preacher,
Quote:
Every law and ever dcnr reg is constitutional until a court rules it unconstitutional. You and I don't have the power to determine that. The attorneys that represent the dcnr must believe they have the authority to do what they do, or else they would ask the legislature to change the law.


If you had read the cases I posted above, you would know that someone has already taken them to court on the issue of implementing local rules in violation of our constitution. That is settled law now, but they have disregarded settled law as decided by the courts.


Quote:
... I never mentioned trespassing, though plenty of it went on. There was nothing technically illegal about turning out dogs right on the property line and putting standers on the other side of our property.


That's where you simply don't understand the law.

Trespassing does not necessarily involve humans intruding onto your property in a criminal manner. Trespassing may include such things as allowing water to be directed onto your property causing damage or a tree being allowed to fall onto your property causing damage or shooting onto your property or allowing dogs to run at large on your property.

If the dogs were violating your right to enjoy your property, you had a remedy in the law to sue for those damages without the CAB addressing it in an unconstitutional manner for you.

You are placing a lot of trust in the integrity of appointed board members to protect the interests of all the people as a whole. The results have been shown to protect special interests at the expense of the rights of others in violation of our constitution.


preacher,
Quote:
The attorneys that represent the dcnr must believe they have the authority to do what they do, or else they would ask the legislature to change the law.


You have more confidence in Willam Gunter, the DNCR's lawyer, than the justices of our Supreme Court of Alabama:

William A. Gunter, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, for appellee.
"... We are disappointed that counsel for the State has been less than attentive to the obligations of his oath as an attorney."
APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION EXTENDED.
HOUSTON, COOK, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, J., dissent.
Kaylor v. State, 782 So. 2d 206 - Ala: Supreme Court 2000

preacher,
Quote:
So I guess according to your definitions, we are left with 2 possible groups of outlaws to deal with - rogue dog hunters or the CAB.


Not at all. We have the choice of honoring our Constitutions and laws. The commissioner swore an oath to support our Constitutions. He should honor his oath before he signs a rule proposed by the CAB that violates our Constitution.

Our laws were quite cabable of handling your problem without intervention from the DCNR. You just chose not to use them.