Indians O351 Sample Clauses

Indians O351. Because defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, charged with violation of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act did not apply for permit to take eagle, he could not, upon seeking dismissal of information under RFRA, bring as-applied challenges to per- mit process, to extent that he challenged potential problems with permitting process that did not occur and therefore did not affect him, such as any delay or improper denial of permit that he might have experi- enced if he had applied, short of delay or maladministration rendering permit pro- cess futile. Bald and Golden Eagle Pro- tection Act, § 1, 16 U.S.C.A. § 668(a); Re- ligious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, § 3(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb–1(a).

Indians O351. Because defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, charged with violation of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act did not apply for permit to take eagle, he could not, upon seeking dismissal of information under RFRA, bring as-applied challenges to reg- ulation stating that permittee consented to entry by federal agents of location where wildlife was kept, where defendant did not know about permitting scheme until after he took eagle, such that existence of provi- sion could not have affected his decision not to apply for permit. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, § 1, 16 U.S.C.A. § 668(a); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, § 3(a), 00 X.X.X.X. § 0000xx– 1(a); 50 C.F.R. § 13.21(e)(2).

Indians O351. Even though defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, charged with violation of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act did not apply for permit to take eagle, he could, upon seek- ing dismissal of information under RFRA, bring as-applied challenges to aspects of permitting scheme that had been applied to him, namely, lack of outreach for permit program, which affected him because he did not know about program, and govern- ment’s decision to prosecute him rather than electric company that might cause same harm through electrocution of eagles, which affected defendant because he was being prosecuted. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, § 1, 16 U.S.C.A. § 668(a); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, § 3(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb–1(a).

Indians O351. Permitting process of Bald and Gold- en Eagle Protection Act did not facially violate RFRA, in that government had compelling interest in protecting eagles, and, if eagles were not protected or if there were no effective means of distin- guishing between religious and nonreli- gious takings of eagles, it presumably would be more difficult for Native Ameri- cans to obtain eagles for their sacred pur- poses. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, § 1, 16 U.S.C.A. § 668(a); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, § 3(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb–1(a).