339 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

preacherman76, on 22 February 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

This is so funny. The city had no problem with what was going on. They didnt say it was unlawful for them to gather. They just wanted money. As though money would make whatever perceived problem, just disapear. So all this talk of traffic, and parking, noise, ect ect ect, is all BS.

To speak about laws in general and why they are in place....

The laws are placed for a reason for everyone to abide...I know that you feel that talk of traffic and noise etc  is a load of nonsense, but in say that,  that is not entirely true...  Reason why I say this is because... If  you pay for a permit and you are insured and so on to   IE - run a club, or church , a nursery anything in your home, and you have 50 or more people coming and going  regularly .. If  there is still a lot of noise, traffic violations, road blocking and other issues still arising that can still get locals to complain.   .. You then  will face fine and if it persists, more fines and you can get shut down in the end

Paying for a permit does not exactly cover your backside entirely  if other violations are made during the hours you are hosting your home clubs , church   etc.. You could have your permit, you could be insured to the eye balls  and have it all above board.. But when during the hours you have your guests over, or fellow club mates ..if there are any violations still being made,  you can still face fines and if kept up get closed down ...So paying money in that respect will not make your problem go away and hide...What will make your problem go away is you sorting the issues out,  it is your property,.. ( clubs of any kind, churches,  or other business  etc) therefore your responsibility

I have seen this happen in my own home town to a few clubs and one nursery...The way the law looks at it is,  we do not care if you wave a permit in our faces, if you still violate our laws within your time, then you are still getting a fine  and then some...    

Quote

   Until they infringe on the rights of others, they should be able to do what ever you want on your property.

Well that is all well and good.. But   When you buy your car, you pay for the road tax, the MOT and the insurance for each year, and it keeps  right with in that law,  it is your property, you own it.. right?..
Well...that is all fine  but  what if you break the laws while in your own car? ..... If you are driving without a seat belt?  Drink driving? Speeding?  going too slow?  driving while eating  or holding a cell phone up to  your ear ?  Parking in no parking spaces and so on..
The question therefore would be -    What do you suppose can happen to you if you are reported by a local citizen  or the cops catch you out ?
Do you think that if it your own property you can do as you please ?....   Truth is you are not safe from the law if you do break other rules whist on or in your property.....

Laws in general no matter where you are, . If there are rules / laws to follow... Then they are all made for a good reason...  We might not think so for many of them, some do in fact sound ridiculous and petty, but unfortunately  if they are set in your area, you still have to abide by them...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 22 February 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[aquatus1]

Mr Walker, on 22 February 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

I am sorry but i dont undrestand your lines of reasoning Or else we live in very difernt cultures In america, where state /local and fereral laws conflictesp in matters of religion, does not federal law overide the others or take precedence over them?

Only if there is a conflict.  Generally, federal law only applies to federal government involvement, not to local government involvement.  The local and state courts decide if a law is fair and reasonable, and the underlying assumption is that the court will avoid conflicts.  If there is a question regarding the constitutionality of a law, the matter is submitted to the Supreme Court, which decides if this is indeed a matter of constitutional significance.

Most of the time, the Supreme Court does not even consider the matter worth listening to.  The one that make it to the floor tend to be solved in a fairly straight-forward manner, due in large part to the absolute intolerance for hand-waiving and drama of the Supreme Court judges.  There are amusing past cases of judges taking the time during an overly dramatic lawyer's intro to review the facts of the case and resolve it before the opening speech was completed, but nowadays, most lawyers at that level know better than to try.  Not a lot of humor at that level.

It gets more complex, of course, but basically, the idea is that the Federal Government only gets involved as much as it needs to, and no more.  Most Americans do not tolerate Big Government encroachment too well.

Quote

How is a church a business?

Generally, a business is an organization engaged in the trade of goods or services.  Narrowing it down a little more, a church is a legal entity that makes income (either in the form of donations or services from the congregation) and has to pay expenses (such as rent, permits, or what have you).  More specifically still, in this county, a church is defined as a location which regularly hosts gatherings of a religious nature of 3 or more people.

