Law Concerning Ice Fishing Houses in Minnesota

This “it’s my rights” thing is nonsense. They are not making you do things outside the scope of their job. They’re not taking your guns, they’re not forcing Obama Care on you, they’re censoring you in some way. They’re simply checking compliance in accordance with your license. This whole rights thing is really just pettiness. It is their right to search if they feel they have probable cause. So who’s rights take precedence in that matter? If you really feel that infringed on after an encounter then file a grievance with the DNR. Otherwise remember that with most anything, you get as you give. Show respect and you’ll be shown respect.

Huntindave wrote:

A “premises of an activity requiring a license” can be searched with out a warrant.

But now that wheel houses and permanents require shelter licensing, does that change things???

It’s such a fine line.

Dutchboy wrote:

99% of people are hiding nothing. But we probably have some 1% ers here also.

And 99.99% of LEOs are honest. They leaves some that aren’t.

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

Some of these anti-CO responses remind me of a situation we had at work a couple of years ago.

That is very vague and I hope you are not including me. I have close family members in law enforcement and fully support all law enforcement. All the officers I know, also fully support a citizens rights and respect those rights.

Dutchboy wrote:

99% of people are hiding nothing. But we probably have some 1% ers here also.

Yep and unfortunately (according to my contacts in the sheriff’s office) there is that same 1% in law enforcement.

I have never let a co in my fish house or in my boat. I will not submit to a warrant less search. They are doing an investigation from the first interaction. I have nothing to hide, but if they are going to try to get me to wave my rights I’m going to waste their time. My favorite was when a co wanted to look inside my livewell. I told him absolutely not unless he had a warrant. I said you can visually check the outside of the boat, but you may not touch any of my property. My wishes were followed to a T. An absolute good interaction. My rights were never infringed upon only because he knew I would not bow down.

Bottom line is that a LEO knows your rights sometimes better than you do. If they choose to weasel their way around them they lose my respect… and cooperation. It happened to me recently.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Huntindave wrote:</div>
A “premises of an activity requiring a license” can be searched with out a warrant.

But now that wheel houses and permanents require shelter licensing, does that change things???

It’s such a fine line.

You are misreading the language. It is the “activity” , not the “premises”. A hunting blind does not require a lisc NOR does a shelter which is not left on the ice unoccupied. If you are sitting in a “structure” designed strictly for hunting or fishing, that “activity” (hunting or fishing) requires a lisc. thus the structure can be searched.

As I stated before, if you are sitting n a “fish house”, that structure has evolved to more than simply a structure for fishing, it has been ruled a “temporary abode”.

biggill wrote:

Bottom line is that a LEO knows your rights sometimes better than you do. If they choose to weasel their way around them they lose my respect… and cooperation. It happened to me recently.

It happened to me as well. And I found out he had multiple complaints against him.

You guys fight ’em and flex your rights all you want. I’ll comply and be on my way in short order.

So the way I read Tom’s response is that since I will not allow a warrantless search, I am probably hiding something significant. What an asinine assumption. That is the same as assuming that people who allow a search are 100% compliant and should never receive a citation…..

That is laughable at best.

Dutchboy wrote:

You guys fight ’em and flex your rights all you want. I’ll comply and be on my way in short order.

A refusal is not fighting any one. That’s why they ask for permission. When I’m out camping in our shack for the week I simply just say no if I dont want company. If I’m running around checking tip ups or out hole hoping then that’s a different story. I’m respectful or try to be in both scenarios

I don’t think there should be a p-$$/?g match with everyone on here. Our founding fathers instilled these rights and thousands have paid for them with the ultimate sacrifice.
These are your rights and if you choose to exercise them, great, and you want to let them in then great.
These are choices that no one should have a problem with.
Thanks

I’m not arguing Dave, I just think it’s such a fine line. I do expect there to be a similar challenge to that ruling if there hasn’t been one already.

