grndslm wrote:Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, at page 491: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miller v. U.S. 230 F.2d 486, 489 (1956): "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime"
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F. 946 (1973): "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
"Fishing" is not an un-a-lienable right. It's not protected by the Constitution. Otherwise, any dirty hippie could wander onto your property and take fish from your ponds, because it's his "birth-right".
At the end of the day, "government" presumes it owns everything, and that you are trespassing. A fishing license is permission to fish on the Lord's land. A driver's license is permission to drive on the Lord's roads. etc. etc.
"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful" - Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788)