I say we flip a coin! The coin landed on heads. Which one was heads again?

Naaay. Let's look at something else.

See how the DCNR wants to be a little legislature within itself and then enforce it's own laws making them mean whatever they want to? Compare their analysis with what the law really says:



That's not what the law says. Landowners and their immediate family members on their own land can hunt right up to the road with all legal firearms for hunting. All others can hunt with all legal firearms (handguns, bows, small game firearms etc. that are not listed), right up to the right of way of the road.



Not if you own the land or an immediate member of your family owns the land. Nothing is illegal unless a law makes it illegal. 9-11-257 does not make it illegal.



That is not what the DCNR told the Attorney General. Attorney General opinions carry more weight in court than a DCNR publication that contradicts what the DCNR has told the Attorney General.

Does it make sense to say that it is only unsafe for somebody to hunt near a road if they don't own the land or their immediate family doesn't own the land? Is it only unsafe to deer hunt near the road while hunting small game is perfectly OK?


Since the commissioner will not tell you what the law says, I reckon I will:





Now... grab you another bite of popcorn, I've got something else I need you to look at:

Here's the defintion of hunting that appears in the front of the Regulation Book that is published without the game and fish laws instead of together with them.



Notice that there is no rule number in front of that defintion like the other rules I cut and paste for you since most of you have never seen a Regulation Book.

Now...
What part of the DCNR's own little defintion that somebody made up was Bucky doing while he walked back to his truck with an unloaded rifle?

- Was he pursuing anything?
- Was he shooting, killing, capturing or trapping anything?
- Was he disturbing, harrying or worrying anything (besides the game wardens, which is not illegal)?
- Was he placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take anything?
- Was he assisting anybody that was doing any of that crap?

Note to Danny: nothing about possession of firearms, nothing about color of clothes, nothing about trespassing .... just read what's there.
Maybe a jury will see thru all this. They might need to bring some popcorn with them though. It could take a while.


Has anybody learned anything from all this yet?

Here's some more stuff while you eat your popcorn:

Arkansas:
HUNT or HUNTING – To search for, pursue, chase, track, lure, attract, or
lie in wait of game animals or other wildlife for the purpose of taking or
attempting to take such game animals or wildlife by any method.

######################################################################
ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION v. MURDERS
ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Nelson Murders, Jr., Roland Bates, Judy Pickering, Roy Pickering, Dean Meredith, Verdell Meredith, and Darrell Bratton, Appellees.
No. 96-338.
-- March 03, 1997

... However, while we have said that t he Commission has broad discretion in carrying out its powers, see Chaffin v. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n, 296 Ark. 431, 757 S.W.2d 950 (1988), its discretion is not unfettered.   The Commission's power to regulate the manner of taking game certainly does not translate into a general power to regulate the general possession of all firearms on city, county, state, or federally maintained roads or rights-of-way.
 An overbroad statute is one that is designed to punish conduct which the state may rightfully punish, but which includes within its sweep constitutionally protected conduct.  McDougal v. State, 324 Ark. 354, 359-360, 922 S.W.2d 323 (1996), citing 4 R. Rotunda & J. Novak, Treatise on Constitutional Law, § 20.8 (2d ed. 1992).   The Commission's rule, as amended, essentially shifts the burden to non-hunters who possess loaded or uncased firearms on city, county, state, or federally maintained roads or rights-of-way, to prove that he or she is not engaged in the prohibited act of road hunting.   When examining amended rule 18.04, we conclude that it may include within its sweep innocent and legitimate conduct.   For example, it is an affirmative defense to the charge of carrying a weapon that the person charged was carrying the weapon upon a journey.   See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-73-120(c)(4) (Supp.1995).   The amended rule is thus overbroad, and exceeds the Commission's authority granted under Amendment 35 to regulate the manner of taking game.
Because we agree with the trial court that amended rule 18.04 is unconstitutionally overbroad, it is unnecessary for us to reach the Commission's remaining arguments on appeal.   Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.


Mississippi
"Hunt" or "hunting" means to hunt or chase or to shoot at or kill or to pursue with the intent to take, kill or wound any wild animal or wild bird with a firearm as defined in this subsection.

[no court challenge found]

Georgia
"Hunting" means pursuing, shooting, killing, taking, or capturing wildlife or feral hogs. This term also includes acts such as placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wildlife or feral hogs, whether any such act results in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take such wildlife or feral hogs.

#######################################################################

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
September 5, 1985
TRAMMELL GRADY SHIRLEY v. THE STATE

... 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, 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.

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.

Judgment reversed.



Tennessee
“Hunting” means chasing, driving, flushing, attracting, pursuing, worrying, following after or on the trail of, searching for, trapping, shooting at, stalking, or lying in wait for, any wildlife, whether or not such wildlife is then or subsequently captured, killed, taken, or wounded and every act of assistance to any other person, but “hunting” does not include stalking, attracting, searching for, or lying in wait for, wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the purpose of watching wildlife or taking pictures of wildlife;

49er,

I could be wrong here but i thought the land owner had to own land on both sides of the public road in order to have a loaded weapon at the road.

