PDA

View Full Version : Smart people... legal AW use question.


CavTrooper
11-18-2007, 1:34 PM
Allrighty, did my duty last night and enlighted a CADFG officer about non-AW rifles (OLLs, fixed mag builds) and about the use of legal AWs for hunting. Initially, I had asked about hunting with a legal AW on the Mojave National Preserve, his immediate resopnse was "we will arrest you, it is illegal to use an legal AW anywhere but at a range." At that, I respectfully stated that his information was incorrect and proceeded to explain that you can use them anywhere you have express permission, citing the CABLM lands as an example. Well, he broke out his PC book and we thumbed through it reviewing the AW laws, when we reached 12285 he was suprised to learn that I was right. After a bit of discussion, he came to the conclusion that he would still arrest a person using a legal AW on the MNP and in NF lands because it is FED land and the FED rules do not specifically allow the use of AWs on FED land! I tried reasoning with him, explaining that according to the FED there is no such thing as an AW so how could they specifically allow for something that doesnt exist!

His conclusion: The FED has no authority to enforce the law on FED lands, it falls on the state LE. So he will enforce the laws the way the state has them written, since the FEDs do not SPECIFICALLY allow for the use of AWs on FED land, he will arrest anyone he finds hunting with one.

So now the question.
How the heck can this be fixed?
FED regs allow for the use of firearms on FED land, since there is no AW defenition in FED law, a CA defined AW is just a plain ol' rifle according to the FED, which is allowed!

arrgh.

The SoCal Gunner
11-18-2007, 1:40 PM
More fudd from those who don't want to open their eyes. Seems like he is power hungry and doesn't care whose life he ruins.

Whose... such a weird word.

Fjold
11-18-2007, 1:47 PM
Sometime you can't fix stupid.

You'll have to find his superior and go over his head.

1911su16b870
11-18-2007, 1:54 PM
Sometime you can't fix stupid.

You'll have to find his superior and go over his head.

LOL +1 :rofl2:

Write a letter to the agency explaining everything you just said, send it certified and hope for a return letter agreeing or disagreeing with your claim. I hope one of the calguns legal eagles could assist in that they will not reply unless they think it came from an attorney.

dustoff31
11-18-2007, 1:54 PM
After a bit of discussion, he came to the conclusion that he would still arrest a person using a legal AW on the MNP and in NF lands because it is FED land and the FED rules do not specifically allow the use of AWs on FED land! I tried reasoning with him, explaining that according to the FED there is no such thing as an AW so how could they specifically allow for something that doesnt exist!

His conclusion: The FED has no authority to enforce the law on FED lands, it falls on the state LE. So he will enforce the laws the way the state has them written, since the FEDs do not SPECIFICALLY allow for the use of AWs on FED land, he will arrest anyone he finds hunting with one.

This is most bizarre logic. He believes the Feds cannot enforce law on Federal land, but a state officer can? The Feds do not specifically allow AW's for hunting, nor do they prohibit it. Therefore, there is some violation of law? Nevermind that the feds do often allow shooting AW's on federal land.

Trying to educate him sounds hopeless, maybe you could try his supervisors. Or check with the feds and see what they have to say. It would be kinda' cool to see what he had to say when handed a letter from BLM or the USFS saying there was no problem.

8200rpm
11-18-2007, 2:01 PM
There is no FED law which specifically allows the use of iPods on FED land; therefore, he must arrest everyone using iPods in the National Forest.

What an idiot. How do people like this get beyond the 9th grade?

5150-417
11-18-2007, 2:04 PM
Should have just told him to call his watch commander if not get his badge number and so on, maybe he would have been a little intimidated.

Creeping Incrementalism
11-18-2007, 2:20 PM
There is no FED law which specifically allows the use of iPods on FED land; therefore, he must arrest everyone using iPods in the National Forest.

8200rpm, there is no state law requiring the land owner's permission before listening to one of fed land. Doesn't the state law say that one must have permission before using an AW off-range in the state? I think the DFG officer is correct.

CavTrooper
11-18-2007, 2:29 PM
8200rpm, there is no state law requiring the land owner's permission before listening to one of fed land. Doesn't the state law say that one must have permission before using an AW off-range in the state? I think the DFG officer is correct.

He is correct in his reading of the law, thats really not the issue though. The isue is that the FEDs have no reason to specifically allow the use of AWs on FED land, because according to the FED there is no such thing.

Im trying to figure out who to contact about this and hopefully get some kind of resolution. Either the FED will acknowledge the state law and specify the use on FED lands in CA or they will deny thier use on all FED lands (which they cannot do).

dustoff31
11-18-2007, 2:45 PM
CavTrooper,

You might try these:

Write to
Superintendent
Mojave National Preserve
2701 Barstow Road
Barstow, California 92311
Phone
Visitor Information
(760) 252-6100

Fax
(760) 252-6174



U.S. Forest Service
Supervisor's Office
602 South Tippecanoe Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 382-2600 (voice)
(909) 383-5615 (TTY)

bwiese
11-18-2007, 2:48 PM
CavTrooper,

Please consoildate everything you wrote into a PM with your contact info and any info about the people you were chatting with. This needs to go to the Right Folks for any of numerous reasons.

ljg17
11-18-2007, 2:55 PM
I downloaded a .PDF a while back that spoke to the written permission thing, it was an official memo from the dept of the interior or BLM basically saying that you have their blessing if you are taking an AW on BLM land and shooting it as long as there are no other restrictions. Check this link: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recreation/hunting.print.html

Which states: Persons have the permission of the Bureau of Land Management to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands, except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations.

What this forum needs to do is create a powerpoint and a nice large .pdf specifically for law enforcement agencies, I work at a school that often hosts various public agency trainings and they always seem very hungry for content, I say we give it to them, and send copies to every office in the state at least one a year. They will end up using it and probably take it for gospel.

RobG
11-18-2007, 3:12 PM
he came to the conclusion that he would still arrest a person using a legal AW
He is simply trying to prove he swings a bigger d&^k. What a moron.

metalhead357
11-18-2007, 4:00 PM
Sometime you can't fix stupid.

You'll have to find his superior and go over his head.


yep, not even a +100, that'd be a +10000000000000000000

Ford8N
11-18-2007, 4:54 PM
His conclusion: The FED has no authority to enforce the law on FED lands, it falls on the state LE. So he will enforce the laws the way the state has them written, since the FEDs do not SPECIFICALLY allow for the use of AWs on FED land, he will arrest anyone he finds hunting with one.

.

So now we have to be scared of the DFG because they will arrest us for using a legal rifle? And this particular game warden doesn't care to know the law, he will just arrest and let the judge sort it out? Not good.

CavTrooper
11-18-2007, 5:11 PM
So now we have to be scared of the DFG because they will arrest us for using a legal rifle? And this particular game warden doesn't care to know the law, he will just arrest and let the judge sort it out? Not good.

Apparently you missed the part about him being in the RIGHT if arresting someone for using thier LEGAL, REGISTERD AW, in a place where they do not have specific permission.

The DFG was a nice guy, he was not a jerk or snide or anything like that, he was just serious about his job. We sat on the side of the highway for a couple of hours talking about the law and his (department issued) Socom rifle. He knows his stuff, for the most part, and knows that the firearms laws are jacked up, its just his job the enforce them.

WokMaster1
11-18-2007, 9:48 PM
Apparently you missed the part about him being in the RIGHT if arresting someone for using thier LEGAL, REGISTERD AW, in a place where they do not have specific permission.

The DFG was a nice guy, he was not a jerk or snide or anything like that, he was just serious about his job. We sat on the side of the highway for a couple of hours talking about the law and his (department issued) Socom rifle. He knows his stuff, for the most part, and knows that the firearms laws are jacked up, its just his job the enforce them.

whicj leads me to this question? What were you doing on the side of the highway with a DFG officer?:p

artherd
11-19-2007, 1:38 AM
His conclusion: ...he will arrest anyone he finds hunting with one.

So now the question.
How the heck can this be fixed?

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

Out of idle curiosity, under what PC does this ***-tard think he is going to cite me?

The real way to fix this is to go over his head, as high as possible, via consul or really good letters on your own.

homerm14
11-19-2007, 2:17 AM
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

Out of idle curiosity, under what PC does this ***-tard think he is going to cite me?

The real way to fix this is to go over his head, as high as possible, via consul or really good letters on your own.

Statements like this are a great way to win the hearts and minds of LEO's.

bwiese
11-19-2007, 2:29 AM
Statements like this are a great way to win the hearts and minds of LEO's.

Maybe. But the idiots that do BS arrests ain't gonna be persuaded by logic. The times to be social & friendly about these matters with cops (other than at a traffic stop) are fading.

Lawsuits for false arrest help nicely. So the best way to reach 'hearts & minds" of the rest of these that don't bother to read 12276.1 before an arrest is a suit - and separating the cop from the dept. Let the dept off the hook and go after the individual cop, not to make money but to twist him in the wind without backing.

We've gotten all the friends on our side that we need, plus or minus another 10% that may get some understanding in the next 3 months or so. After that, the status quo among LEs will settle in until the big hammer hits...

I'm betting that in the next couple of months the next schlub cop that can't tell a centerfire from a rimfire AK trainer, or an OLL based on a 22LR, and then pops someone for an AW violation is going to go thru some 'interesting' times regardless of departmental support, or whether or not the DA files on the case (as opposed to files-then-drops).

It's Time To Put Meat On The Table.

wutzu
11-19-2007, 2:38 AM
Statements like this are a great way to win the hearts and minds of LEO's.

Does longstanding case law only matter if it makes LEOs warm and fuzzy inside?

KenpoProfessor
11-19-2007, 2:49 AM
Maybe. But the idiots that do BS arrests ain't gonna be persuaded by logic. The times to be social & friendly about these matters with cops (other than at a traffic stop) are fading.

Lawsuits for false arrest help nicely. So the best way to reach 'hearts & minds" of the rest of these that don't bother to read 12276.1 before an arrest is a suit - and separating the cop from the dept. Let the dept off the hook and go after the individual cop, not to make money but to twist him in the wind without backing.

We've gotten all the friends on our side that we need, plus or minus another 10% that may get some understanding in the next 3 months or so. After that, the status quo among LEs will settle in until the big hammer hits...

I'm betting that in the next couple of months the next schlub cop that can't tell a centerfire from a rimfire AK trainer, or an OLL based on a 22LR, and then pops someone for an AW violation is going to go thru some 'interesting' times regardless of departmental support, or whether or not the DA files on the case (as opposed to files-then-drops).

It's Time To Put Meat On The Table.

As much as I would like to think you're right Bill, I just don't see it happening anytime in our lifetime, or even your children's. The slippery slope has gotten beyond slippery, it's on slide now. CA is getting worse and worse, and I expect no amount of good intentions or paperwork is going to help, the attitude has been engrained, gun owners are bad. The micro-stamping bill was really the camel coming halfway into the tent, it was beyond nose back in 1999.

LEOs in the PRK are ignorant of the law, and sadly, they don't care, and they will ruin your life with an arrest without a thought, no remorse, no guilt. They were just doing their job.:confused:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bwiese
11-19-2007, 2:55 AM
LEOs in the PRK are ignorant of the law, and sadly, they don't care, and they will ruin your life with an arrest without a thought, no remorse, no guilt. They were just doing their job.:confused:

Cops have a duty to know the basics of a law before arrest. "If it looks like an AW" no longer flies.

The goal is to separate the cop from the dept backing ("Yes, we understand XYZ PD cannot continually monitor its officers every second and must thus rely on officers' judgement & initiative. Therefore we accept this token $1K settlement, which in no way indicates a settlement with, or lack of fault of, Officers Bungle & Sneeze, who have independent responsibility for the false arrest of Mr. Smith." - and then hammer on the cops involved. The goal is not to make big money from the PD itself, but to have a few cops twisting in the wind, losing their home equity. Getting them fired is less relevant; getting big payouts from the dept instead of the cop is also less relevant - exert direct force on the enforcers and pretty soon it's all over Police Chief.

Plans are afoot...

KenpoProfessor
11-19-2007, 4:07 AM
Cops have a duty to know the basics of a law before arrest. "If it looks like an AW" no longer flies.

The goal is to separate the cop from the dept backing ("Yes, we understand XYZ PD cannot continually monitor its officers every second and must thus rely on officers' judgement & initiative. Therefore we accept this token $1K settlement, which in no way indicates a settlement with, or lack of fault of, Officers Bungle & Sneeze, who have independent responsibility for the false arrest of Mr. Smith." - and then hammer on the cops involved. The goal is not to make big money from the PD itself, but to have a few cops twisting in the wind, losing their home equity. Getting them fired is less relevant; getting big payouts from the dept instead of the cop is also less relevant - exert direct force on the enforcers and pretty soon it's all over Police Chief.

Plans are afoot...

I agree, making the individual LEO pay for his/her own mistake of ignorance is definitely the way to go. Shame, I don't see it happening, the police union will fight that tooth and nail, "What's that you say, a LEO personally responsible for unlawful arrrest?".


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 5:48 AM
Statements like this are a great way to win the hearts and minds of LEO's.


I think you have this reversed. LEO are supposed to make the PEOPLE all warm and fuzzy inside; like seeing a cop and saying "Hurray!" not seeing one when you're 1000000% in the right and thinking "Oh S****" wonder if this guy is up on the law and wondering if you're going to jail & have your weapons confiscated because of Cali's elusive logic to its laws...

CavTrooper
11-19-2007, 6:40 AM
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

Out of idle curiosity, under what PC does this ***-tard think he is going to cite me?

The real way to fix this is to go over his head, as high as possible, via consul or really good letters on your own.

Well, maybe some folks arent as familiar with the law as they think, as well as unable to completely read and understand the situation here.

12285
(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission.
(2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
(6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276,12276.1, or 12278, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.

Thats what he will arrest you for. By the LETTER of the law, he is correct to do so. Thats the problem, according to the FED, AWs do not exist, so they cannot give specific permission.

M1A Rifleman
11-19-2007, 7:00 AM
The LEO you spoke with is a bonehead as many of the NF webpages do call out legal AW's as being acceptable in the NF as long as there are no local laws prohibiting their use.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-19-2007, 9:46 AM
Does longstanding case law only matter if it makes LEOs warm and fuzzy inside?

If you're talking about "Plummer v State" you won't find it at "136 Ind. 306" and if you do find it, you won't find the quote "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" anywhere in the opinion. Internet lawyering 101: if you're going to be provocative or inflammatory, check your cites first! :D

AJAX22
11-19-2007, 10:12 AM
I'd suggest getting a letter from his department stating that it is illegal and then turning it over to the right people.

A truncheon is a poor substitute for a phallus, any attempt to substitute one for the other will most likely lead to disappointing results when the offending party is confronted.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 2:32 PM
Shooting Sports
http://www.fs.fed.us/common/images/i_spcr01.gif
Shooting sports activities have been enjoyed for generations and are welcomed on National Forest System lands.

Both state and federal laws apply on National Forest System lands, so you also need to check on the state laws and county ordinances which may apply to the area you will be visiting. You also need to be in compliance with any general federal laws and regulations about weapons (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF (http://www.atf.gov/)), etc). The National Rifle Association of America (NRA (http://www.nra.org/)) and many commercial publications provide this information.

The only regulations specific to use of weapons imposed by the Forest Service is that you cannot discharge a weapon within 150 yards of any structure/development or occupied area, within or into a cave, across or on a road or body of water, or in any manner that endangers a person. You also cannot use any tracer or incendiary ammunition. Forest Service regulations require that you also comply with all State laws regarding the use of firearms while hunting.

If you are planning on visiting a designated Wilderness Area (http://www.wilderness.net/), the Regional Forester or Forest Supervisor (http://www.fs.fed.us/contactus/regions.shtml) has the option to implement a special local order which additionally prohibits the mere possession of a firearm within that Wilderness Area. So you should contact the Forest Supervisor's office to find out whether such a restriction has been imposed.

We encourage you to use designated shooting areas or ranges. However, if you choose to shoot in an undesignated area, please ensure that your shooting does not damage any facilities or natural resources, disrupt other uses, or endanger public safety, and ensure you remove any targets, wads, shells, brass and other refuse with you when you leave. Be sure your shooting target area is free of rocks, as wildfires have resulting from sparks from ricochets. Be responsible for your action and follow outdoor ethics, in other words always, Leave No Trace (http://www.lnt.org/) and Tread Lightly! (http://www.treadlightly.org/) on federal lands.

It is also a good idea regardless, just to contact the local Forest Service District or Forest Offices (http://www.fs.fed.us/intro/directory/) in advance of your visit to ask the same question, as they are more aware of local ranges and other opportunities, local orders or restrictions, issues and special conditions that may affect you.

Enjoy your visit to our National Forests.

Jamie Schwartz, Shooting Sports Liaison, USDAForest Service

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/trails/welcome.shtml

If the farts can pull abortion rights from nada...and say that firearms are not a individual right....then why the hell can't anyone pull outta this YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE AN ASSUALT WEAPON ON PUBLIC LANDS SO LONG AS YOU ARE IN COMPLIENCE WITH STATE REGS FOR THE AREA YOU ARE IN????????????????

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 2:47 PM
Moreover....

If the NFS lands are overseen by BLM or jointly administered............... well heck- HERE YA" GO!


Hunting and Target Shooting

Hunting is permitted on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. State of California hunting regulations (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/index.html) must be followed on Federal lands.
http://www.blm.gov/content/etc/medialib//blm/ca/images/images/shared_images/rec.Par.9e1e3cad.Image.61.33.gifTarget Shooting is allowed on public lands. However, you must provide your own targets and remove your debris when you leave your site. It is illegal to shoot at trees, signs, outbuildings, or other objects on federal lands that are for the public's enjoyment.
Bureau of Land Management California policy is to allow the use of firearms on public lands, as provided for in state law, and to cooperate with state authorities in the enforcement of firearms regulations.

Persons have the permission of the Bureau of Land Management to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands, except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations.

Proper Access to public lands must be through public roads. Crossing private lands to access public lands is not permitted unless you first obtain permission from the private landowner. Surface management maps (http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/iac/maps_pubroom.html) may help you in locating public (Federal) lands.

Safe and prudent actions should be followed at all times. Be aware of the other public land visitors who may be utilizing the same areas for other recreational uses, i.e., camping, hiking, biking, and rock-hounding.

If you have specific questions on areas that may be appropriate for hunting or shooting, you are encouraged to contact the BLM Field Office having jurisdiction over the area:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recreation/hunting.print.html

bwiese
11-19-2007, 2:50 PM
To me that is express permission:

The only regulations specific to use of weapons imposed by the Forest Service is that you can discharge a weapon within 150 yards of any structure.

That directly says "we do not control assault weapons".

wutzu
11-19-2007, 8:52 PM
If you're talking about "Plummer v State" you won't find it at "136 Ind. 306" and if you do find it, you won't find the quote "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" anywhere in the opinion. Internet lawyering 101: if you're going to be provocative or inflammatory, check your cites first! :D

As I was commenting, I was thinking of John Bad Elk v. US, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=177&invol=529)
2007-1900 = 107 years (longstanding?), and it was at the SCotUS, so it's certainly the law of the land.

Of particular interest: He[Joh Bad Elk], of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.


I assumed Plummer was a real case in the same vein as Bad Elk v. US. However, I'm unable to find any actual case info on "Plummer v. State" and am inclined to agree with you that it probably doesn't exist. Please don't report me to the Bar of Internet Law!

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 10:02 PM
LEO are supposed to make the PEOPLE all warm and fuzzy inside; like seeing a cop and saying "Hurray!" not seeing one when you're 1000000% in the right and thinking "Oh S****" wonder if this guy is up on the law ...

Yep.

I think that the following is a good notion not just in California, but everywhere though particularly in California:

"There is almost no situation remaining in modern society that can be benefited by the presence of a policeman."

homerm14
11-20-2007, 2:54 AM
I think you have this reversed. LEO are supposed to make the PEOPLE all warm and fuzzy inside; like seeing a cop and saying "Hurray!" not seeing one when you're 1000000% in the right and thinking "Oh S****" wonder if this guy is up on the law and wondering if you're going to jail & have your weapons confiscated because of Cali's elusive logic to its laws...

If you feel warm and fuzz inside when you see a cop good for you. If you don't thats not my fault. I did not write the laws, I'm just there to enforce them. I agree 100% that California has many rediculious laws. I understand Californias laws very well and can say I have never had to deal with an OLL or a "legal" assault weapon. By the way the last time I saw assault weapon defined it was a selective fire weapon. I do however deal with many illegal weapons every day, mostly in the possesion of criminals. I am just trying to say instead of bashing LEO's and making stupid quotes how about we try to make things civil. I don't feel I shoud own any thing that any other law abiding citizen can't. My job is hard enough having to deal with real criminals, I don't need to hear about law abiding citizens resisting LEO's with deadly force. Just my 2 cents.

CavTrooper
11-20-2007, 6:29 AM
......I understand Californias laws very well.....

......I have never had to deal with an OLL or a "legal" assault weapon.....

......By the way the last time I saw assault weapon defined it was a selective fire weapon.

Why is the word "legal" in quotes? Are you under the impression there are no legal AWs?

Have you seen "Assault weapon" defined in the CA penal code?

chiefcrash
11-20-2007, 6:41 AM
CavTrooper,

Please consoildate everything you wrote into a PM with your contact info and any info about the people you were chatting with. This needs to go to the Right Folks for any of numerous reasons.

for some reason i love how you refer to the "Right Folks" as a proper noun...

homerm14
11-20-2007, 12:40 PM
Why is the word "legal" in quotes? Are you under the impression there are no legal AWs? No I am not. I own several myself.

Have you seen "Assault weapon" defined in the CA penal code? Yes I have. Does that mean the CPC definition is the right one?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-20-2007, 4:43 PM
I assumed Plummer was a real case in the same vein as Bad Elk v. US. However, I'm unable to find any actual case info on "Plummer v. State" and am inclined to agree with you that it probably doesn't exist. Please don't report me to the Bar of Internet Law!

Don't worry, I won't report you, your internet bar license is safe! :p I wasn't really directing my comments at anyone in particular, though. Whenever I see case cites on the internet I usually look them up just to check for accuracy and in this case the cite was wrong and the quote wasn't really a quote. I did a bit of digging, found the erroneous quote and cite on other websites, and then found the actual Plummer v. State decision, and basically what it was saying was that if a cop uses excessive force in arresting you (in Plummer the cop beat a guy on the head with a club for no reason then shot him!) you can defend yourself to a reasonable extent. This is a little bit different from saying you can use violence to resist a Fish and Game warden whose interpretation of the AW possession laws you don't agree with.