Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Based on common law i have a question that perhaps GLFWDA people have looked into , or that attorney for United has looked at .

Law goes something like this , State law can not over ride Fed law . Given that simple fact im wondering if the DNR rules can over ride state law ?

In a simple form the state says you have the right to use forest roads with your SOS tags . The DNR comes up with there own rules such as only if a 2 wheel drive can go there . I have doubt such a ruling would hold water if put to the test . Michigan Supreme court would be the ultimate answer .

The second part to this is , Any law must meet criteria . It must be clear and so that the average person can understand the law so on and so on . Im confident the majority of these DNR rules placed by there admin would not pass such a test of legitity .

Has either of these two items been fully addrssed by an attorney ?

THe ticket i recieved a few years ago i wanted to addresse this but we didnt get past start and the judge dissmised the ticket . No point of law was even talked about .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I should mention i bring this up due to the poker run getting cancelled . I was not going to attend but it sure aggrivates me some power figure can make a short post and kill a run .
 

·
Fucking Zen as Shit
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
I think these are valid questions that should be addressed at the next meeting.


:( I wish i lived closer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,826 Posts
Marv lives close enough but he get's to fustrated when people shoot around a question. And we all know what he is like when he gets fustrated..:poke: :thumb:
 

·
Fucking Zen as Shit
Joined
·
16,148 Posts
I would just go in there with a couple of sidearms, and a rifle....

a 320# 6'1" tall guy in a hawaiian shirt, sandals and carrying guns gets attention :)
 

·
Livin in Cal-tuckey
Joined
·
852 Posts
Marv, as for your first question:

Actually I think it's the other way around. The Federal Government is REQUIRED to recognized a State's soverienty. For example: A while back there was an issue with a Lake that the USFS was trying to restrict access to the lake waters to only the area of the lake that was not USFS land. The state sued on the grounds of the USFS not recognizing their soverienty.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, I just read this:

Michigan family’s property rights upheld

A federal district court in Michigan agreed with Kathy Stupak-Thrall that the U.S. Forest Service had overstepped its authority by restricting her use of a motorboat on a lake that adjoins the Sylvania Wilderness Area. The court also ruled that if the regulation were allowed to stand, it would result in a “taking” and Stupak-Thrall would be entitled to just compensation.

The problem began when Congress created the Sylvania Wilderness Area, which abuts Crooked Lake in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Part of the lake is also bordered by private land. State law gives property owners with riparian property (property bordering on water) the right to use the body of water so long as their use doesn’t impair the rights of others. The Forest Service claimed Stupak-Thrall’s motorboat disturbed the “character” of the wilderness area.

Status: appealed by federal government to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


To me...that tells me that the State Law wins. I'm trying to find the result of the appeal.

As for the 2nd part, I'd be interested to know that as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I had talked with GLFWDA person before , there were some questions taken to an attorney but i cant recall just what those questions were or the answer they were given .

Nick , i see your point on what you posted how ever that envloves private land which is a whole different animal . I can see in the future where that will come into play as the DNR and more so the DEQ stick there nose more and more into what you can do on private land .
 

·
$9.00 vanilla malt
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
With the DNR shutting down on monday, isn't everything legal to wheel now?

:naughty:












I'm joking newbie's....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
Each road is different, so it's use most likely would be case-by-case. If enforcment is taken often for a given road, chances are the prosecutor and magistrate for that county is familiar with it. If the ticket is fought, it goes to an informal hearing, the officer, you and the magistrate. If one appeals the decision and takes it to a formal hearing, lawyers and prosecutors get involved. Prosecutor might drop the charge if he doesn't agree with the C.O. If he does agree and he wins, that will be the standard for that road on the judges ruleing. What you refer to as DNR law, is State Law, just printed in the handout or on the web page. The traffic related stuff will have been taken from the "vehicle" code, as well as boats atv's and snowmobiles. The other laws (hunting, trespass, etc) are taken from the MCL. There are gray areas of some laws that have been given an "Attorney Generals Opinion" as a guidline for the prosecutor. Sorry, getting distracted while typing, hope this helps some.
 

·
Livin in Cal-tuckey
Joined
·
852 Posts
Nick , i see your point on what you posted how ever that envloves private land which is a whole different animal . I can see in the future where that will come into play as the DNR and more so the DEQ stick there nose more and more into what you can do on private land .
Roger, I'll keep looking...my thought was that the owners won the suit based on a State law. We need an "ask a ranger" and a "ask the lawyer" forum.
 

·
GL 4x4 Vendors
Joined
·
3,146 Posts
Law goes something like this , State law can not over ride Fed law . Given that simple fact im wondering if the DNR rules can over ride state law ?
DNR is a STATE unit, therefore they're not overriding state law.

