huntfish2,



I had to look to Georgia's Supreme Court to find some "local" caselaw on the subject. Georgia's defintion of hunting was close to being the same combination of words used by our legislature to describe hunting and the "defintion" found in the front of the Regulation Book with nothing showing it was adopted as a rule.

The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled in part, "Defendant's objection that the trial court's instruction to the jury defining "hunting" was vague and overbroad and therefore erroneous is valid and he is entitled to a new trial." Alabama's courts often look to other states when there is a lack of existing caselaw for statutes in our state.

In it's discussion of the case, the Georgia Supreme Court found the defendant's argument to be persuasive, and I am in agreement:



SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
September 5, 1985
Trammell Grady Shirley v. State



It is my belief that someone walking back to their truck after hunting may be looking around them to merely see if there is wildlife present with no intent of shooting or capturing that wildlife. Absent evidence that they were in an act of attempting to kill or capture that wildlife, there is no justifiable conclusion that they were hunting for the purposes of 9-11-257. Otherwise, for example, we would all be guilty of hunting from a road if we see deer in a field, slow down to watch them, and as a result scare them away. Or, even if you are walking back to your truck on a WMA and on a railroad right of way, you see deer and stop to watch them, taking no action whatsoever to catch or kill them.

Simply watching wildlife is an important part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You aren't necessarily hunting when you do that. People do it all the time.

argue all ya want, beat that dead horse into the ground, then beat it some more....

You, or anyone else, who walks down a RR track during hunting season, dressed in hunting clothes and carrying a LOADED rifle or shotgun...are going to get ticketed if checked by an Alabama GW. Period.

And yer gonna lose in District Court, and in a Circuit Court appeal.

Good luck on a Alabama Supreme Court appeal.....

troy

IF the gun is loaded...pay the damn ticket.

carry on......

Maybe it's time for hunters to stop just paying tickets and start defending their liberty, troy. I didn't find any case law on the definition of hunting in the appeals courts of Alabama. If the same defintion is overbroad in GA, it's very likely the same would be found to be overbroad here. I guess we won't know until somebody gets tired of just paying up.

DCNR projected budget for fines in 2011: $1,040,000

2009 - 9044 arrests in the WFF Division with 967 warnings

I hear the bitchin an bitchin....


YOU tell me just what should constitute "hunting" in this situation......we're gonna assume the gun is chamber loaded....

Wait till he shoots??

yea maybe so. maybe in order to break the law that is what he had to do.

If I drive down the road, see a deer, stop to look at it. Have a loaded gun.

AM I HUNTING OR LOOKING?


and would you please tell me what good a unloaded gun is. I am old Marine so I guess I am backward. But I was always raised with this. UNLOADED GUN IS A STICK. I mean what the hell are you going to do with a unloaded gun. Beat someone to death with it.

makes no difference. he said that the LEO said he would have been guitly if he had a bow. BULLSHIIIT I bet money he gets it threw out. And I say the LEO should have to pay all his cost.

wait till he shoots is a bullshit answer. Anyone who has ever hunted knows ya do a LOT more hunting than shooting, yet you are hunting right up to the shot. Then yer shooting.....

yer question on driving....w/o other info I'd say yer looking. If ya stop every 100 yards and "look"... gun is loaded...I'd say yer hunting.

My 243 stays loaded in the truck. But I don't drive down the road, slow, stopping to look for deer......

We've discussed the bow...that is bullshit about getting a ticket with a bow. Plain and simple. I'd LOVE for someone to write me a ticket for that....ain't no such law.

troy

Troy,

let me say this again. You answered but I just want to here what you are saying again.

I am driving down any road. I see deer, I slow down, I stop. Hell I even drive past them and then come back and stop again. Hell I do it several more times because the deer I am looking at are moving and I have to move to see them.

I am NOT HUNTING. I am LOOKING. I don't care what you or anyone who works with or has worked with you says.

Until I make an effort to kill those deer I am looking. I mean that is what your dept has done. Took things that are not against the law and made them unlawful.

If I drive by a pretty girl three or four times. Does that mean I am going to kidnap her.

Troy,

I've shown where the high court in two different states have ruled that an interpretation of a law very similar to ours and a defintion of hunting that is almost identical to ours was overbroad and prohibited innocent activities. I've also cited opinions stating that criminal statutes must be interpreted strictly in favor of the defendant.

