Why is a railroad right of way any different than a courthouse, a school, certain areas of airports, an airplane, and numerous other places that restrict a person's "right" to "bear arms in defense of himself and the state"? The preceding question has been asked in various forms in the 8 pages of this discussions and you guys have dodged it like you were in a presidential debate.

There are all kinds of court decisions affirming restrictions on constitutional rights. There is an awful lot of quoting of judicial rulings in the pages of this post, so you guys would appear to agree that courts are the arbitror of what is or is not constitutional.

And quoting 49ers's quote:

"PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE
Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

In this case you have somebody participating in a scheduled WMA hunt, has a hunting license (or is exempt from the requirement), a WMA permit (do not know if there are exemptions for senior citizens/disabled veterans), a loaded firearm, the hunter orange required for hunters participating in a scheduled WMA hunt, ...

Seriously, if you were not bitter at the AL DCNR, would you really, honestly say a person exhibiting the characteristics above was not hunting except for the fact that he was on a RR right of way where hunting is not allowed? If he was 51 yards from the RR right of way would he have been hunting?