 06:35:15 PM
Post by: Kain on April 24, 2009, 01:49:37 PM
Explanation of complaint:
My Complaint is with the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. They recently made a change in the hunting regulations. They are now requiring a concealed pistol license (CPL) to carry a pistol for personal protection while hunting during an archery or muzzleloader season. My complaint is that this requirement is in violation of my rights as stated in the Washington State constitution, SECTION 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
A citizen is not required to have a CPL to carry openly and according to RCW 9.41.060 a citizen is not required to have a CPL while engaging in a legal outdoor activity and carrying concealed. My complaint is that the WDFW has created this rule not only in contradiction to the US and State constitutions and state law but has unfairly targeted archery and muzzleload hunters rights while not making the same requirement of modern firearm hunters and fisherman and other outdoor users. I am a legal citizen of Washington and the United States and have no criminal history.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/huntregs2009.pdf
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.060
Naithan M. Kain
...
Dear Mr. Kain,
Thanks for contacting NRA-ILA.
I will be forwarding this to the WA State Liaison.
Please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for your dedicated support. Because of people like you we are heartened in our efforts to preserve and protect the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. You are a true friend of the American gun owner and we take pride in knowing that.
Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns, and as always, we appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Krista Cupp
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Post by: JoshT on April 24, 2009, 02:08:27 PM
I may get flamed for this... but I just renewed my NRA membership today. I haven't been a member for the past couple of years... I felt they grew out of touch with my needs and what I felt they should be fighting for... but because of our debates recently, I've come to the conclusion that I'd just grown complacent... and it was time to cowboy up. Thanks for setting me straight man!
Post by: Kain on April 24, 2009, 02:33:50 PM
Post by: Kain on April 29, 2009, 04:57:16 PM
Hello. Thank you for your comments regarding the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s changes to WACs 232-12-051 and 232-12-054 allowing a hunter to carry a modern handgun during archery and muzzleloader seasons if he/she has a concealed weapons permit. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is going to review these WAC changes and will provide a response to you once it has done so.
Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045
WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison &
Administrative Regulations Coordinator
Lori.preuss@dfw.wa.gov
360.902.2930
Fax 360.902.2155
Post by: Kain on July 06, 2009, 04:59:07 PM
"Hello, Naithan. WDFW submitted a legal services request to the Attorney General’s Office to get their legal opinion on this matter. They informed me that it will take 1-2 weeks for them to have an answer. Once WDFW has the AGO’s opinion, we will determine a course of action and let you know the outcome. You will be able to provide feedback on our decision.
It will take us some time to make a decision, because everyone is incredibly busy. You will probably hear from me toward the end of June.
Thank you for your interest in this issue and your patience while we figure out the best thing to do.
Lori Preuss"
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2009, 01:31:29 AM
http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/ (http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/)
Post by: Kain on July 22, 2009, 10:03:01 PM
Post by: Huntboy on July 23, 2009, 12:09:23 AM
Post by: Machias on July 23, 2009, 08:21:10 AM
Post by: Kain on July 23, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
A copy of the email
"To whom it may concern,
I am just writing to ask if there has been any decision made on this issue. I was told that a decision might be made by the end of June and have yet to hear anything. I still believe that the decision to add the CPL requirement to only Archery and muzzleloader hunters while carrying a weapon for protection is wrong. It goes against state law and the state and federal constitutions. A CPL is not required to carry a weapon openly and a CPL is not required to carry concealed as long as you are engaging in a lawful outdoor activity. See RCW 9.41.060. Not only that it would not allow hunters under the age of 21 to carry a handgun for protection while archery or muzzleloader hunting. This make absolutely no sense because they are allowed to carry firearms at all other times. Please remove this rule that was added last minute to the regulations."
