Federal hunter-safety statute....

[Superfly]

16 U.S.C. §§ 5201-5207, September 13, 1994.
------------------------
Link

5201. Obstruction of a lawful hunt

It is a violation of this section intentionally to engage in any physical conduct that significantly hinders a lawful hunt.

5206. Rule of construction

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair a right guaranteed to a person under the first article of amendment to the Constitution or limit any legal remedy for forceful interference with a person's lawful participation in speech or peaceful assembly.

-----------------------

My questions:

1) What constitutes "physical conduct"?
2) Do the actions of protesters, when viewed by the legislature as sufficient grounds to interfere and/or suspend the participation of young and legal hunters (for both partys' safety), constitute a "significant hinderance" of a lawful hunt?

Brian

[alwynsw]

1. It would seem to me

That the hunters who were banned from this hunt - their parents or guardians in this case because of the hunters' age - need to file the complaint both against the protestors and the officals who refused to take the steps necessary to assure them a safe an unhindered hunt.

"(2) a sworn affidavit from an individual and a determination by the Secretary that the statement contains sufficient factual allegations to create a reasonable belief that a violation of section 5201 of this title has occurred; the Secretary may request the Attorney General of the United States to institute a civil action for the imposition and collection of the civil penalty under this section."

[Superfly]

2. Agreed.

I would be very upset if I, in good faith, had purchased the licenses, and made my child attend the requisite training events, only to have all that go for naught. They should file a grievance and seek reconciliation.

[MrSandman]

10. Anti-hunters now

federal and state fugitive?? lol

[Romulus]

3. I noticed

the accusation of you being a "lying lunatic asswipe neo-nazi" (re: a federal hunter harassment law) hasn't been retracted since you posted this.

Maybe it's early. :shrug:

(edited to add "lunatic" :evilgrin:)

[Superfly]

4. I'll tell you something.

The people who accused me of that are not the most honest nor honorable people I have ever met (so to speak), so I am not holding my breath.

Brian

[MrBenchley]

5. Sure you wouldn't that to edit that post

so you can change your story later?

[Superfly]

6. Case in point, Romulus.

NT

[MrBenchley]

7. Yup...

As I recall, somebody yesterday was claiming they'd NEVER EVER EVER said there WAS a federal statute.....

[Superfly]

8. And I still didn't say it, in that thread.

I never made that statement, in that thread.

I retracted the word "federal" before anybody responded to the message until I could substantiate that claim (which I now can). I am NOW saying that it is a federal crime to interfere with a lawful hunt.

B

Edited to add "in that thread"

[alwynsw]

9. Sticks and stones, Fly

We still love ya!