|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
119 registered members (kaintuck, top cat, Kang, kodiak06, HHSyelper, Hammertime7v2, quailman, HURRICANE, roosterbob, Fishhead706, 3006bullet, juice, CKyleC, jawbone, Squeaky, booner, Semo, Rainbowstew, 7x57_Mauser, Woody1, JPink, Daveleeal, mossyback, mdavis, AUjerbear, Crawfish, MarksOutdoors, BhamFred, Etyson, 4Him146, Paint Rock 00, Backwards cowboy, jaredhunts, lckrn, Paxamus, RSF, deerfeeder89, BCLC, hoggin, BentBarrel, rhino21, billrv, AUdeerhunter, twaldrop4, kanebreak, Parker243, dwaugh, russellb, claybird, Tailwalk7, canine933, RUGRAT45, Ol’Tom, Narrow Gap, Ar-Humter, Rooster600, bambam32, farmerjay, brianr, oldandwise, k bush, Morris, bhammedic84, slanddeerhunter, Josh3, jwalker77, SC53, Crappie, cch, BigEd, ParrotHead89, GHTiger10, Peach, Red Fox, brushwhacker, sj22, auman, desertdog, 2walnuts, RocN151, Wes7777, Chipnalong, cartervj, Hester, turkey247, rockhunter, Luxfisher, dustymac, limabean, 2 ducks, hillmp, Jason Carroll, geeb1, deadeye, sawdust, AL18, DHW, mathews prostaff, Gunpowder, Ruger7mag, Bustinbeards, Omega One, staticflownut, odocoileus, highliner, deadeye48, Solothurn, 12 invisible),
716
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112155
03/27/11 01:26 PM
03/27/11 01:26 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
There you go trying to make it complicated again. Keep it simple. Tell the judges of the Arkansas Supreme Court that their opinon is BS. You haven't offered anything to support your position other than making personal attacks on me. BTW: Show us something to support your statements here: Walking down the RR tracks IS against the Law.
Cartridges in the clip/magazine of the gun define it as 'loaded'.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Bucky205]
#112189
03/27/11 03:13 PM
03/27/11 03:13 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 36,948 alabama
BhamFred
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 36,948
alabama
|
49r, regulations pertaining to WMAs consider a mag loaded gun to be a loaded firearm, irregardless of a chamber loading. I'd tell you what reg number but I don't feel like looking it up.... might be in a vehicle only? troy
I've spent most of the money I've made in my lifetime on hunting and fishing. The rest I just wasted.....
proud Cracker-Americaan
muslims are like coyotes, only good one is a dead one
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: BhamFred]
#112228
03/27/11 04:48 PM
03/27/11 04:48 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
troy, Hogwild needs to learn to back his own words up instead of just throwing crap out there and calling it the truth. 9-11-257 is the law that was cited in the violation at hand. It says nothing about loaded firearms or attached clips with ammo being the defintion of a loaded firearm. It only addresses hunting and discharging firearms. AG Opinion 1994-062 states that the DCNR told the Attorney General that, in it's interpretation of the law, 9-11-304 did not apply to public rights-of-way or privately owned property. It only follows that the DCNR rule that prohibits carrying loaded firearms or firearms with ammunintion in the magazine or an attached clip in a vehicle would not apply there either if 9-11-304 does not apply there. It would be inconsistent to hold otherwise. [Edit: I don't doubt for a minute that there have been plenty of tickets paid in error on this one.] The DCNR rule certainly does not apply to a person on foot who is walking down a railroad which is not a part of the WMA any more than a public road is. The rule only applies to firearms in vehicles as you stated that you thought it might. ##################################################################################################################### I have added the following WMA rule for educational purposes: 220-2-.55 Wildlife Management Areas, Community Hunting Areas, Public Hunting Areas, and Refuges of Alabama (1) It shall be unlawful on ALL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS, COMMUNITY HUNTING AREAS, PUBLIC HUNTING AREAS, AND REFUGE AREAS, all of which are established as "wildlife management areas" by Rule 220-2-.22 and all of which are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to herein as "AREAS" or "AREA":
...(h) For any person to carry in or on a vehicle, any of the following: any firearms [including pistols/handguns, except as described in (ff)] with ammunition in the magazine, breech or clip attached to firearms, or black powder weapons with primer, cap or flash powder in place, or cocked crossbows. See (ff) for limited exception for certain lawfully licensed handguns possessed for personal protection.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112320
03/27/11 07:42 PM
03/27/11 07:42 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
Danny, Situational Ethics at it's finest!
And, if you look back, the 'Sarah Brady' comments were YOURS, not mine.
So, again; you have proved yourself a hypocrite. You have some weird ideas about my view of the law. Do you know anything about the situational ethics you refer to? For educational purposes on situational ethics, I have posted the following: Situational Ethics: Joseph Fletcher Situational Ethics was pioneered by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991). His work, Situation Ethics, founded the modern situational ethics movement. Since then, almost every publication on situational ethics has referred to the model presented in Fletcher's writings. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest, a member of the Euthanasia Educational Counsel, and an advocate for Planned Parenthood. He was a supporter of both euthanasia and abortion.
