Let me repeat what I said earlier. I agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia's assesment:
Quote:
Defendant urges that the word "pursue" would make criminal the act of a photographer in following wildlife for the purpose of photographing it. The word "pursue" may mean "chase" or "follow," Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary (1980). On the other hand, the word "pursue," in the context in which it is used here, may mean: to seek or search for wildlife, for the purpose of shooting or capturing such wildlife. See Funk & Wagnalls, supra, "hunt." We find that this latter meaning was the one intended by the General Assembly. OCGA § 1-3-1 (a).
Defendant also urges that the words "disturbing, harrying, or worrying" render the definition of hunting overbroad, and thereby inclusive of innocent conduct, because many people who are not hunting wildlife nevertheless may disturb, harry or worry them. However, as we did above, [u]we find that the General Assembly intended those words to be limited to situations in which the accused was "disturbing, harrying, or worrying" wildlife for the purpose of shooting or capturing them.[/u]
[emphasis added for clarity]
It is up to the state agent to prove which situation occured based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while at the same time, honoring his oath to support our constitutions. It is not up to the defendant to prove his innocence.
The subject statute 9-11-257 in all it's ammended glory and discrimination does not trump the constitutional right to bear arms for defense or to enjoy the liberty of looking at God's creatures from the right of way of a road.