There are really no rhetorical questions when it comes to business law.

Quote

Or more particularly, how is an assembly of worshippers in a private home a business?

Because they meet the same qualities as every other church that is a business.  Location is not specified.  That the location is a private home in a residential area as opposed to a rented unit in a commercial area is not part of the definition of a business.  People can have businesses based out of their homes.

Quote

The fine still seems to be for not getting a permit for the permission to worship as a group in  a private residence.  Nothing ot do with business.

The fine is for not getting a permit to function as a church.  And, in all honesty, legality aside, the fine is really more for refusing to heed the warning that you need a permit to run a business out of your home.  It is simply a level up in the warning system, a carrot and stick, and 9 times out of 10, when the person complies, the fine is often waived.  

I know people here have been obsession about how much the county wanted the money for the fine, but...it really isn't that big a deal.

Quote

The law, as i read it in one post, did not seem to diferrentiate between a church building and a private residence where people met to pray on a regular basis. It actually seemed to say that the private residence "became " a church in the eyes of the law, via the activity being held there.

That's correct.  The law doesn't care where you have the business.  The business is a business regardless, and businesses need permits.  Now, running a business out of your home requires a different (cheaper and simpler) permit that one for a business in a commercial zone, but you do still need to have it in order to legal run a business.  There are different permits because the government recognizes the difference between running a home business and running a commercial business.

Quote

And yes we do have laws on hunting in australia but somehow the need to legislate against shooting and lassoing of our fish seems to have passed us by.

Oooooh!  You think "shooting" and "lassoing"...

Okay, no, that's a perfectly understandable error (particularly considering we are talking about Texans, here) yeah, no, heh, heh...okay...

"Shooting" a fish refers to Bow Fishing.  It's kind of a big thing here in Texas, 'cause the fish...well, Texas fish get pretty big...

"Lassoing" a fish refers to Bringing a large fish on board with, yeah, a lasso.  http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/shows/fish-warrior/ngc-lassoing-fish/

With small fish, you can use a net, but Texas...again, things are bigger in Texas.  A little net isn't going to cut it.

That said...yeah, we have our share of idiots who who were alcoholically-inspired to try to shoot a fish with a rifle, and we even have an entirely-too-Texan-to-be-real representative, who was invited to a off-shore fishing trip by his Australian friend who didn't really think through the consequences of putting a cowboy on a boat.  He ended up lassoing (as in twirling a rope over his head and throwing it a good 15 feet) the largest Great White shark of that era (I think the record has been beaten, but his 19.5 footer was up there for quite some time).

Quote

I am tempted to think this was originally a form of "joke" law Eg "Those darn fish are so big in texas that you have to lasso the durn things, and hog tie them, before you can wrassle them out of the water" .

Heh...no, that part is true.  The laws are talking more about the...technical side of fishing (I guess?  Not sure what term is for things one does in the process of catching fish)

[Jor-el]

HerNibs, on 21 February 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

This article has a statement from the City Attorney.

Nibs

An astounding bit of detective work.

Let me see, the parking is within private grounds, there is no noise to speak of. The fines were refunded and the city council is going to review the application of this law... So let me ask a question where are the violations here?

And who was abusing the law after all was said and done?

We have had a number of links that plainly demonstrate that the city council law was in the wrong, they, as much as admit this when they refunded the fines.

Why are we rehashing this issue as if this was not known to this thread?

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Jor-el]

Beckys_Mom, on 21 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Nice find Nibs.  The same article also states....

Quote

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

It was an old find.

I would suggeest reading the relevant posts earlier in this debate to find out exactly what is known and what is supposition, the debate has been going off at a tangent on suppositions, when the facts are at hand.

If anybody needs me to collect the relevant links posted earlier that can be arranged.

As per those links I have mentioned, the law is going to be reviewed, the fines were refunded, due to this the Fromms dropped the lawsuite, which they would have won, since the council is the one that backed down.

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Jor-el]

HerNibs, on 21 February 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

  thanks!


And if anyone wishes to look through the Municode for San Juan Capistrano and point out where it's against the law for three or more people to gather...

