Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
So they are usually going to side with anti-assembly rules. It make their job easier and them safer.
You can see this in the rafting laws and rules. The state law (RSA 270:44) does not have the language about 150' from shore. The Safety rule Saf-C 407 adds the 150' language. So the state legislature adopted a rafting law and the Deparment of Safety implemented an even stricter rule in their rulemaking process.
I think these rules are overused and capriciously applied but they legal.
|
As far as safety, I believe the fact that rafting restrictions are only applied in select areas shows that rafting is not a safety concern. I could organize a large raft on the day of ice-out anywhere outside the rafting restricted areas.
The RSA and Saf-C 407 do exist on the books but doesn't mean they can't be challenged. It wasn't that long ago that women and blacks couldn't vote and at one time was considered legal. Semantics aside, I think we agree that the rule is overused in it's application. From a legal standpoint, the restrictions on assembly would have to be compelling for a court to side with the state and given that rafting is only in specific areas, with a heavy emphasis in Moultonborough would make it hard for them to use a safety argument.