Post by: Kain on July 23, 2009, 09:11:42 AM
"from Preuss, Lori (DFW) <Lori.Preuss@dfw.wa.gov>
to Naithan Kain <naithankain@gmail.com>
cc clayton78@centurytel.net,
likesrain@hotmail.com,
jwilliams@nrahq.org,
shanevg@gmail.com,
"Director (DFW)" <director@dfw.wa.gov>,
callahan.jason@leg.wa.gov,
"Davis, Tom (DFW)" <Tom.Davis@dfw.wa.gov>,
"Cenci, Mike (DFW)" <Mike.Cenci@dfw.wa.gov>,
"McLeod, Kathryn (ATG)" <KathrynM@atg.wa.gov>
date Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM
subject RE: Response to your inquiry re: modern handguns while hunting
mailed-by dfw.wa.gov
Images from this sender are always displayed. Don't display from now on.
hide details 9:02 AM (7 minutes ago)
Hi, Naithan. We have not made a decision on this yet, but we haven’t forgotten about it. I assure you, we will notify you of our decision and intended course of action as soon as we have it. Stay tuned."
Post by: Kain on July 23, 2009, 10:44:00 AM
If anyone else wants to send an email.
amercianhunter@nrahq.org
Post by: Kain on July 23, 2009, 12:54:31 PM
Dear Mr. Kain,
Thank you for your confusing game law submission. It has been passed on to the appropriate editors and to a contact at NRA-ILA so that they may address these issues with lawmakers. Though we do not have the resources in Publications to answer each individual question, your question may be answered via the magazine. If you require help urgently on a matter concerning game laws, please contact our Hunter Services division for assistance at hunterservices@nrahq.org. Thank you for your interest in American Hunter.
Best Regards,
Sarah Taylor
Editorial Assistant, American Hunter
NRA Headquarters
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030-9400
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
Post by: Kain on July 23, 2009, 02:40:47 PM
Post by: colockumelk on July 23, 2009, 08:56:26 PM
Here's my analogy on needing a pistol or not needing it. I heard it on the radio the other day so I didn't make it up but it's a really good one.
Q: When do you need a seat belt?
A: Don't know?
Q: So why do you wear a seat belt all the time?
A: Because I don't know when I'm going to need it, and if I need it and am not wearing it then what good is the seat belt.
A pistol is the same way. You never know when you'll need it and it doesn't do you any good if you don't have it on you if you do need it.
Post by: bearpaw on July 24, 2009, 06:17:10 PM
Post by: Kain on July 24, 2009, 06:24:16 PM
Insurance, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, flare guns, or any other safety precaution.
Post by: Todd_ID on July 25, 2009, 11:59:33 PM
Post by: Kain on July 26, 2009, 08:45:39 AM
Here are some other threads on this issue. If you take the time to read through them you can see what I mean about us being divided. I think every one has the right to their own opinion but we spend a lot of time attacking each other (myself included). It is not helpful to any of us and in the end it will be what make us loose.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,4289.0.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,24881.msg287098.html#msg287098
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,28147.60.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,26065.msg297765.html#msg297765
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,26725.msg306401.html#msg306401
Post by: bearpaw on July 26, 2009, 08:55:16 AM
Post by: shoot-em-dead on July 26, 2009, 10:01:53 AM
Post by: curtmdavis on July 30, 2009, 08:43:43 AM
Thank you for contacting WDFW regarding archery hunting and carrying a handgun. Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.
WDFW is currently reviewing these rules and awaiting legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. The review is not yet complete at this time. Please feel free to contact me directly in the weeks ahead so that I may update you on any progress.
Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division
Post by: KillBilly on July 30, 2009, 09:04:27 AM
And there is no comparison to seatbelts in this arguments. If you are worried about being attacked by something, by all means wear your seatbelt.
Post by: Kain on July 30, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Whatever, I have hunted archery for years and never need a handgun for protection. I don't want the extra weight and will not carry one even if they do change the laws. It is an Archery Hunt, not a modern handgun for anything hunt.
And there is no comparison to seatbelts in this arguments. If you are worried about being attacked by something, by all means wear your seatbelt.