Here is the code.

I'm looking and haven't found it yet.

Nibs

The Fromms say the non-denominational meetings are well-suited to their home, located on a sizable acreage similar to surrounding homes, and they say they have been careful to maintain low noise levels both inside the house and on the patio. They say visitors who attended the meetings never had trouble finding a place to park on the property, which is large enough to accommodate a corral, barn, and pool.

Section 9-3.301 of the San Juan Capistrano code prohibits “religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations” in residential neighbourhoods without a Conditional Use Permit. This prohibition applies to “churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.” San Juan Capistrano has a reactive code enforcement policy, meaning that officers only respond to complaints.

The Fromms object that the meetings neither serve an organized church nor aim to become one, but are simply a gathering of believers of all stripes.

California homeowner fined for hosting Bible study in his house

When you follow the relevant link, search for the code in question: 9-3.301.

You will be given 4 links, the 2nd one will take you to the relevant code

Article 3. Base District Regulations/Standards - San Juan Capistrano, California - Code of Ordinances

It is easy to find.

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[Jor-el]

eight bits, on 22 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Lest we get distracted, I'll close with witness against the big lie here. Home Bible study is legal in America. I renew my request that the OP contact a moderator to revise his subtitle so that he now tells the truth about my country, or at least stops lying about it, posting knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading material, as his subtitle is on its face.

It is no lie eightbits, the reason is pure and simple and evident... if it were not so, the city council would not have refunded the Fromms with the fines they paid, they would not have publicly stated that they would review the law...

Your own links state as much...

http://www.pacificju...-study-shutdown

http://sanjuancapist...change-city-law

The Southern California city that issued citations against homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, for holding Bible studies in their home, has reversed course after attorneys for Pacific Justice Institute took the case to court. The city recently dropped its action against the couple and refunded the fines they had paid. However, the city has not yet changed its laws that led to the controversy.

In a letter to the couple, Karen P. Brust, San Juan Capistrano City Manager, who had been working with the Fromms, also stated, “City staff will commence the discussion with the Planning Commission…about the issue of the need to clarify the Land Use Code with respect to places of public assembly and gatherings at single family residences.”

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[Jor-el]

I wish to thank Michelle for the google link that resolves this whole hassle.

Where in the world do they have the space to park 50 cars...

It seems they have quite alot...

This is a case of religious discrimination. It started with a neighbour who complained, the police did not even go there, they did not recieve a single phone call, they were simply FINED.

The neighbour lied, when she said there was a church next door, that is why the Fromms effectively won this battle, and were refunded the money of the fines. That is why the City Council is going to review this law...

It seems laws can take on a life of their own, and in so doing, effectively stop people from gathering for a simple bible study... they proved that they were not a church my friends, the city had no business throwing this law at them.

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Sherapy]

eight bits, on 22 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

I love all the municipal finance experts doing up San Juan Capistrano's balance sheet for us.

This is how it's done, if that's what needs doing:



>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFoLmfiktGM

A token fine was imposed, subject to waiver, to motivate the property owner to attend to the zoning problem. Same thing as in many jurisdictions, the police suspend the fine on a minor automobile equipment violation. The idea is to get you to fix the burned-out headlight, not to raise money.

Lest we get distracted, I'll close with witness against the big lie here. Home Bible study is legal in America. I renew my request that the OP contact a moderator to revise his subtitle so that he now tells the truth about my country, or at least stops lying about it, posting knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading material, as his subtitle is on its face.

Yes indeed, great video 8ty!!!!


As a Californian my entire life bible studies are not illegal.

[HerNibs]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

An astounding bit of detective work.

Let me see, the parking is within private grounds, there is no noise to speak of. The fines were refunded and the city council is going to review the application of this law... So let me ask a question where are the violations here?

And who was abusing the law after all was said and done?

We have had a number of links that plainly demonstrate that the city council law was in the wrong, they, as much as admit this when they refunded the fines.

Why are we rehashing this issue as if this was not known to this thread?

