IF YOU WANT A LITTLE PAY BACK " TRY THIS "

jog

Bronze Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
682
Golden Thread
0
Location
Tillamook Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites MXT / GMT
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Upvote 0
Ahhh...That made my Monday Morning...Thanks for sharing
 

Absolutlly!! If more people actually understood what the law said, a lot of what is going in the so called government could be stopped. A for instance from the California State Constitution, the Constitution that the state prints out, says in Article I, section 25;
Right to Fish
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.

Did you catch that? This is an absolute right. So if this is in the State Constitution and has been since 1910, why is everyone told they need to get a liscense to fish? The only people that need a liscense to fish are those that do it commercially for a living. Since they are using a public resource to earn a livelihood.

It is too bad there isn't a part of the California State Constitution that says the same thing for small scale and recreational mining.
 

Mr. 57chevy, I agree that what you sited says we can fish all state waters, and the government has the right to establish bag limits and seasons, but mandating a license is not a prohibition on fishing. I think the heart of the matter is the application of funds towards the appropriate resources. Just like the money for registering your car to drive on the roads out here. If they applied all that registration money to maintaining the roads I would guess there would be some amazing highways in CA. I have no clue what they do with our taxes, but as with my HOA, I am sure they are miss managing that money and paying some pretty awesome pensions for people. Not impressed with the governments we have from the national level all they way down to the municipalities we live in out here in CA. I will be happy to sell my home and leave when I am able to.
 

MFSB, I think that mandating a license on a right is a prohibition. A license or permit is required to drive. Driving is not a right .Just musing.
 

What I find interesting about this is that the article states that everyone on that board were "up to date" on their training that covers the rights of the public to speak at board meetings. So..... Even though they KNEW that the public has the right to speak at the meeting, they denied them that right. A clear violation of the law(s). Now.... It also seemed that this matter was pretty much swept under the carpet in that no fines were issued (other than court costs) to those that denied the people their rights to speak at the meeting. Seems to me that if they violate the public's rights and there is no cost to them for doing so, this kind of action will continue to happen.

We as Miners have run into this kind of situation time and time again. Meetings held in which we were not given a voice. We need to look up the laws and see if there are similar laws that make it mandatory that public comment is allowed. I seem to remember hearing of meetings in California where the Greenies and their bought scientists were given plenty of time to speak but those that were there to represent the mining community were not allowed to speak due to "lack of time". There should be no such thing as "lack of time" if it prevents both sides from being heard!!!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom