In a civilian situation firing a gun without a specific target does not make sense and is not sensible. It is irresponsible, dangerous, possibly criminal, and most importantly can be deadly. You have no clue what you are shooting at when you attempt to "zing" bullets over their head. What if there is a second hunter in tree stand behind the first guy in a ground blind. You go "zinging'' lead over the first guys head and hit the second guy.
I like it when someone cites the laws being violated and then also includes the citation. This old crap of this is, in violation or this isn't in violation, is merely OPINION unless you can provide the plain and simple words of the law. I spent an entire30+ year Federal career enforcing the words of the law and was a subject matter expert witness numerous times for the government. Trust me what one thinks it says and what it actually says are entirely different, at times. The sane thing holds true for game laws, private property etc. The funny thing about the so-called nuance in the words of the laws is that when an issue gets before a court of law, I have never seen a judge NOT render an OPINION that is anything other than in accordance with the plain and simple words as written in the law. ALL the shucking and jiving comes from the litigants trying to persuade an arbiter to see the words as they do when the words plainly "say what they say and don't say what they do NOT say." They do so for a reason.
As I am a student of the words of the laws, I actually contacted the Illinois Dept. of natural resources to inquire about this very issue of Conservation officers entering PRIVATE Property. I was quoted exactly what I posted above:
So are you saying wardens can or cannot enter private property?
That sums it up right there. It says all lands and waters. I am not sure how much clearer it can be. Game officers can and will enter any land they chose. I have many other examples including one in which a game officer came to my workplace to talk to me about a situation. I enjoy talking with them and I have zero issues with them coming on my land nor did my father or grandfather. The DOC added law enforcement in 1925 and none of the three of us have ever had a problem with the nor received any type of ticket.
I guess in Indiana the above actions are legal but in Illinois those actions will land you on the wrong side of the courtroom. On the end you may prevail but your lawyer bill will be huge
I bet you lock your car and your front door, we don't, and have never had a theft nor a break in.
Like a lot of other things people want to pick and choose what they want to utilize in the words written in law, religion et. al. issues. The law is ACTUALLY written as a whole and not something one can pick out what they like and disregard what they do not like or that does NOT fit into their agenda. Your interpretation leaves out much language before and after what you claim says it all. Prior to those words are "pursuant to law" and after "to enforce the provisions of the wildlife code." In doing any of those things an officer of the law must also abide by the law and this is where probable cause and or a reasonable suspicion that laws are being violated comes into play. None of those things include one entering private property Willy-Nilly without probable cause to do so, they can however enter with a search warrant as that would have been approved via a court of law where they established a probable cause with a judge. Just as you sight some of your experiences, I have hunted my entire life and with dogs that have no idea of private property lines and have experienced much of what I have stated personally and in front of a judge in court. That includes a landowner shooting and killing my hunting buddies NEWLY purchased $1800.00 dog that had a **** treed in his barn, after tracking it from property we had permission to be on. By the way even in this case the sheriff had to go talk to the landowner to get permission before we could even go into the barn to get the dog. MY point is that folks need to know the legal interpretation of the laws of the state they are in and NOT what they believe them to be or what they have practiced over the years. A lot of hunters, in this state even today believe that they have the right to enter upon private property to fetch their hunting dogs and or game when they do NOT and neither does a landowner have to allow them to do so when being accompanied by a game warden or other law enforcement officer. The only OPINION in such matters is one tested and rendered in a court of law and not one via public opinion.
The Institute for Justice is weighing in on these issues... In a TN case the wildlife folks lost on Constitutional grounds.
You have went off on private landowner rights. That has nothing to do with what a game warden can do. They have zero relation to each other
So whats the rest of the story? I'm sure that the Game Warden Service didn't just throw a dart at a map to choose what property to watch. It would seem that something prompted an investigation, what was it? They don't just walk around the property and install surveillance without a reason. Odd that there is no mention or explanation as to why the property was being watched. Seems to me that this a result of a botched investigation where somebody jumped the gun and installed surveillance before any warrants were issued.....My guess would be illegal or off season hunting complaints on large tracts of private land and land owners who don't care about following the law.....
AGAIN you are interpreting the entrance upon private property by anyone as if some are above the laws AND they are NOT. let me just refer you to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and remind you that NO) state law supersedes that of the Constitution. GrezG's post above is exactly applicable to GAME WARDENS entering private property.