The facts of each instance is ultimately up to a jury to decide. Having said that, it is unfair for a game warden to write a man up, cause him to miss work and have to pay a lawyer to represent him when the facts of the case do not show beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was committing the offense. Hoping he will just pay up and not fight is not what I call honoring the oath that officer took to support our constitutions.

That is the basis of what the courts were saying in the opinions I refered to. People should not be afraid to enjoy activities that are perfectly lawful for fear that the appearance of it might cause them to be convicted of some alleged crime they were not committing.

I believe that is what happened to Bucky from what he has told us here. I have seen no evidence that removes all reasonable doubt that he was, in fact, attempting to catch or kill game as he walked back to his truck that day. I hope twelve of his peers sees the same, and I'm sorry he was put thru this ordeal for no good reason.

49er,

Is there anyway that Bucky can recover any of the money he has spent defending himself here. Or is the LEO covered by the state. They can write you a ticket that no jury is going to find guilty and then they have nothing to worry about.

Or is there some system that holds them accountable for writing tickets to honest citizens, that are found not guilty.

According to Fred or Troy, most of these violation are judgement calls.

How does a LEO know what he was thinking or doing. If he never made a move to take game.

That's a question he needs to ask his attorney. Honestly, I don't know.

what does she look like????

sorry, so I read you and 49r to say when ya'll get out of the truck at the hunting club, walk down the dirt track, climb yer stand, sit for hours......yer NOT hunting. Not till a deer ya'll want to shoot appears...THEN you are hunting, well
, shooting??????

You're NOT hunting till you shoot?????

horseshit.

troy

Then you read me wrong.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. I agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia's assesment:

[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.

If you are on a WMA on the weekend of a gun hunt during legal shooting hours with a loaded gun wearing camoflouge and a hunter orange hat then you are hunting. Give me a break guys. Is this really so hard to understand?I feel bad for the guy, but he broke a law. I agree with troy...just my 2 cents.

Yes.

Given the choice between supporting our constitutions or enforcing an arbitrary and poorly written law, I will choose our constitutions every time.

It was a rhetorical question

Let me help you understand:

Constitution of Alabama 1901
[emphasis mine]

Every law and rule is subject to our constitution.

Every agent of the state must take this oath before assuming their duties:

Constitution of Alabam 1901



None of them swear to support 9-11-257 instead of a constitutional right.

If it's my daughter, then yes you are and I'm going to do whatever I see as necessary to prevent it.

Driveby,

I would too. I am just saying that they can write tickets for too many grey areas.

In a earlier post. Troy said that he caught one of the biggest poachers in Tuscaloosa sitting in a shooting house the day after deer season was over. He said he approached him and the guy said he was coyote hunting. Troy said have a nice day.

So I guess what I am saying is, Troy used some judgement in that situation. But looking at what other GW's have done lately, He could have written him up for deer hunting. It remains to be seen if it would have held up in court.

Look I have no problem if I get a ticket I deserve. I paid a speeding ticket last fall. I will be glad to pay more if I get caught speeding.

But I don't think that LEO should have the ability to cite you for something that they think you are doing. Just because they think you are doing something does not mean that you are doing it.

My example above. If I see a deer on the side of the road, I usually slow down and look. Sometimes I stop. Sometimes I don't. I saw a really big buck lask week on the side of the interstate north of Huntsville. I turned around at the next exit and went back. Got my field glasses and looked him over real good. I had a loaded gun in my truck. But I was not hunting from the road.

My opinion of this case is. Bucky fights this in front of jury then how can you determine beyond doubt that he was hunting.

However it will still cost him even if he gets found not guilty, and I think that the LEO should have to pay for his cost.

How can he prove he was NOT hunting?

I think the evidence is stacked against him.

1) Loaded gun.
2) Permit to hunt that particular day.
3) Presence on land was clearly with the intent TO hunt.
4) Behavior was indicative of the act of hunting.
5) Camo garb and other required gear FOR hunting.

He just better hope he gets a bunch of people like some on here that have a boner for GW's and 'THE MAN' and not rational, logical people.

Thats fine...Ill concede your point. He was still hunting it doesn't matter how you try to spin it. 49er if you were chosen to sit on his jury are you telling me that you would find him not guilty?