Ok, like I've said, I didn't agree with the ordinance just pointing out that I didn't think it was religious bias motivated as much as it was a greedy city/county.

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

It was an old find.

I would suggeest reading the relevant posts earlier in this debate to find out exactly what is known and waht is supposition, the debate has been going off at a tangent on suppositions, when the facts are at hand.

If anybody needs me to collect the relevant links posted earlier that can be arranged.

As per those links I have mentioned, the law is going to be reviewed, the fines were refunded, due to this the Fromms dropped the lawsuite, which they would have won, since the council is the one that backed down.

Sorry, I must have missed it.  Thought I read all the posts.  

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

The Fromms say the non-denominational meetings are well-suited to their home, located on a sizable acreage similar to surrounding homes, and they say they have been careful to maintain low noise levels both inside the house and on the patio. They say visitors who attended the meetings never had trouble finding a place to park on the property, which is large enough to accommodate a corral, barn, and pool.

Section 9-3.301 of the San Juan Capistrano code prohibits “religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations” in residential neighbourhoods without a Conditional Use Permit. This prohibition applies to “churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations.” San Juan Capistrano has a reactive code enforcement policy, meaning that officers only respond to complaints.

The Fromms object that the meetings neither serve an organized church nor aim to become one, but are simply a gathering of believers of all stripes.

California homeowner fined for hosting Bible study in his house

When you follow the relevant link, search for the code in question: 9-3.301.

You will be given 4 links, the 2nd one will take you to the relevant code

Article 3. Base District Regulations/Standards - San Juan Capistrano, California - Code of Ordinances

It is easy to find.

I was reading those yesterday.  I still didn't find exactly what they were violating.  The codes you linked to (that I read yesterday) are huge and vague.  I just see again and again that the land use purpose is for residential -

Quote

(a)
Purpose and intent.
(1)
Residential/Agriculture (RA) District. The purpose and intent of the Residential/Agriculture (RA) District is to:
(A)
Provide for the maintenance and use of land for small farms and orchards, excluding commercial animal raising, in association with single-family dwellings; and
(
Implement the General Plan concept of providing for large lot, rural residential uses, including, but not limited to, low-density areas where the topography is not amenable to estate-type developments.
(2)
Hillside Residential (HR) District. The purpose and intent of the Hillside Residential (HR) District is to:
(A)
Implement the programs and policies of the General Plan, including the Safety Element as it relates to protection from geologic hazards (unstable soils, prevention of erosion, and the like) and the Conservation and Open Space Element relating to the maintenance of the natural character and amenity of hillsides as a scenic resource of the City;
(
Provide for the utilization of innovative land planning and building design as a means of achieving high quality, flexibility, and efficiency in the design of residential subdivisions within hillside areas of the City.
(3)
Single-Family-40,000 (RSE-40,000) District. The purpose and intent of the Single-Family-40,000 (RSE-40,000) District is to:
(A)
Provide for the establishment and control of large lot estate type residential areas of low density, located and maintained in accordance with the General Plan; and
(
Encourage the preservation of a semi-rural residential character without the maintenance of farm-size acreage.
(4)
Single-Family-20,000 (RSE-20,000) District. The purpose and intent of the Single-Family-20,000 (RSE-20,000) District is to:
(A)
Provide for the establishment of residential areas of low density, located and maintained in accordance with the General Plan; and
(
Regulate such areas in order to preserve and perpetuate a spacious, low-density residential character.

Like I said, I just don't think it was a biased attack against or because of their religion, just a thin excuse for a cash-strapped area to try to gather fines any way they can.

Ok if the city/county refunded the money and will review the codes.  That's great.  The person fined only had to challenge it.  There is a process to do so.  I personally don't believe the motivation of the action was anti-christian, just greed.

Nibs

[Beckys_Mom]

Jor-el, on 22 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I would suggeest reading the relevant posts

To point out other views  that I think should be looked at.

