The "right to bear arms" issue was brought up when the argument was presented that if you are carrying a loaded firearm, then you are, by definition, hunting. I maintain that possession of a loaded firearm does not define hunting, and it is a right protected by our constituion that cannot be destroyed by a law such as 9-11-257. I have been consistent in with that position.
Somehow, the two of you keep injecting the issue of trespassing into this. The charge was violation of 9-11-257. The statute does not involve the criminal trespassing laws. The only trespassing issue found in 9-11-257 is the issue of intent that was stated in the DCNR's interpretation in an AG Opinion.
That DCNR's interpretation stated that the intent of the law was to prevent the shooting from a public conveyance onto property where the shooter did not have permission from the landowner to shoot. It is clear that Bucky did not violate the intent of the law as stated by the DCNR. He had permission to hunt on the abutting property, and he did not shoot.
The hypothetical issue you keep asking about is ridiculous. It only distracts from the subject at hand, but let me divert to appease you: 1. Bucky was not hunting without a permit. He had quit hunting. 2. Wearing hunting clothes and carrying a loaded firearm does not define hunting. 3. There is no such thing in Alabama law as "simple trespass".
Criminal trespass does not hinge on whether a person is in possession of a firearm or bears arms for defense if he enters or remains unlawfully on property not his own. The property I have leased has been posted to warn intruders not to enter there and not to hunt there. It would be a violation of both the crimal trespassing laws and the rule against hunting without permission if an uninvited person entered or hunted there regardless of what they wore or if they possessed a loaded firearm.