I was on Mille Lacs 2 winters ago with my 2 y/o daughter in my buddies permanent. A CO knocked on the door and asked if I’d kept any fish and asked for my license. I gave him my license and he peeked inside. I don’t believe he ever stepped inside. If he did it was just in the doorway with the door open. It was a good example of how they should respect your rights. Anything more is wrong and they know it.

Having read many a post of Tom’s. He knows what’s good. Nicer you are to the wardens nicer they are to you. Sure pisses me off when I have to stop what I’m doing in the boat to prove I’m innocent though just search the boat at the landing when I’m done.

Have you ever thought wouldn’t need the wardens if it wasn’t for idiots maybe we should go after them instead! Pitchfork nation!

slipbob_nick wrote:

Having read many a post of Tom’s. He knows what’s good. Nicer you are to the wardens nicer they are to you. Sure pisses me off when I have to stop what I’m doing in the boat to prove I’m innocent though just search the boat at the landing when I’m done.

Have you ever thought wouldn’t need the wardens if it wasn’t for idiots maybe we should go after them instead! Pitchfork nation!

…and just remember, people have to continously fight for our rights. Everyone should should read a little about these rights before you’re willing to give them up.

You start giving up those rights, have fun fighting for your rights to bear arms. You okay surrendering to those rights cause you don’t own a gun? Well, many people don’t and would love to see that happen!

It’s not a pitch fork nation, it’s simply protecting our rights. Ask the Jews during WWII what they thought about unwarranted searches of houses in Germany? A little extreme???? Maybe, but we won’t know what the future brings.

This hyperbole if they’ll take your guns nonsense that always comes up. What politician ever said they would take your guns? Just because they want to regulate the need for semi automatic assault rifles is in no way the same as wanting to take all your guns. Just stop with this “if you give up this they’ll take that”. We’re not talking about anything besides how to deal with a warden. It certainly is your right to refuse, no one is disputing that. But if you are just being obtuse because it’s your right well that’s up to you, but don’t b**ch when they stop you at first chance. After all it is their right to stop you then to check your compliance.

Right on Huntindave!

Did I just read “take our guns” and WWII Nazi references in a post about icehouse laws and COs?

I’m embarrassed for some of the posters involved.

Tom, I have to say, I’ve always thought you were a wealth of knowledge and a good guy— at least from what I’ve seen on here— but man oh man do you come across as a “holier-than-thou” type sometimes. Some people like smoking weed, some like drinking beer. Some don’t like either and some do it all. To each their own. If you’re not hurting anyone besides yourself, be my guest. Alright, ‘nuff said.

glenn57 wrote:

that I’d absolutely NOT a ridiculous question. Chances are those same people that deny access would be the first ones screaming if they needed assistance and they weren’t there to help.

It’s their job to be there to help if required or asked but it’s NOT their job to deny our rights and shred our constitution protection in the process.

“Glenn57
Heck, I thought it was foolish when they no longer allowed these road check points.”

I guess by road check points you are referring to DUI road blocks. The reason Minnesota doesn’t have them any more is the Minnesota supreme court ruled these stops were unconstitutional on the state level. Lucky us Minnesotans. Nine other states have outlawed them too: Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Read the 4th amendment to the federal constitution to find out why they should be disallowed on the federal level too.

Statistics do not prove these stops are beneficial. All they do is urine off the majority of the people and they violate the 4th amendment. More DUI arrests are the result of patrolling the roads. They are expensive too. You have an average of 15 cops manning these things standing around mostly doing nothing. They could be out patrolling.

And if people obeyed the law and did not drive after drinking there would be no need to patrol, would there. But since people are people…. and many of them feeling above the law….we have measures to try and keep them in check. Personally I think anyone caught with a blood alcohol level of .04 or more should see a year in the clink and no driving for ten years. First offense. If they’re caught behind the wheel inside that ten years, make it twenty with the first ten from that point behind bars. If they’re caught again, shoot’em.