But what you need to think about is  the laws are for everyone.. With the articles read people saying  they were not singled out  all because   they are  Christian.I am actually tired of hearing that chant each time I read something about a religious person getting  in trouble...It is not a case of religious discriminations.. Not many here are buying that line either..  And  It is unfair to other Christians that have to  pay for permits and do it legally..  So if other Christians have to do it the legal way and cause no problems  then they should too..    I know this because  I know many smaller Church groups  that attend bible meetings regularly have to pay for it and do it legally ..

Your only concern was them being discriminated, and most likely because it hits home with yourself being Christian..I am not saying that is a bad thing, I am saying that too many of us can fall into that easy, more so if we are unhappy with something we read  or see on TV ....... Have you  considered that maybe these laws apply to anyone in their private home who like to hold regular meetings  or clubs  etc? ...

And the size of the house does not matter when a permit is required .. This applies to any group

And further more  IF  it is being reviewed ,.. this doesn't mean  they will get away with all in the end..They may get a refund on a simple fine..but they are not over with yet.......Many laws will be said to get reviewed, but it doesn't mean people will like  the result ..A lot has to be taken into consideration when reviewing such a law..
Like  other groups and clubs  etc..  If they allow  one groups to get away with it.. then other groups will want to be treated the same.. It can cause more trouble than it is worth  IMO

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 22 February 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[sam12six]

HerNibs, on 22 February 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Ok, like I've said, I didn't agree with the ordinance just pointing out that I didn't think it was religious bias motivated as much as it was a greedy city/county.




Sorry, I must have missed it.  Thought I read all the posts.  



I was reading those yesterday.  I still didn't find exactly what they were violating.  The codes you linked to (that I read yesterday) are huge and vague.  I just see again and again that the land use purpose is for residential -



Like I said, I just don't think it was a biased attack against or because of their religion, just a thin excuse for a cash-strapped area to try to gather fines any way they can.

Ok if the city/county refunded the money and will review the codes.  That's great.  The person fined only had to challenge it.  There is a process to do so. I personally don't believe the motivation of the action was anti-christian, just greed.

Nibs

Nibs, you've put your finger on what is the most relevant factor in the debate (the one here, not in a courtroom).

It's been stated that the people were operating a church. Some argue and some agree. The point is that the by the local government's definition, that's what they were doing. Did the local government misapply a code? Maybe. Does the law need to be changed? Maybe.

None of that's the point in this debate though. This thread is predicated on the idea that has been repeated several times that Christians are being denied their right to worship. This would imply that the deniers are anti-Christian. On the other hand, the truth is that this was an example of the local government trying to enforce their (possibly misinterpreted and in need of change) code that defines a church and what permits a church needs.

Argue with the silliness of the law all you want but it's stupid to try and twist it into some sort of religious persecution by people who (in all likelihood) follow the same religion.

PS

The lasso fishing type laws generally exist because one person or a small group did something crazy like ride a camel into a bar and thumbed his nose at everyone saying, "It's not against the law!! You can't touch me." In that case specifically, I'd guess the person(s) who inspired it found a technicality that allowed poaching or out-of-season fishing and they instituted the law just to close that loophole.

[_Only]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

This thread is predicated on the idea that has been repeated several times that Christians are being denied their right to worship. This would imply that the deniers are anti-Christian. On the other hand, the truth is that this was an example of the local government trying to enforce their (possibly misinterpreted and in need of change) code that defines a church and what permits a church needs.

Argue with the silliness of the law all you want but it's stupid to try and twist it into some sort of religious persecution by people who (in all likelihood) follow the same religion.

It's pretty clear by now that the OP refuses to accept this. Some people are dead set in what they want to believe, regardless of all other more likely possibilities. Just a shame when it's such a negative belief.

[Jor-el]

HerNibs, on 22 February 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Ok, like I've said, I didn't agree with the ordinance just pointing out that I didn't think it was religious bias motivated as much as it was a greedy city/county.




Sorry, I must have missed it.  Thought I read all the posts.  



I was reading those yesterday.  I still didn't find exactly what they were violating.  The codes you linked to (that I read yesterday) are huge and vague.  I just see again and again that the land use purpose is for residential -



Like I said, I just don't think it was a biased attack against or because of their religion, just a thin excuse for a cash-strapped area to try to gather fines any way they can.

