LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-10 AT 02:05PM (MST)[p]>>Your right that the parties challenging the law lost, but they lost for other reasons. Courts will always look for a reason to avoid having to rule on constitutional issues.<<
Having covered this case for several years in my columns, I'm a bit familiar with it.;-) The BRIEF synopsis below.
The original suit -- USO vs AZ -- came about when USO claimed they were selling antlers that would often be transported across state lines. USO lost in the STATE courts.
USO then appealed that decision, and the 9th Cicuit Court, using the Interstate Commerce Clause because of the antler claim, reversed that decision, thereby remanding the case back to the state for resolution. The state then appealed to the SCOTUS, which refused to hear it.
In the meantime, the state court ordered AZ to issue permits to any NR who had been rejected under the 10% cap.
So USO was ready to go after Nevada. Thus, up stepped Reid and others to introduce the current law eliminating a state's ability to manage its game WITHIN the state from the reach of the ICC. That automatically trumped the 9th's decision with no further court action involved.
If the current law was indeed unconstitutional, USO had the option to pursue that avenue. It chose not to do so because a loss was emminent since it could no longer use the ICC as a crutch.
As a result, every other similar suit in other states was dismissed, as well.
And so it stands today.
>>Get caught and a WY judge suspends your right to hunt, most other states will also consider you suspended too. No more elk hunting. That alone assures I will be very very carefull and obey all laws.<<
The total for the Interstate Violator Compact is now up to 34 states with Texas recently joining.
TONY MANDILE
How To Hunt Coues Deer