Situational Ethics: Fletcher's Model Situational Ethics, according to Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law. The only absolute is Love. Love should be the motive behind every decision. As long as Love is your intention, the end justifies the means. Justice is not in the letter of the Law, it is in the distribution of Love. Fletcher founded his model upon a statement found in the New Testament of the Bible that reads, "God is Love" (I John 4:8).
Situational Ethics: The Contradiction Fletcher's model of Situational Ethics appears reasonable upon a glance, yet given careful consideration, its flaw becomes apparent. Situational Ethics is based upon "God is Love" in I John 4:8. However, in the very next chapter we read, "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (I John 5:3). While Fletcher holds that any commandment may be broken in good conscience if Love is one's intention, the Bible states that the keeping of God's commandments is loving God. To break any commandment, regardless of your intentions, is to not love God. Therefore, logic holds that the breaking of the commandment was not done in Love.
Situational Ethics: Man's Sin Nature Situational Ethics is supposedly based upon the Bible, yet it contradicts the Bible. Furthermore, there are philosophical considerations that are left unresolved. Can humans, flawed beings, be trusted to act in Love? Paul the Apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote to the Galatians: "[the Law] was added because of transgressions…" (Galatians 3:19). This passage refers to Levitical Law that was "fulfilled" by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. However, ethical regulations continue to appear in the Bible's New Testament. Perhaps they share the same purpose as Levitical Law, in that they were given because of our tendency to sin against God. Even believers in Christ, saved by grace, retain their sinful nature in this world.
Situational Ethics: God's Word Situational Ethics, though it may be well meaning, is wrong. It is best not to transgress God's Law under any circumstance, regardless of your motive. God knows best and instituted His Law for a purpose. He has not given permission to any man to transgress His Law. If you will suffer because of keeping His Law, rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so the Prophets suffered before you, and great is your reward in Heaven. If you can save a loved one from suffering by breaking God's Law, do not. For you are taking away their opportunity to persevere and receive blessings from God. Furthermore, you are breaking God's Law, bringing His displeasure upon yourself. To break God's eternal Law for a temporal concern is to focus upon things of this world and to ignore eternity.
From this link: Joseph Fletcher's Situational Ethics philosophy
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112418
03/28/11 06:15 AM
03/28/11 06:15 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
The constitution protects our libertly. SECTION 26
Right to bear arms. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. SECTION 36
Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constiution prohibits it from doing that. Section 9-11-257 Hunting or discharge of firearm from, upon, or across public roads, etc. Any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty or person otherwise authorized by law, who hunts or discharges any firearm from, upon, or across any public road, public highway, or railroad, or the rights-of-way of any public road, public highway, or railroad, or any person, except a landowner or his or her immediate family hunting on land of the landowner, who hunts within 50 yards of a public road, public highway, or railroad, or their rights-of-way, with a centerfire rifle, a shotgun using slug or shot larger in diameter than manufacturer's standard designated number four shot, or a muzzleloading rifle .40 caliber or larger in this state, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished for the first offense by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and shall be punished for the second and each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) and shall have all hunting license privileges revoked for one year from the date of conviction.
(Acts 1935, No. 383, p. 813, §23; Code 1940, T. 8, §105; Acts 1982, No. 82-522, p. 870, §1; Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-945, p. 566, §1; Act 99-442, p. 1007, §1; Act 2008-384, p. 714, §1.)
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112430
03/28/11 06:58 AM
03/28/11 06:58 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788 Thomasville, AL
Hogwild
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
|
And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constiution prohibits it from doing that. Are you saying that our Constitution denies the RR Companies the right to private property?
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112480
03/28/11 09:08 AM
03/28/11 09:08 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
No. I said: And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constitution prohibits it from doing that.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: 49er]
#112496
03/28/11 10:10 AM
03/28/11 10:10 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788 Thomasville, AL
Hogwild
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
|
No. I said: And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constitution prohibits it from doing that. Good diversion to avoid admitting that you were wrong and that it IS against the Law to walk down the RR tracks.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112498
03/28/11 10:22 AM
03/28/11 10:22 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307 boaz, al
robgillaspie
4 point
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307
boaz, al
|
No. I said: And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constitution prohibits it from doing that. Good diversion to avoid admitting that you were wrong and that it IS against the Law to walk down the RR tracks. I may be unlawful to walk down the RR tracks. But does the company not have to file a complaint or order for you to be charged. Just a question. thought maybe Fred could answer.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112519
03/28/11 11:14 AM
03/28/11 11:14 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
Danny, You're the one diverting attention away from the subject... i.e. - complicating matters. Bucky was not charged with trespassing. He was charged with a violation of 9-11-257. But since you insist: Section 13A-7-1 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable to this article:
(4) ENTER OR REMAIN UNLAWFULLY. ... A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privileges unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.
Section 15-8-150 Contents; sufficiency; use of analogous forms.
