Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §10902, sub-§4, as affected by PL 2003, c. 614, §9 and amended by c. 655, Pt. B, §98 and affected by §422, is further amended to read:

4. Mandatory revocation or suspension of all licenses issued by department. A person's license or permit must be revoked or suspended under the following circumstances.

A. If a person holding a license or permit under this chapter Part is convicted of the a violation of any provision of Title 17-A while on a hunting or fishing trip or in the pursuit of wild animals, wild birds or fish, the commissioner shall revoke the license or permit held by that person for a period of at least one year, except when the killing or wounding of a human being has occurred, in which case the commissioner shall revoke the license or permit for at least 5 years.

B. Any license or permit issued by the department in effect at the time a person is convicted of a violation of section 12256, disturbing traps, is revoked upon conviction and must be immediately surrendered to the commissioner.

C. If an a habitual violator, as defined in section 10605, subsection 1, is convicted or adjudicated of a violation of any provision of this Part, the commissioner shall revoke all licenses and permits held by that person. That person is ineligible to have a license for a period to be determined by the commissioner, which may not be less than 3 years from the date of revocation. A hearing for a person whose licenses and permits have been revoked under this paragraph is governed by the following.

(1) A person whose licenses and permits have been revoked under this paragraph may, within 30 days of the effective date of the revocation, petition for a hearing before the commissioner to show cause why the licenses and permits should not have been revoked.

(2) If, after the hearing, the commissioner finds that the petitioner's record does not bring the petitioner within the definition of an habitual violator, the commissioner shall rescind the revocation. If the commissioner finds that the petitioner's record does bring the petitioner within the definition of an habitual violator, the revocation remains in effect. If the petitioner denies any of the facts contained in the record, the petitioner has the burden of proof.