DNR task force nets more than $10k from citations

K

kb97z

New member
I'm glad to hear both sides on this issue ....I always wonder who are these ppl, that always vote for the hand wringing politicians that beleive that we need more and more legislation to control "THOSE OTHER PPL"
The main reason ppl hate the DNR is because the entire dept. is unconstitutional based on there unelected, uncontrolled power over the general populous.[/QUOTE]

x2
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
I'm curious.....how are DNR cops any different from local, county, and state cops? We don't elect them, either (other than the county sheriff). And they also use our tax money to write tickets, too.
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
County Sheriff IS an elected office. Sherriff deputies are sworn into there positions.
The Sheriff is suppose to be the highest enforcement position in the country.
The DNR has been GIVEN (by who?) authority to usurp that power. The DNR is so powerful ,they can walk onto and in to search your private property without a warrant.
The EPA is also uncontrolled in much the same way, and also unconstitutional in my opinion.
Bad law remains bad and in place until it is changed legislatively or in court.
Thats why we also need to make sure our judges (many appointed) do not have a political adgenda in an effort to legislate from the bench.
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
bankers_hours said:
Sorry if this was defined prior, but what does

"Forfeitures totaled $4,825" represent?
Click to expand...

Pleading guilty or no contest results in forfeiture of stated fine, or if pled down,....reduced fine.

I think the fact that there are court costs shows that at least some ppl fought the ticket,... although it seems kind of early for the case to have had a court date come up already, so I'm not sure on that one
 
Last edited:
R

russholio

Well-known member
snobuilder said:
County Sheriff IS an elected office. Sherriff deputies are sworn into there positions.
The Sheriff is suppose to be the highest enforcement position in the country.
The DNR has been GIVEN (by who?) authority to usurp that power. The DNR is so powerful ,they can walk onto and in to search your private property without a warrant.
The EPA is also uncontrolled in much the same way, and also unconstitutional in my opinion.
Bad law remains bad and in place until it is changed legislatively or in court.
Thats why we also need to make sure our judges (many appointed) do not have a political adgenda in an effort to legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. But what about local and state police?
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
russholio said:
Thanks for the clarification. But what about local and state police?
Click to expand...

Sheriff is high office because it is an elected position,....the constitution was written as a document to point out that ALL POWER FLOWS FROM THE PPL TO THE GOVERNMENT....Once you comprehend that, the rest is simple,....its just that 200+ years of legislation has continually blurred what the Constitution says.


ALL military and law enforcement personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution and NOT any current administration that may feel they are BIGGER that the constitution....

This thread is about the DNR and its power.
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
I understand the concept of power flowing from the people to the government. I also understand that we elect people to make decisions on our behalf. Some of those decisions (for right or wrong, for better or for worse) have been to create many different branches of law enforcement (local, state, DNR, FBI, BATF, U.S. Marshals, to name a few -- the sheriff, to the best of my knowledge, is the only one that the people elect directly).

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jackass. I just am having trouble comprehending why it is unconstitutional to have a law enforcement branch whose duty is to enforce the laws pertaining to outdoor recreation (trails, hunting, fishing, etc.) That they may have too much power, I will grant you. But if they're unconstitutional because the people didn't directly elect them, well, then it would seem all the other branches that we didn't elect are, too.
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
Ultimately,...through states rights,...the elected Sheriff has jurisdiction over all those other branches of law enforcement you mention,...get it? (not sarcasm) It sounds funny because the powers that were intended to go "to the ppl" and enforced locally by there elected Sheriff, have been shredded to the point of ridicule for even pointing out such facts.

Kinda like the question,..."When and how did our legislators grant themselves the power to give themselves raises?"
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
Got it. I must say, I've never heard that interpretation before (not saying it's right or it's wrong), but then again, I'm no constitutional expert.

On a side note....they fought a little war over that "states' rights" issue back in 1861. Didn't turn out so well for the proponents. But that's a separate subject for a different thread! :)
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
whoa,...far from an expert here, LOL
But I guess my point is, entering and searching your premises without a search warrant isn't granted to any other branch of law enforcement as far as I know...
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
"On a side note....they fought a little war over that "states' rights" issue back in 1861. Didn't turn out so well for the proponents. But that's a separate subject for a different thread!"

Was that the war where ths federal government went to war with the states?
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
snobuilder said:
whoa,...far from an expert here, LOL
But I guess my point is, entering and searching your premises without a search warrant isn't granted to any other branch of law enforcement as far as I know...
Click to expand...

Nor as far as I know.....but I don't see where that was done in the article from the very first post.

snobuilder said:
"On a side note....they fought a little war over that "states' rights" issue back in 1861. Didn't turn out so well for the proponents. But that's a separate subject for a different thread!"

Was that the war where ths federal government went to war with the states?
Click to expand...

I guess that's one perspective of looking at it.
 
S

snobuilder

Well-known member
"Nor as far as I know.....but I don't see where that was done in the article from the very first post."

My comments stem from the end of the article where the town chairman spoke out against the strongarm tactics of the DNR, and points to the uncontrolled power they have which I say is unconstittutional, and cannot be dismissed just because an un warrented search was not performed ....this time.
 
Q

qber

New member
Alcohol and bar talk have a way of blowing things a little out of proportion. There are a lot of riders who's marginal technical ability on the sled is markedly "improved" with alcohol. I'm not a tea totaler but I don't mind seeing some control of this problem, especially in crowed events. The bad press resulting from the actions of a few really hurt our sport and if a few citations prevent bigger problems that is probably warrented. A few knuckleheads can ruin the sport.
As far as the arrogance of the DNR officers is concerned that's a different issue but I wonder how cooperative the sledders they stopped were.
 
R

russholio

Well-known member
Personally, I'd like to hear the DNR's side of the story (after all, there ARE two sides to every story) before I judge that the tactics they used were "strong arm".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top