View Single Post
Old January 26, 2009, 07:33 PM   #54
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
Under the previous regulation, the possession of a loaded and readily available firearm was regarded as prima facie evidence of intent.

And, yes, of course that will still apply to anyone with a loaded weapon and no CCW, and yes, of course we'd like to think that no CCW holder would ever take an animal illegally.

Can I imagine a poacher applying for a CCW in order to be able to carry a loaded gun in an NP? It's a bit of stretch, but I can imagine it. "No, sir, officer, this here 44 mag is strictly for personal protection..."

But, yeah, the poaching thing is probably a bit of a red herring -- I think the "self-defense" killing of wildlife is a more legitimate concern vis-a-vis the new regulation.
Evan Thomas is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03061 seconds with 8 queries