Post by Woody Williams on Aug 31, 2005 19:22:08 GMT -5
The information below was copied from the Wildlife Law News Weekly (May
9). wildlifelawnews.unm.edu/
TENNESSEE'S BAN ON POSSESSING DEER IS CONSTITUTIONAL
A statutory ban on possession of white-tailed deer is not unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that the laws regulating possession of exotic animals discriminated against interstate commerce, unlawfully delegated authority to the Wildlife Resources Agency, and were vague and overbroad. Among several appeals, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that the delegation of authority was not unlawful. The Commerce Clause issue was eventually remanded to consider the ban on possession of white-tailed deer. The lower and appellate courts found the ban does not unduly burden commerce, and the state's interest in protecting its indigenous white-tailed deer (especially from chronic wasting disease) outweighs any effect on interstate commerce. Bean v. Bredesen, No.M2003-01665-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App., May 2, 2005).
www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/052/BeanRopn.pdf
9). wildlifelawnews.unm.edu/
TENNESSEE'S BAN ON POSSESSING DEER IS CONSTITUTIONAL
A statutory ban on possession of white-tailed deer is not unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that the laws regulating possession of exotic animals discriminated against interstate commerce, unlawfully delegated authority to the Wildlife Resources Agency, and were vague and overbroad. Among several appeals, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that the delegation of authority was not unlawful. The Commerce Clause issue was eventually remanded to consider the ban on possession of white-tailed deer. The lower and appellate courts found the ban does not unduly burden commerce, and the state's interest in protecting its indigenous white-tailed deer (especially from chronic wasting disease) outweighs any effect on interstate commerce. Bean v. Bredesen, No.M2003-01665-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App., May 2, 2005).
www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/052/BeanRopn.pdf
