NJ Fined because of physical location

[chlsbrns]

Do you think you can take your questions to an attorney in your state and pay him to answer you since you're paying no attention to what anyone here has to say?

I'm not necessarily asking questions other than when I show a person what they stated is incorrect much like you did when you replied to the first reply in this thread. You know the post where it was stated that a turkey is a migratory bird. You corrected him correct? Are you saying now that I should have listened to him? And all the others who posted incorrect info? Including the lawyers who deleted their posts probably due my showing them that they were incorrect.

 

[quincy]

... Do you think that the regulations are an accurate interpretation of the law?

I think the regulation on 300' from bait pile needs tweaking.

Because you have already filed a petition to repeal the regulation, I am not sure what you are looking for.

 

[chlsbrns]

I think the regulation on 300' from bait pile needs tweaking.

Because you have already filed a petition to repeal the regulation, I am not sure what you are looking for.

In my last post I was actually asking about the hunter orange regulations. They clearly do not interpret or implement the law.

As far as the 300' from bait while possessing a weapon turkey regulation... it does not impliment or interpret any law. It is basically the Fish Game Counsel making laws that they have no authority to make. The only law is the law that is in my OP. It is not a violation of that law to possess a weapon within 300' of bait when turkey hunting from the ground. It is a violation of the Regulation that the counsel made with no authority to make such a regulation due to the fact that it doesn't interpret or implement any law.

My original post was about my claim that a law takes precedence over a regulation. I asked if I correct. That let to a multitude of incorrect statements that I tried to correct.

The petition to repeal laws and Proceedures are a real pain! They are required to reply within 15 days from when they receive the petition. That would be today or tomorrow. They can choose to not respond. Then I have to wait 60 days and do this and that and then wait 90 days for this and that ECT. It's a long drawn out process. The law is that they must continue to enforce the protested regulation until it is repealed.

It's sad that a law enforcement agency that must know that I am correct will continue to enforce regulations that they know should have never been made. They ignore the laws that they are required to follow to make a regulation while they fine us for violating the regulation.

The Regulation that I petitioned to repeal does not interpret or Implement and law. It's as simple as that!

 

[quincy]

In my last post I was actually asking about the hunter orange regulations. They clearly do not interpret or implement the law.

As far as the 300' from bait while possessing a weapon turkey regulation... it does not impliment or interpret any law. It is basically the Fish Game Counsel making laws that they have no authority to make. The only law is the law that is in my OP. It is not a violation of that law to possess a weapon within 300' of bait when turkey hunting from the ground. It is a violation of the Regulation that the counsel made with no authority to make such a regulation due to the fact that it doesn't interpret or implement any law.

My original post was about my claim that a law takes precedence over a regulation. I asked if I correct. That let to a multitude of incorrect statements that I tried to correct.

The petition to repeal laws and Proceedures are a real pain! They are required to reply within 15 days from when they receive the petition. That would be today or tomorrow. They can choose to not respond. Then I have to wait 60 days and do this and that and then wait 90 days for this and that ECT. It's a long drawn out process. The law is that they must continue to enforce the protested regulation until it is repealed.

It's sad that a law enforcement agency that must know that I am correct will continue to enforce regulations that they know should have never been made. They ignore the laws that they are required to follow to make a regulation while they fine us for violating the regulation.

The Regulation that I petitioned to repeal does not interpret or Implement and law. It's as simple as that!

Well, then. Good luck to you.

 

[chlsbrns]

Well, then. Good luck to you.

Thanks!

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Including the lawyers who deleted their posts probably due my showing them that they were incorrect.

I didn't delete any posts.

 

[quincy]

I didn't delete any posts.

I don't know that anyone did.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Yes those are the regulations that clearly conflict with the law. Regulations are required to implement and interpret law. I posted the law above. Do you think those regulations implement or interpret the law?

That link to which you refer was not to the text of the regulations. It was to an annual summary of the hunting rules — both statute and regulation — that the Fish and Wildlife Division puts out. Since it is simply a summary, it may not accurately describe some of the rules or provide enough detail on them. In any event, since a summary put out by the Department is not a law or regulation it doesn't have force of law.

The actual text of the hunting regulations are in the Fish and Wildlife Code. I see nothing in those regulations at all about what hunters are required to wear. So what is the actual regulation (not some summary, but the actual regulation) you are talking about on required hunter gear that you think conflicts with the statute? I'm not seeing anything that poses a conflict on this.

 

[quincy]

That link to which you refer was not to the text of the regulations. It was to an annual summary of the hunting rules — both statute and regulation — that the Fish and Wildlife Division puts out. Since it is simply a summary, it may not accurately describe some of the rules or provide enough detail on them. In any event, since a summary put out by the Department is not a law or regulation it doesn't have force of law.

The actual text of the hunting regulations are in the Fish and Wildlife Code. I see nothing in those regulations at all about what hunters are required to wear. So what is the actual regulation (not some summary, but the actual regulation) you are talking about on required hunter gear that you think conflicts with the statute? I'm not seeing anything that poses a conflict on this.