The forms of indictment set forth in this section in all cases in which they are applicable, are sufficient, and analogous forms may be used in other cases.
(98) TRESPASS AFTER WARNING.
A. B., without legal cause or good excuse, entered into the dwelling house or on the premises of C. D., after having been warned within six months preceding not to do so; or, A. B., having entered into the dwelling house or on the premises of C. D., failed or refused, without legal cause or good excuse, to immediately leave upon being ordered or requested to do so by C. D., or the person in possession, his agent or representative.
You stated that it is illegal to walk down a railroad track. You still have not shown any evidence whatsoever that you are telling the truth. Section 13A-1-4 When act or omission constitutes crime. No act or omission is a crime unless made so by this title or by other applicable statute or lawful ordinance.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §110.) Here's what the US Department of Transportation has to say about it: ALABAMA Alabama has no trespass regulations or laws specifically targeted to railroad property. However, a person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. Ala. Code § 13A-7-3 (1999). DOT source of information ALSO: DOT Factsheet
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Hogwild]
#112735
03/28/11 08:38 PM
03/28/11 08:38 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 Warrior River Country
49er
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Warrior River Country
|
Why didn't you print the Law that proves what I posted instead of a bunch of opinions on the matter? Because there's not one. I know that when you Google it; it is the first thing that comes up. BUT, you'd rather go out of your way to try and make your point.
Sad! Google "trespassing on a railroad", and the first thing that comes up is exactly what I posted above. Google your exact words: Walking down the RR tracks IS against the Law and the first thing that comes up is this: Man walking down railroad tracks with shotgun in Maumelle let go That certainly doesn't do much to help your case. You're digging the hole deeper and deeper. We are still waiting on you to prove the truth in your words Danny.
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Bucky205]
#112960
03/29/11 02:50 PM
03/29/11 02:50 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 595 St. Clair, Alabama
Bucky205
OP
4 point
|
OP
4 point
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 595
St. Clair, Alabama
|
The court date is April 4, 2011. I will post the outcome.
There are no trespass laws pertaining to RR's in the state of Alabama.
The Attorney General defines 9-11-257 issued in an opinion which I previously posted.
9-11-257 had a specific purpose and it was not safety.
It is an extremely slippery slope when you start down the road of loose interpretation of law by LEO’s.
I commend those that provide supporting documents for their arguments. If your opinion consists of nothing more than rhetoric, you are entitled to that opinion but are almost certainly biased by employment or other reasons.
Officer Nix when he cited me informed me that I was guilty because I had come to the management area to harm or pursue wildlife with the intent to kill wildlife, and by drawing a WMA permit I proved this point. If that is the state’s opinion on hunters utilizing Alabama land it needs to be addressed. I pulled a permit because it authorizes me to carry a rifle on a WMA. I hunted probably 30 days this year. I saw numerous deer both buck and doe. I harvested one eight point and one doe. My grandchildren spent time with me on WMA’s this year. We saw a variety of wildlife and learned about the woods and the animals that live there. This is why we have conservation officers and not police officers in the woods.
I specifically asked Officer Nix with someone else present, if the citation was for having a rifle on a RR track. I was told BY Officer Nix the charge was hunting and I would have been guilty even if I had had a bow.
The only charge I have ever had in 50 years of life is a misdemeanor for walking back to my truck down a railroad track which I am in the process of appealing, and if you don’t believe after defending peoples rights for 20 years of my life that I won’t fight this to the top, you’re wrong.
"There are no easy days, not even yesterday"
|
|
|
Re: Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA
[Re: Bucky205]
#113018
03/29/11 05:47 PM
03/29/11 05:47 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788 Thomasville, AL
Hogwild
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,788
Thomasville, AL
|
OK, 49'er: Background on Railroad Trespassing Trespassing on a railroad’s private property and along railroad rights of way is the leading cause of rail-related fatalities in America. Nationally, approximately 500 trespassing deaths occur each year, the vast majority of which are preventable. Since 1997, more people have been killed while trespassing than as a result of motor vehicle collisions with trains at highway-rail grade crossings. By definition, trespassers are on railroad property illegally without permission. They are most often pedestrians who walk across or along railroad tracks as a shortcut from one place to another, or they are engaged in loitering, hunting, dog walking, bicycling, or riding on all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles or even horseback. Overall, the railroad operating environment is an inherently hazardous one for which railroad employees receive extensive safety awareness training. Trespassers do not have the benefit of this knowledge nor are they are aware of current and pending train movements, and by failing to properly use designated crossing locations such as highway-rail grade crossings and dedicated pedestrian access paths, are susceptible to life-threatening injuries or death. In most states, trespassing is codified as a property crime and a general offense. A number of the states specifically forbid trespassing on railroad property. Role of AND: ALABAMA Alabama has no trespass regulations or laws specifically targeted to railroad property. However, a person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. Ala. Code § 13A-7-3 (1999). Maybe not SPECIFICALLY spelled out......but against the Law nonetheless. Check your FRA Handbook for more.
|
|
|
|