Quote:
Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty
By the way, Mark Stevens sort of bursted my bubble yesterday when I was on a conference call with him and he stated that those case laws such as shuttles worth v. Birmingham, and those other cases stating that you can't license a right are referring to Federal rights, so he advised that the state can issue a license.
|
Here is the angle, on the condition that the state uses taxpayer money to plant fish in the pacific ocean....:
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 25.
The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of
the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon;
and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing
in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken."
Isn't that essentially what they have done... they have made it a crime to fish coastal water...
Pay me, CDFW, for your right to fish, or its a crime!
This does not apply to county owned land, as it is described in the same case.
I don't know if this angle would work, just a theory.
The real question is what year was the State Fish Exchange Act written; how long ago have CA people been required to buy a fishing license?