| |  |
| Home | Law Advice | Insurance Advice | Community |
| |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
10-23-2009, 09:57 PM
| |||
| |||
State constitution issueWisconsin state constitution article 1 section 26 reads: "The people have the right to fish, hunt, trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. [2001 J.R. 16, 2003 J.R. 8, vote April 2003]" Many townships in the state have ordinances that restrict or outright prohibit hunting, fishing or trapping in areas where it would otherwise be allowed under state statute. When the amendment referenced above was passed, I recall that the "reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law" were defined as "existing state statutes regulating hunting fishing and trapping activities". Are the town ordinances unconstitutional? |
|
#2
10-23-2009, 10:01 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ There are at least 17 lawsuits (!!) pending in various courts, including the US Supreme Court, asking if Obama is a natural born citizen (as req'd by Art II, Sec 1 of the US Constitution). Why has he spent over $1.35M in legal fees to block disclosure... rather than spend $12 for a VALID birth cert to settle the matter? The 'certificate' he has presented doesn't qualify to get a drivers license, wouldn't allow a child to qualify for Little League, or for a real citizen to get a US passport! |
|
#3
10-28-2009, 04:46 PM
| |||
| |||
| The town chairman was going to ask the towns legal counsel for an opinion. So, I don't know what the answer is yet. |
|
#4
10-29-2009, 09:28 PM
| |||
| |||
| Reasonable restrictions were obviously not defined in the section you quoted. subject only to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law This doesn't say "state law". My bet is local statutes are valid. However, your best bet is to wait for the legal opinion of the town counsel. |
|
Linear Mode
