BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

Found this interesting.

"He [The Judge] said Jesty [The Plantiff] can have the fee waived if he can prove that he, as an individual, requires firearms to hunt or trap in order to sustain himself or his family."

[saskie]

That's a Supreme court challenge waiting to happen. While there is no special provision in C68 specifically exempting Natives from licencing and fees, it is in their treaty that they have the right to hunt and are not subject to many (if not all) of the other hunting regulations.

The "sustinence hunter" status has been around for a long time - as long as I've been hunting anyway (1987). I asked the RCMP about it once back then and they said that it was only granted to people living up in the bush and didn't apply to 99% of "regular" Canadians.

I think that he'll have serious trouble being able to prove that he depends on hunting for sustinence, especially if he receives any sort of payment for being Native from the govt as part of the treaty.

This will be VERY interesting...

[bitmasher]

I'm no expert on tribal law, but at least here in the states sovereignty of native nations superceeds state/federal rules in most cases. I have no idea what the "Supreme Court of Canada Simon decision" is, so what is done in the states may have no relevance at all.

A common example here is gambling on Indian Reservations even if the surrounding states forbid gambling.

I have also heard that Indian Reservations skirt the ever spiraling tobacco tax, allowing much cheaper sales of cigarettes on the reservation.

If a C68 style act passed down here, it would be on a collision course with Indian gun owners. It would be a field day.