Hmm we are back to this again. We are not asking to HUNT with our handguns. We are asking that we be allowed to carry them if we want. We are asking that the same laws that apply to the rest of the outdoor users also apply to us. You dont have to carry and I have never either because it wasnt legal.
Are you against us being allowed to carry at all? If so why?
Post by: Kain on July 30, 2009, 10:30:20 AM
Here is the reply I and some others that are working on this recieved this week. I belive that this will get turned around, soon.
Thank you for contacting WDFW regarding archery hunting and carrying a handgun. Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.
WDFW is currently reviewing these rules and awaiting legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. The review is not yet complete at this time. Please feel free to contact me directly in the weeks ahead so that I may update you on any progress.
Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division
I hope you are about this being turned around. Good job on getting involved.
Post by: CP on July 30, 2009, 10:40:58 AM
Thank you for your recent email regarding our muzzleloading regulations.
Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.
There have been several similar questions regarding our new regulations concerning archery and muzzleloading. Our agency is currently reviewing the new regulations and I expect a decision within the next month.
Since there are no archery or muzzleloading seasons currently underway, the timing will have no adverse impact on archers or muzzleloaders.
The original intent, as you noted, was to limit possession of a pistol to only those archers and muzzleloaders who possess a CPL.
Mik Mikitik
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Program
Hunter Education Division
Post by: KillBilly on July 30, 2009, 10:46:07 AM
Whatever, I have hunted archery for years and never need a handgun for protection. I don't want the extra weight and will not carry one even if they do change the laws. It is an Archery Hunt, not a modern handgun for anything hunt.
And there is no comparison to seatbelts in this arguments. If you are worried about being attacked by something, by all means wear your seatbelt.
Hmm we are back to this again. We are not asking to HUNT with our handguns. We are asking that we be allowed to carry them if we want. We are asking that the same laws that apply to the rest of the outdoor users also apply to us. You dont have to carry and I have never either because it wasnt legal.
Are you against us being allowed to carry at all? If so why?
Since you ask... in my opinion, if you want to carry a modern weapon then chose a modern weapon hunt. If you choose a primitive weapon hunt then you carry primitive weapons only.. it's as simple as that and that's the way it's been for years.
And that is my opinion...
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Post by: curtmdavis on July 30, 2009, 11:11:35 AM
The last thing I want to do here is start or continue a pissing match on this subject, and I respect your opinion. If I choose to hunt with a bow or muzzle loader, or a camera, the choice I make to protect myself, has nothing to do with my hunt or my chosen equipment. If I wanted to hunt with a handgun, I would buy a modern tag and load up some wristbreakers and be at it.
Sir, all I am asking is that the game department get in line with the RCW that allows me my right to carry a side arm. Believe you me, I am not going to ruin the hunt of a lifetime by attempting to take down a bull elk with my .45ACP. If it were my intentions to use my handgun to bag an animal while hunting during an archery season, I wouldn't be asking the game department to change their ways. Probably wouldn't even bother buying a tag.
For the record, I have been in a situation where a handgun has saved my life, and that of my at the time infant son. That was almost 20 years ago, but things aren't looking much happier today.
Thank you gentlemen.
Post by: Kain on July 30, 2009, 11:17:32 AM
Thanks KillBilly. I can respect your opinion even if I dont agree with it. I can see your side of it but I just dont think that me or any other archery hunter, carrying a handgun while out hunting, will have any negative effect on you enjoying your archery season. No more than any other person in the woods at the time is allowed to do. If your reason for not liking it is because of the potential for abuse I can understand that also. I just dont feel like I should be punished because there are poachers out there. We are all loosing our hunting opportunities and rights because of them. You seem like a good guy from all the other posts I have seen from you and I am sure we can agree on most things. Just not this.
Since you ask... in my opinion, if you want to carry a modern weapon then chose a modern weapon hunt. If you choose a primitive weapon hunt then you carry primitive weapons only.. it's as simple as that and that's the way it's been for years.
And that is my opinion...
