I agree with you, and my intent with BT was to show there is a big difference between entering a house, and taking a walk across a field or in the woods. Basically, a guy walking across your field with a shot gun you cannot shoot, however, a guy walking across your living room with that same shotgun, you can. The whole thing was sidetracked.
I agree withthat statement 100%in that context. Especially about the whole thing being sidetracked.
We obviously will never agreeon the originalissue 100% but I'll try to at least get back to the original issue.
As I see it, you believe no warrantshould be necessary for property other than ones house, buildings etc. I understand that it makes a LE officers job harder to requirea warrant or at least propable cause to conduct a search.
I think we all agree that a persons home should have the highest level of protection from undue search and seizure. While I'm not advocating that samelevel of protection for the land around that house, I do believe that no one, including law enforcement should have the right to set foot onsomeones property just because they want to.The current law says they can. This case may or may not cause that to change. While I dont want a poacher to get off, I do beleive that the law in question doesnt afford enough rights to a property owner and gives a bit too much power to the GW. IMHO, there should be have to be some good reason for a GW to enter your property.If that occasionally make the officers job more challenging, so be it.
I Wishall of youhere a happy and prosperous new year! May the 2006 hunting season be your best ever!!