From: boardman@cancer.unm.edu (Bob Boardman)
Subject: Re: NM Spotlighting Law
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:26:02 GMT
Organization: UNM Cancer Center
Distribution: talk
Reply-To: boardman@cancer.unm.edu

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug25154404@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>From the New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Vehicle Forfeiture Law,
>Chapter 17-2-20.1, Section C.
>
>"Any motor vehicle shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture when
>operated in violation of Section 17-2-31 NMSA 1978, regarding hunting
>by spotlight. In the event of seizure and forfeiture under this
>subsection, the motor vehicle shall be disposed of in accordance with
>the provisions of 17-2-20.2 NMSA 1978. (Section 17-2-20.d provides for
>the sale of the vehicle at public auction.)
>
>Headlights are included in Chapter 17-2-31: It is unlawful for any
>person or one or more of a group of persons together to throw or cast
>the rays of a spotlight or other artificial light into any field,
>pasture, woodland, forest or prarie wherein big game or domestic
>livestock may be, or may be reasonably expected to be, while having in
>his possession or their possession or under control a firearm or other
>implement whereby any big game animal or domestic animal could be
>killed by aid of an artificial light. 
>
>========================================================================
>
>COMMENT: The law as written would require the arrest of many people
>who drive in many parts of New Mexico at night, whether they have a
>firearm or not, for spotlighting. Certainly it requires the arrest of
>many people who drive at night in any mountainous areas with either a 
>handgun of .357 or virtually any centerfire rifle anywhere in the vehicle. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It has NOT been so enforced; so far as I can tell, the law has been
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>enforced against poachers only in accordance with the intent of the
>Legislators who passed it. However, as written the law appears
>to violate both the NM Constitution and the US Constitution; in any
>event, it certainly leaves the opportunity for abuse wide open. 
>
>The only people I know who have petitioned for repeal of this law
>are really trying to change the law; inclusion of "intent" might
>be a good idea.
>
	I read of one case last fall where (according to the accused)
  a man was driving in a Blazer (I think) with one other adult and his
  son, and they stopped on the shoulder illuminating some deer with their
  headlights so that the boy could watch them.  They were arrested and the
  vehicle was seized because a pistol was found under the driver's seat.
  The driver claimed that he hadn't even thought about having the pistol
  under the seat and was unaware of the new law.  I believe this one is
  still awaiting trial, if it hasn't been dismissed.
	The way that the current law is written completely shuts down
  the sport of raccoon hunting with dogs, since there is no way to hunt
  'coons at night without a spotlight, and the Gamey Fish idiots consider
  a .22 rifle "an implement whereby any big game animal or domestic animal
  could be killed".  I believe this is why certain groups are trying to get
  the law re-written - not to legalize spotlighting big game, but just to
  remove some of the overly broad wording.

  -Bob


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|**I _AM_ a member of a well-regulated militia - self-regulated, that is!!!!**|
| Bob Boardman,Albuquerque,New Mexico - NRA LIFE, NMSSA, Zia Rifle&Pistol Club|
|        internet:boardman@cancer.unm.edu    bitnet:BOARDMAN@UNMB             |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns