Russia’s Supreme Court agreed that a walk through the woods shrouded with a gun can be considered hunting. Hence the conclusion: who caught the poacher.
Revisit the attitude towards armed hunters and just people to please ask the applicant PA And in. In his opinion, it is necessary to edit the Model Regulations hunting RSFSR approved another major management of hunting reserves and the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR. Otherwise, hunters can burn any foreign, with whom will find a gun.
The document adopted during the Soviet era, said that hunting is recognized for the purpose of hunting down prey, persecution itself prey wild animals and birds in a state of natural liberty. This is the first paragraph of paragraph 1, where everything is clear, the applicant claims was not.
But the second paragraph equates to the production of hunting in the hunting grounds to find firearms, traps and other hunting guns and dogs and birds of prey, or from products produced hunting. If taken literally (as enforcers seem to be well aware), a walk in the woods at an odd hour disassembled gun can be equated to poaching. Or, say, milder violation of hunting rules.
The gun is? The forest around? Animals run away? So — it pays.
For reference, under Article 8.37 of the Code of Administrative Offences for violation of rules of hunting the man faces a fine from 1000 to 2000 rubles with confiscation of hunting weapons or without. Or — the denial of the right to hunt for up to two years. Therefore, the question as to whether a hunter squire for many citizens turned out to be fundamental.
Typical hunting regulations were introduced by the order of the hunting department number 1 on January 4, 1988. Another time, another country … But it does not change anything: the document in force.
Apparently, the applicant once detained in the hunting grounds at the wrong time with the disassembled gun in the bag. He tried to prove that hunting and did not mean to. However, he was punished for violation of hunting regulations, citing the mentioned rules.
In his statement to the court, a citizen pointed out that the Model Regulations (in his opinion) contradict normative legal acts that have greater legal force, and violate his rights and freedoms as a citizen and a hunter for the transportation of hunting weapons and finding him in the hunting grounds.
Representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian claim is not recognized. Prosecutor General Prosecutor of Russia LE Stepanova also asked to deny the applicant’s claim. In turn, the country’s Supreme Court, having examined the matter, the same rules considered completely acceptable.
For example, as stated in the decision, the law "On the hunt" (Part 2 of Article 57) equates to hunt in the hunting grounds to find individuals with the tools and hunting (or) products of hunting dogs, hunting breeds, birds of prey. And another item of the same law defines as a hunting gun fire, air, and edged weapons, referred to hunting, as well as ammunition, traps and other devices used in hunting.
In general, as the saying goes, everything has. And there, and there number is not the hunter who shoots, but the one with the gun. So said the Supreme Court, the applicant’s argument contradicts the rules of the disputed law on hunting is wrong.
"Consistent contested prescription and paragraph 10 of the Regulations on hunting and hunting economy of the RSFSR, approved by the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of October 10, 1960 № 1548, as amended by Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 1994 № 1402 establishing that presence in hunting lands with guns equates to hunt"- The document says the Supreme Court.
However, there are still rules obtaining of fauna of game. The document approved by the Russian government on January 10, 2009 № 18. There in the interpretation of the concept of what is a hunting, says nothing of the uncovered gun. But federal laws have greater legal weight. So the Soviet wording in this case, have the upper hand.
The Supreme Court in the first instance rejected the claim of the applicant. However, in each case should be dealt separately. The rules do not interfere with the inspectors with understanding a person. No need to invent violations where none exist.
For example, people only carrying (transfer) weapons. Or just lay rifle in a jeep, and citizen arrived, say, fishing or mushrooming. Perhaps experienced eyes forester can understand where wily poacher, and where banal misunderstanding.
"The applicant in fact disputes the specific enforcement decision to bring him to administrative responsibility for violation of hunting regulations, — the document says the Supreme Court. — However, in the present case in the framework of abstract normative control the court is not entitled to verify the legality of such a decision. An applicant may appeal to the procedure established by law".
Curiously, the same item hunting regulations has been challenged in the Supreme Court three years ago. However, if the court fully sided with the applicant. Moot point equated to hunt among others and finding a hunting gun assembled on public roads.
The applicant MV Ith considered that this provision violated his rights and the rights of other citizens, in fact, introducing a ban on the transport of those models of hunting weapons, which can not be disassembled without tools. The highest court agreed with his arguments. "… In approving the Model Regulations on the authority responsible for their adoption, it went beyond the powers granted to him and actually set a new concept of hunting, equating it with the finding of hunting weapons assembled on public roads that can not be recognized as lawful"It was said in the decision.
Based on that (already canceled) standards, the violators of rules of hunting can be counted among the man with a dagger or air rifle, lying in the car. Drive on the highway Moscow — St. Petersburg, consider a poacher.
"… hunting grounds by virtue of paragraph 3 of the Regulation on the hunt recognized all land, forest and vodopokrytye areas that provide habitat for wild animals and birds and can be used for game management", Said the Supreme Court. So, the road paved in the forest, even if the federal highway, is also a kind of hunting? So it would be possible to bring the situation and the absurd. For example, a naval officer traveling by car to the new place of service. The luggage is dress uniform with a dagger. What: any ranger could "sew" his violation of the rules of the hunt?
Now, however, concerns in the past. The rate of the country’s Supreme Court overturned. The decision was confirmed on appeal and entered into force.
Source: IA REGNUM
December 23, 2011 at 17:07