The statute excludes some hunters from wearing hunter orange. The regulation appears to exclude additional hunters from wearing hunter orange.

IF that is true, those hunters who are excluded from wearing hunter orange by regulation would be violating state law if they don't wear hunter orange.

I have found conflicting information. And I can see where hunters would be confused by what has been posted by the Fish and Game commission.

The regulation posted for hunters DOES seem to exclude turkey hunters from wearing hunter orange. The statute, however, appears to exclude only wildfowl hunters from wearing hunter orange.

I also agree with chlsbrns that the regulation on hunting near bait piles is vague at best.

I DON'T think his original argument that the bait hunting regulation conflicts with state law has merit, however. The regulation expands on the state law to include ground hunting, but it does not affect state law on bait hunting from elevated stands.

 

[chlsbrns]

The statute excludes some hunters from wearing hunter orange. The regulation appears to exclude additional hunters from wearing hunter orange.

IF that is true, those hunters who are excluded from wearing hunter orange by regulation would be violating state law if they don't wear hunter orange.

I have found conflicting information. And I can see where hunters would be confused by what has been posted by the Fish and Game commission.

The regulation posted for hunters DOES seem to exclude turkey hunters from wearing hunter orange. The statute, however, appears to exclude only wildfowl hunters from wearing hunter orange.

I also agree with chlsbrns that the regulation on hunting near bait piles is vague at best.

I DON'T think his original argument that the bait hunting regulation conflicts with state law has merit, however. The regulation expands on the state law to include ground hunting, but it does not affect state law on bait hunting from elevated stands.

There is a whole lot that I didn't post mainly because I was more interested in what others thought about preemption. Does a Law preempt a regulation. Yes it does! In other words The Law preempts the regulation. Possessing a weapon when hunting turkey from the ground within 300' of bait is legal. The regulation is preempted by law.

If I am wrong about that I have pages of Laws that the Game Council is supposed to follow but doesn't such as...

As I've already stated the regulation must interpret and implement a law. There is no law that forbids the ground turkey 300' regulation. The council basically made their own law. They are not allowed to make laws! Only regulation that interpret and implement Law.

Then there is:
1:30-2.1 Clarity of rules

6. The document shall be sufficiently complete and informative as to permit the public to understand accurately and plainly the legal authority, purposes, and expected consequences of the adoption, readoption, or amendment of the rule.

They have no legal authority!

Then there is:
1:30-2.3 Single subject for each section
The section in question has two subjects. Methods and Restrictions. In addition they are only allowed methods and means they are not allowed to make restrictions.

Then there is:

Title 52:14B-3a

a. A State agency shall follow the administrative rule-making requirements set forth in the “Administrative Procedure Act,” P.L.1968, c. 410 ( C.52:14B-1 et seq. ), and shall only implement rules that have been adopted in accordance with those rule-making requirements.

c. A regulatory guidance document that has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to P.L.1968, c. 410, shall not:

(1) impose any new or additional requirements that are not included in the State or federal law or rule that the regulatory guidance document is intended to clarify or explain;  or
(2) be used by the State agency as a substitute for the State or federal law or rule for enforcement purposes.

There is more but I think this is enough to clarify?

 

[quincy]

The problem you are having is you are seeing a "preemption" of law where there is none. The bait regulation does not preempt the bait law.

 

[chlsbrns]

The problem you are having is you are seeing a "preemption" of law where there is none. The bait regulation does not preempt the bait law.

I'm sorry but I'm confused? I'm saying that a Statute preempt a regulation. You seem to be saying the same in an opposite way. "The bait regulation does not preempt the bait law"

I don't see how you can say there is no conflict. If I possess a weapon on the ground turkey hunting near bait I am not violating the law but am violating the regulation. That's not a conflict? It would be ok for them to fine me when I'm not violating the law? In that scenario the law would not preempt the regulation? (assuming that the regulation is actually implementing or interpreting a Law as required which of course it isn't)

 

[chlsbrns]

https://forum.freeadvice.com/threads/nj-fined-because-of-physical-location.654634/page-2#post-3635454

 

[not2cleverRed]

I'm sorry but I'm confused? I'm saying that a Statute preempt a regulation. You seem to be saying the same in an opposite way. "The bait regulation does not preempt the bait law"

I don't see how you can say there is no conflict. If I possess a weapon on the ground turkey hunting near bait I am not violating the law but am violating the regulation. That's not a conflict? It would be ok for them to fine me when I'm not violating the law? In that scenario the law would not preempt the regulation? (assuming that the regulation is actually implementing or interpreting a Law as required which of course it isn't)

Yes. You are confused.

5 pages, and you are no understanding anything.

Regulations are enforceable. Period.

However, I realize that such an answer is unacceptable to you. So my legal advice is to retain a lawyer.