Drunks, drugs and phones….take them all off the roadways. And make it hurt big time from the get go.

Wichman in regards to the gun control you’ve got you blinders on if you think it can’t happen here.

Ru Ko wrote:

“Glenn57
Heck, I thought it was foolish when they no longer allowed these road check points.”

I guess by road check points you are referring to DUI road blocks. The reason Minnesota doesn’t have them any more is the Minnesota supreme court ruled these stops were unconstitutional on the state level. Lucky us Minnesotans. Nine other states have outlawed them too: Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Read the 4th amendment to the federal constitution to find out why they should be disallowed on the federal level too.

Statistics do not prove these stops are beneficial. All they do is urine off the majority of the people and they violate the 4th amendment. More DUI arrests are the result of patrolling the roads. They are expensive too. You have an average of 15 cops manning these things standing around mostly doing nothing. They could be out patrolling.

no, I was referring to game checks. I’ve been through a fish check and one opening weekend of deer hunting

I assume you can’t wrap your head around the fact that drinking and drugs isn’t the reason we dont let people just intrude and step on your rights. That’s the reason I also say I’m always respectful. And if I want to be buzzed up or blacked out wasted isn’t that my right. They can’t do much about it.

When has anyone ever said they would take all of our guns besides the NRA themselves. And to take this conversation to taking our guns is just ridiculous. You guys love to bring gun control into any conversation about anything even remotely related. It’s a lazy argument that has no bearing on this topic.

al-wichman wrote:

When has anyone ever said they would take all of our guns besides the NRA themselves. And to take this conversation to taking our guns is just ridiculous. You guys love to bring gun control into any conversation about anything even remotely related. It’s a lazy argument that has no bearing on this topic.

Well if you enjoy hunting with any gun that fires a bullet in repeatable succession you better take notice of the law just passed in Washington state….off subject maybe, unless this topic is about rights and infringement on said rights. Also I am not a member of the NRA nor have I ever given them any money. But I do own a Remmington 1100 I enjoy using for bird hunting and Browning A.R. I use for deer hunting that would be affected by this law.

And for those of you embarrassed by “take your guns” types and WW2 nazi references: If you fail to learn from history you are destined to repeat it….

Well if you enjoy hunting with any gun that fires a bullet in repeatable succession you better take notice of the law just passed in Washington state….off subject maybe, unless this topic is about rights and infringement on said rights. Also I am not a member of the NRA nor have I ever given them any money. But I do own a Remmington 1100 I enjoy using for bird hunting and Browning A.R. I use for deer hunting that would be affected by this law.

And for those of you embarrassed by “take your guns” types and WW2 nazi references: If you fail to learn from history you are destined to repeat it….
[/quote]

I agree 100 percent

I do not blame people for letting men with guns do a search. It’s likely easier and quicker. I also do not blame people for not giving permission. After all, the agents usually ask for permission.

You may not have anything to hide that you know of. The laws are numerous and often open to interpretation. When it comes to raising revenue, finding criminal activity can become very easy. You will likely be met with a smile and left in peace, but not always. Of course we all have friends and family that do the states bidding. They are good people. They also will follow orders and enforce unjust laws against peaceful people. This is why statism is so dangerous.

Good people will follow orders no matter how immoral the law is. When questioned, they will admit to following orders as if they did nothing wrong. No matter which country in any era, all of the world’s greatest travesties, genocides, and abductions have been committed by good men just following orders.

Do what you think is right.

Ok, you all be forewarned. If you are in my boat or my fish house if approached by law enforcement I will allow a search. I will allow them to board my boat, I will allow them inside the shack. Should I have to many Walleyes or be cooking meth I will assume I will be in trouble. If I’m legal I will assume I will be OK. Now, if you as my guests have pockets full of drugs maybe I will be in trouble.

I will also assume if I spend the rest of my life in jail it won’t be because I measured a Walleye wrong.