Federal law often defers to state level for enforcement. (DNR can enforce state laws on Federal land).

Just my $.02.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,360 Posts
Marv, as for your first question:

Actually I think it's the other way around. The Federal Government is REQUIRED to recognized a State's soverienty. For example: A while back there was an issue with a Lake that the USFS was trying to restrict access to the lake waters to only the area of the lake that was not USFS land. The state sued on the grounds of the USFS not recognizing their soverienty.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, I just read this:

Michigan family’s property rights upheld

A federal district court in Michigan agreed with Kathy Stupak-Thrall that the U.S. Forest Service had overstepped its authority by restricting her use of a motorboat on a lake that adjoins the Sylvania Wilderness Area. The court also ruled that if the regulation were allowed to stand, it would result in a “taking” and Stupak-Thrall would be entitled to just compensation.

The problem began when Congress created the Sylvania Wilderness Area, which abuts Crooked Lake in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Part of the lake is also bordered by private land. State law gives property owners with riparian property (property bordering on water) the right to use the body of water so long as their use doesn’t impair the rights of others. The Forest Service claimed Stupak-Thrall’s motorboat disturbed the “character” of the wilderness area.

Status: appealed by federal government to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


To me...that tells me that the State Law wins. I'm trying to find the result of the appeal.

As for the 2nd part, I'd be interested to know that as well.


Then how come the feds raid california legal medicinal marijuana shops?
 

·
I'm not old, honest...
Joined
·
30,457 Posts
It's my understanding that the most local government has jurisdiction. A city cop has jurisdiction over a county sheriff within the city limits. The county sheriff has jurisdiction over the state police within the county.

So, it only stands to reason that a state DNR officer has jurisdiction within the state. I have asked Trail Fanatic to get clarification from Carla. Don't know if he has yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
DNR is a STATE unit, therefore they're not overriding state law.

Federal law often defers to state level for enforcement. (DNR can enforce state laws on Federal land).

Just my $.02.
The DNR have the right from some public act to write these in house laws . Its a directive from the head of the DNR . It is not a law from the state of Mi. that i question . While there is a public act # !!! that gives them that right , that directive can be and should be questioned and required to stand up to some standard same as any new law should . Currently they just write up stupid shit such as " only if a two wheel vehicle can go there " That type of statment is called a penumbra and will not stand up in court under the test of a law .

I further dubt that a DNR directive can be in conflict with , and certainly not over ride state law .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
It's my understanding that the most local government has jurisdiction. A city cop has jurisdiction over a county sheriff within the city limits. The county sheriff has jurisdiction over the state police within the county.

So, it only stands to reason that a state DNR officer has jurisdiction within the state. I have asked Trail Fanatic to get clarification from Carla. Don't know if he has yet.

actually that is in correct from the police arena . First officer on scene is the officer of control , what department has no bearing unless the first officer is out of there jurisdicition to start with .

Let me add this , Thats how it was 25 years ago when i carried teh badge , may not be that way today .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
actually that is in correct from the police arena . First officer on scene is the officer of control , what department has no bearing unless the first officer is out of there jurisdicition to start with .

Let me add this , Thats how it was 25 years ago when i carried teh badge , may not be that way today .
You're still correct
 

·
I carry a shank
Joined
·
4,543 Posts
DNR laws are administrative rules. Certain state departments have the legal authority (granted by the legislature) to enact "administrative rules", which are state law. These laws are made without the legislature's help or specific approval. I will cite an example of a conflict in administrative rules and state law. CCW's. State law says if you have a CCW permit you can carry a sidearm, concealed legally except in certain places (taverns, public arenas, etc.) Administrative Rules (DNR) says you cannot carry a firearm while bowhunting. State law wins. Now, you can carry your pistol if you have a CCW permit while bowhunting legally. The Attorney General made that opinion.

To challenge the legality and/or consitutionality of an administrative rule, your remedy is to challenge the law in court or file a complaint with the state house of representatives committee on administrative rules. There is a congressional committee that overseas administrative rules.

Here is how the law works:
A state can make a law that is more strict than federal law, but not more lenient.
A city, township or county can make a law that is more strict than a state law, but not more lenient.
We are going to see a conflict here with counties who are passing county laws that allow ORV's on certain county roads when administrative rules (DNR) say you cannot. The DNR knows it can fight these laws, but they don't want to be the bad guys and piss off the northern counties who need the tourism $$$. It's all politics.

Now, add to all of this the fact that a particular court ruling in a case can define things like "what defines a 'forest road'?" These rulings set legal precedent and become law. Clear as mud, right?
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top