Ok if the city/county refunded the money and will review the codes.  That's great.  The person fined only had to challenge it.  There is a process to do so.  I personally don't believe the motivation of the action was anti-christian, just greed.

Nibs

Laws can be used for innocent purposes, they can be used to regulate where a city needs to regulate. If they had converted their hime into a local church, then yes they would have been subject to the zoning laws. From the beginning that was not the case. Initially the city forced them to pay the fines. even though they made sure to tell the city that the law as it stood did not apply to people simply gathering in a home.

The isue of a church was put forward by the complainant, it was her allegation that brought forth the application of the law, don't you think the city needed to verify the allegations before fining anybody. That is what local inspectors are for.

That a law can be misused, is demonstrated quite clearly in this issue. The point is, that if a simple zoning law can be misused and misapplied, then other laws can also be used for the same purpose.

Early on in this thread, I posted another video of another couple who had the same thing happen to them, with only 15 people in their home. This is a tendency that is becoming recurrent... it is almost as if someone is trying to create legal precedent on this issue.

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[Jor-el]

Beckys_Mom, on 22 February 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

To point out other views  that I think should be looked at.

But what you need to think about is  the laws are for everyone.. With the articles read people saying  they were not singled out  all because   they are  Christian.I am actually tired of hearing that chant each time I read something about a religious person getting  in trouble...It is not a case of religious discriminations.. Not many here are buying that line either..  And  It is unfair to other Christians that have to  pay for permits and do it legally..  So if other Christians have to do it the legal way and cause no problems  then they should too..    I know this because  I know many smaller Church groups  that attend bible meetings regularly have to pay for it and do it legally ..

Your only concern was them being discriminated, and most likely because it hits home with yourself being Christian..I am not saying that is a bad thing, I am saying that too many of us can fall into that easy, more so if we are unhappy with something we read  or see on TV ....... Have you  considered that maybe these laws apply to anyone in their private home who like to hold regular meetings  or clubs  etc? ...

And the size of the house does not matter when a permit is required .. This applies to any group

And further more  IF  it is being reviewed ,.. this doesn't mean  they will get away with all in the end..They may get a refund on a simple fine..but they are not over with yet.......Many laws will be said to get reviewed, but it doesn't mean people will like  the result ..A lot has to be taken into consideration when reviewing such a law..
Like  other groups and clubs  etc..  If they allow  one groups to get away with it.. then other groups will want to be treated the same.. It can cause more trouble than it is worth  IMO

A simple question here... What makes you think a legal permit applies in this context?

As it was demonstrated, THIS WAS NOT A CHURCH!!!

Or is it now going to be the argument that these people did in fact have a church going on there in their patio. If the city council backed down after analyzing the situation, what makes you think they were wrong to fight this misapplied law?

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Jor-el]

sam12six, on 22 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Nibs, you've put your finger on what is the most relevant factor in the debate (the one here, not in a courtroom).

It's been stated that the people were operating a church. Some argue and some agree. The point is that the by the local government's definition, that's what they were doing. Did the local government misapply a code? Maybe. Does the law need to be changed? Maybe.

None of that's the point in this debate though. This thread is predicated on the idea that has been repeated several times that Christians are being denied their right to worship. This would imply that the deniers are anti-Christian. On the other hand, the truth is that this was an example of the local government trying to enforce their (possibly misinterpreted and in need of change) code that defines a church and what permits a church needs.

Argue with the silliness of the law all you want but it's stupid to try and twist it into some sort of religious persecution by people who (in all likelihood) follow the same religion.

PS

The lasso fishing type laws generally exist because one person or a small group did something crazy like ride a camel into a bar and thumbed his nose at everyone saying, "It's not against the law!! You can't touch me." In that case specifically, I'd guess the person(s) who inspired it found a technicality that allowed poaching or out-of-season fishing and they instituted the law just to close that loophole.

Sure... then these videos are simply a figment of my imagaination...

Edited by Jor-el, 22 February 2012 - 09:13 PM.