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Post by: curtmdavis on July 30, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
(These are all the old arguments against gun control so I will stop with them.)
We do need to be united, as if we argue amongst ourselves for rights that are not going to in adversely affect our hunting, we are never going to be able to stand against the tyrannies of the subjects that will.
This isn't about opinions about what you would do, or have ever needed. Its about the law, and our Rights. The game department is breaking the law, by denying us our right.
There is no need to call some one an idiot for disagreeing, just as there is no need for telling me I am a wimp for feeling the need to carry my pistol.
Its a choice, that I have made, to shoulder the burden for my own protection, and not to depend on someone else.
We in the hunting community have all made decisions like this.
We choose not to let some else do our killing for us. ( We hunt and do it ourselves. )
We carry daypacks ( so search and rescue doesn't have to come haul us out )
We choose to harvest our own meat. ( Financially irresponsible as it may be :P)
Some of us choose to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
Be good.
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 11:38:24 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 30, 2009, 11:42:03 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2009, 11:51:40 AM
1-bowhunters, like anybody else in the woods at the same time should be able to carry sidearms because everyone else can...because thats the law in WA. it is our right to carry, hunting or not and thats the way it should be.
2-bowhunters shouldn't carry a sidearm because they are bowhunting. if they choose to bowhunt, no sidearm is/was part of the regulations of the bowhunting regs...no guns with you on a bowhunt. choosing to bowhunt subjects you to that modification of the law because you are bowhunting.
i personally don't hold a stake in this argument...don't even currently own a pistol...but i can see both sides of the argument.
p.s. i wish my name was mik mikitik. it makes me laugh.
Post by: Kain on July 30, 2009, 12:15:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2009, 12:42:58 PM
1. We have a lawful right to carry.
2. We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3. We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.
When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost. :twocents:
Post by: curtmdavis on July 30, 2009, 12:55:15 PM
It seems pretty simple to me.
1. We have a lawful right to carry.
2. We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3. We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.
When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost. :twocents:
man, that's beautiful
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2009, 01:06:07 PM
It seems pretty simple to me.
1. We have a lawful right to carry.
2. We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3. We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.
When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost. :twocents:
Dale with all due respect, you're 10x the outdoorsman i am, but if you really think that #'s 2 and 3 have an impact on the thinking of a guy who decides to use his pistol to cheat, i think you're sadly waaaayyyyy wrong.
we have laws preventing poaching, but do they work?
nope...
again, i would love to carry a pistol during archery just in case i run into a bunch of tweekers, and clearly see it's our right to carry a gun, but it's an incredibly slippery slope. the right to carry that pistol just increased the odds of a guy who's thinking about cheating to actually cheat.
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 01:33:55 PM
It seems pretty simple to me.
1. We have a lawful right to carry.
2. We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3. We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.
When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost. :twocents:
Dale with all due respect, you're 10x the outdoorsman i am, but if you really think that #'s 2 and 3 have an impact on the thinking of a guy who decides to use his pistol to cheat, i think you're sadly waaaayyyyy wrong.
we have laws preventing poaching, but do they work?
nope...
again, i would love to carry a pistol during archery just in case i run into a bunch of tweekers, and clearly see it's our right to carry a gun, but it's an incredibly slippery slope. the right to carry that pistol just increased the odds of a guy who's thinking about cheating to actually cheat.
A very polite :bs: ! Carrying a sidearm doesn't make you more or less ethical. If you are going to cheat like that you would have already been carrying concealed. Gawd I never would have broken the law, but man this thing on my side...it just made me do it. :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2009, 01:51:45 PM
as in...hey now i don't have to hide the pistol...it's just right here for me to use.
bang.
dead elk.
it's just like all the poachers on the cedar river. they run rampant now because you can fish there now...they didn't used to because the river was never open...now they just look like all the other fishermen.
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 04:12:18 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2009, 04:14:29 PM
i give up.
