Question about some odd AZGFD laws and rules

[bonecollector777]

So I was pretty bored tonight and decided to read through practically every AZGFD law there is and I came across some interesting things. There are a couple so I will post them in a list

 

1.On the Game and Fish website they claim that it is illegal to carry any sort of firearm while archery hunting. According to ARS 17-305 it states the following: The possession of legal weapons, devices, ammunition or magazines, which are not authorized to take wildlife, is not prohibited while hunting if the weapon or device is not used to take wildlife. So which is it? If I am archery hunting and have a rifle "that is not authorized to take wildlife because it's a archery season" then what am I doing wrong by having a rifle with me according to the law?

 

2.Next is about spotlighting with a gun in the vehicle. According to the AZGFD website and according to everyone in Arizona, at least we think it is, it is illegal to have a spotlight and a gun in the vehicle. It also says this: According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, spotlighting is shining any artificial light source to assist in the taking of wildlife. ARS 17-301 states that a person shall not take any wildlife using a jacklight or any other artificial light. ARS 17-240 B states this: Devices, excepting firearms, which cannot be used lawfully for the taking of wildlife and being so used at the time seized may be destroyed. So according to both rules and laws it is only illegal if you are taking wildlife. The spotlight has to be being so used at the time seized, or in other words you must be killing something with it at the time to make it illegal.

 

3. Next, concerns the number of rounds you can have in your gun while hunting. I found this one especially strange because they have two completely contradicting laws and rules. Lets start with the FAQ's on their website where someone asked this: Can I use a semi-automatic if the magazine is plugged to hold the legal number of cartridges? Which is answered: if the magazine contains a plug to hold the legal number of rounds it can be used. Now lets go to the actual Arizona Law ARS 17-231-3 which states this: Duties of the commission are to Establish hunting, trapping and fishing rules and prescribe the manner and methods that may be used in taking wildlife, but the commission shall not limit or restrict the magazine capacity of any authorized firearm.

If you look in their regulations they state in their rules R12-4-303 A-3,4 the following: An individual shall not use or possess any of thefollowing while taking wildlife: 3. Shotguns larger than 10 gauge or shotguns capable of holding more than five shells in the magazine, unless plugged with a one-piece filler that cannot be removed without disassembling the gun, and that limits the magazine capacity to five shells; 4. Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a magazine capacity of more than five cartridges, unless the magazine is modified with a filler or stop that cannot be removed without disassembling the magazine. How in the world did they pass that rule when the law specifically says it's illegal for them to do so?

 

4.Lastly, concerns using silencers when hunting. I'm not to sure about this one and have seen in some places there was a law passed saying you could use them while hunting. But back to the subject. According to ARS 17-251-A it states the following:The commission shall not adopt or enforce any rule that prohibits the lawful possession or use of a firearm silencer or muffler, including for the taking of wildlife or while hunting. Now lets go to the departments regulations as of this year. They state the following in rule R12-4-303-A.5:An individual shall not use or possess any of the following while taking wildlife: Contrivances designed to silence, muffle, or minimize the report of a firearm. Once again how can the commission pass a rule that is illegal according to ARS 17-251-A?

 

These are just a few of the fishy and strange things the department has passed or led us to believe are illegal and who knows how many other rules are in place that are illegal. Just curious to know what you guys think about it and how the AZGFD can pull of stunts like this. Let's hear it!

[123456]

1. They havn't updated their website in a longtime regarding rule #1. Rule #2- To pursue is to take according to game and fish. A person does not have to actually harvest an animal to have been desribed as to "take" an animal. Look for the actual definition on their site, it will desrcibe "take" to you.

#3- That law just recently passed, and they have not updated their website.

#4- same as above

[Non-Typical Solutions]

One thing for sure about laws and Government, if they can write it vague or confusing enough it allows alot of room for interpretation and or application.

 

Interesting info, hope you don't have too many sleepless nights, G$F might hire you to proof read their regs..........

[ThomC]

One thing for sure about laws and Government, if they can write it vague or confusing enough it allows alot of room for interpretation and or application.

 

Interesting info, hope you don't have too many sleepless nights, G$F might hire you to proof read their regs..........

 

That is true, the lawyers write this stuff in their language. The best way to get an interpretation is to call G&F and ask for the law enforcement division.

[bonecollector777]

Ok so I read "take" and find that definition pretty broad also. Websters defines pursue as: To follow in an effort to overtake or capture; chase. If I am driving around spotlighting not look for any specific animal but just spotlighting and see a deer in what way am I following in an effort to overtake or capture or chase if I don't mess around with the deer and just look at it? Concerning Rule# 1,3,4. They aren't required to take this stuff out of their regulations? Everything I posted came from their 2012 Regs so any random person who doesn't know better would think that's the law. That should be illegal in itself to post false information in your regulations. And I agree about everything written being vague. But in return an attorney or yourself can use the vagueness to help your case if accused of any of this.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Ok so I read "take" and find that definition pretty broad also. Websters defines pursue as: To follow in an effort to overtake or capture; chase. If I am driving around spotlighting not look for any specific animal but just spotlighting and see a deer in what way am I following in an effort to overtake or capture or chase if I don't mess around with the deer and just look at it? Concerning Rule# 1,3,4. They aren't required to take this stuff out of their regulations? Everything I posted came from their 2012 Regs so any random person who doesn't know better would think that's the law. That should be illegal in itself to post false information in your regulations. And I agree about everything written being vague. But in return an attorney or yourself can use the vagueness to help your case if accused of any of this.

I definitely don't like vague......too much room for wishy washy interpretation..............most insurance companys are really good at vague and really really fine print...........

[123456]

3 and 4, were just passed and was after the 2012 regs came out. And I am sure you read the handgun carry on their FAQ page which hasn't been updated in quite a while. The "take" defintion from Azgfd is grey at best. Officer's desrcetion will play into most "take" violations. They still have to prove "intent."

[Coach]

As far as "take" goes - it is very broad. I know from experience it does not require that you harvest, or actively persue a game animal. Being somewhere with the intent to hunt contrues "take" in legal terms.

[bonecollector777]

Yeah it's pretty sneaky of them to have it worded like it is. Basically they can take it whichever way they need to to convict you of something. I'm still not sure how they could ever prove that you had the intent to hunt like 123456 unless you were caught in the act. But I'm sure they could construe some story to get you in trouble because that's just how they are. From what I am seeing and the posts you guys are posting if you are out in the woods at anytime with a gun they could somehow manage to say you were hunting no matter what you were doing. Pretty ridiculous to me. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to get out of if caught when explained to a judge but who knows!

[Outlaw87]

They make it vague so they can bend and twist the words for there favor to make you look as guilty as possible even if your completely innocent