Post by: Machias on July 30, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 30, 2009, 04:52:51 PM
First I need to say, I didn't read all the posts but I was thinkin about this and the WDFW is really only an agency that administers the law. I don't think you will get anywhere writing letters to them alone.
Are you copying all your letters to the WDFW Commission or to your legislators.
The Commission and the legislature create or change laws and codes. This will have to be resolved by the Commission or the legislature .
Post by: Kain on July 30, 2009, 05:47:15 PM
commission@dfw.wa.gov,
wildthing@dfw.wa.gov,
director@dfw.wa.gov,
turcocmt@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamSpokane@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamEphrata@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamYakima@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMillCreek@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamVancouver@dfw.wa.gov,
TeamMontesano@dfw.wa.gov
I got a response from Lori Preuss, after the NRA got involved, with all these emails CC so when I respond or ask for an update I reply all. There is the director, AG, NRA HQ and others.
"from Preuss, Lori (DFW) <Lori.Preuss@dfw.wa.gov>
to Naithan Kain <naithankain@gmail.com>
cc clayton78@centurytel.net,
likesrain@hotmail.com,
jwilliams@nrahq.org,
shanevg@gmail.com,
"Director (DFW)" <director@dfw.wa.gov>,
callahan.jason@leg.wa.gov,
"Davis, Tom (DFW)" <Tom.Davis@dfw.wa.gov>,
"Cenci, Mike (DFW)" <Mike.Cenci@dfw.wa.gov>,
"McLeod, Kathryn (ATG)" <KathrynM@atg.wa.gov>
I have not included any legislators that I know of. If you know who I can forward these to, that would like to see them, I will be happy to send them.
Post by: bearpaw on July 31, 2009, 10:24:02 AM
Quote
It seems pretty simple to me.
1. We have a lawful right to carry.
2. We also have laws preventing the pistol to be used in any way for the archery or muzzleloader hunt.
3. We have law enforcement and a poachers hotline to take care of those who break the law.
When laws are managed to make enforcement easier, rights are lost.
Dale with all due respect, you're 10x the outdoorsman i am, but if you really think that #'s 2 and 3 have an impact on the thinking of a guy who decides to use his pistol to cheat, i think you're sadly waaaayyyyy wrong.
we have laws preventing poaching, but do they work?
jackelope....I understand your school of thought, I both agree with it and respect it, but here's and example: the game warden had a 7x7 elk rack in his truck this spring that he had confiscated....poaching case....I think a guy shot it with a rifle in archery season , not positive, but i think that is was what he said when I asked.
So I have to also agree with Machias, poacher are poachers no matter what the law reads. That guy used a rifle....he was simply a poacher and they don't care what the law is.
The problem I see is that too many rules take away form the legal person. I just think it's important to include that thought in our laws. :twocents:
Post by: Kain on July 31, 2009, 11:26:07 AM
What some believe is that is OK with them as long as it is only archery and MZL hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on August 13, 2009, 08:21:17 AM
If we create laws to do all enforcement Kain is right, they will need to take away the guns from everyone....
Post by: Machias on August 13, 2009, 12:22:41 PM
Peer pressure by responsible hunters is making a difference, I do not beleive poaching is near as accepted as it was 10 or 20 years ago.
If we create laws to do all enforcement Kain is right, they will need to take away the guns from everyone....
If they did that, poaching would still take place. There are LOTS of ways to poach wildlife without a firearm. Unethical folks will always find a way.
Post by: bearpaw on August 27, 2009, 09:26:20 AM
Quote
If they did that, poaching would still take place. There are LOTS of ways to poach wildlife without a firearm. Unethical folks will always find a way.
Machias you are exactly right which supports the phylosophy that further gun laws are relatively useless.....unless of coarse there is other agenda to be accomplished with the gun laws.
Post by: Kain on September 03, 2009, 07:02:23 PM
Post by: Kain on September 03, 2009, 07:08:37 PM
http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp150/Naithankain/LettertoSenatorMorton.jpg
http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp150/Naithankain/lettertoSenatorMorton2.jpg