See there. The popcorn is helping you pay attention.

What does the law say about having to own both sides of the road...

NOTHING, right?

So what you thought has been clarified now.

Back to the popcorn... and keep on thinking while you munch. That's how we learn about these things.

Was he:



Yep!

AND he also fit this to a 'T':




SO.......how many more diversionary posts are you going to make?

I can't even believe that you had nerve enough to pull info from other States into your argument after all the posts you have made declare the irrelevancy of anything pertaining to other States!!!!!!!

He had a gun with shells in the clip within 50 yards of a R/R. He was on a public WMA, not land that he owned or a family member owned. He was on a WMA, on a scheduled deer hunt. You can't have a gun a WMA unless it is a special "GUN HUNT", so that alone should state he was hunting, hunting, hunting.....What else is there to understand????

I'm with Hogwild and MT on this one. Common sense is the best.

I am done with this thread, The one thing that I have learned. I WILL QUIT HUNTING BEFORE I HUNT ON A WMA.


GOOD LUCK BUCKY!!!!

MT,



Understand this: the game warden even ruled out that Bucky was "using" his gun. He told him the gun didn't matter, and that he would be guilty even if hes was carrying a bow.

Is there any doubt that Bucky was not "using" his gun which was the only hunting device he had at the time?

So, if that's the only piece of the definition you can come up with, even the game warden disagrees.

Why is this thread lost in the weeds? There is a difference between LETTER of the law and INTENT of the law. If the GW is supposed to carry out the LETTER of the law, then that is what he is supposed to do. However, the GW will have to defend that action in court regarding what parts of the law he enforced and the parts he did not enforce and why. If the AG is supposed to review the case and recommend how to proceed based on the information provided and weigh that against the INTENT, which sounds like what was done, then the case should proceed as the AG recommended.

With that, I am with Bucky and the INTENT of the law should be the main focus with the parts of the LETTER of the law that the GW determined he would not enforce.

Fun4all,



Because some held that 9-11-257 deals with possession of firearms and trespassing. It doesn't. It took some effort to get around that notion.



Our courts consider both the letter and the intent in their deliberations. We are potential jurors. It is our duty to determine what the facts are from the evidence and to see if they fit the crime. The courts interpret the law for us, but even then, a jury can show mercy and aquit if feels it is appropriate to do so.

Juries are supposed to insure that the state proves it's case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, and at this level in the courts, it's the District Attorney, not the Attorney General who is prosecuting the case. If the case is appealed to the higher courts, then the Attorney General may get involved.

Criminal statutes are to be construed stictly in favor of the accused according to rulings made by our state Supreme Court. If there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the facts fit the crime, then it is our duty to aquit.

That is my purpose for continuing to discuss this. We all need to learn how to be good jurors. If we don't discuss the different viewpoints and see the weaknesses in the different arguments, then we may not be doing our job when we are called on to determine the guilt or innocence of our fellow citizens.

As defense attorney Rusty McDonald told the jury in a federal conspiracy case that I served as a juror on, the government is large and powerful. The jury is the best hope that an accused has against abuse by our government. We need to be prepared as informed jurors if our system is to work properly.

The defense rests.

49'er,

You should have stuck with digging coal......cause you are nowhere close to being the Law Expert that you think you are.

The problem with your whole "we are the jury" argument is we haven't heard all of the evidence. You are assuming that Bucky is telling the whole story (not calling Bucky a liar so don't start in on me with that). The only evidence that has been presented to this "jury" by the prosecutor is heresay. The arresting officer has not testified or presented any evidence.

Finding someone guilty based solely on one side of the argument is not right. Finding someone not guilty based on the same criteria is just as bad.

49'er you will never convince anyone to see things from your point of view because you try to make everyone feel dumb when they disagree with you or challenge you on anything.

good post

good post

Danny,

You might be surprised how much I learned about the law while mining coal. There are probably about as many state and federal laws and regulations relating to coal mining as there are to hunting and fishing. If you want to see how a government agency get's it's tail kicked in court on a regular basis, follow the link below. Coal companies have the money and the lawyers that it takes to make MSHA walk the straight and narrow when it comes to enforcing the law and their rules:

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission - recent decisions

Here's one that involved a fatality at a mine nearby:

Fatality case at JWR #4 in Brookwood, AL

I had to know the laws and rules inside and out. As a mine examiner, I could get hung out to dry if I made mistakes that cost someone their life. Strange thing that I don't understand is why mining laws that deal with people's lives are administrative law and hunting and fishing laws and regs that deal with the lives of wild animals are criminal law. ??? Don't make sense does it?

I don't claim to be an expert on the law ... I just make sure I've read them all before I open my mouth about them. Things can get serious real quick in a courtroom. If you're spouting bs, it will be called what it is.

southwood,

I learned from a co-worker when I was a young man to not express my opinion if I could not back it up with solid evidence. It stuck with me because it made so much sense.

Virgil was not always liked by people he was around because of his insistence on people backing up what they told him. If it was bs, Virgil called them on it. I came to understand that if Virgil told me something, I could pretty well take it to be the truth because he backed it up with evidence.

I'm sorry you think it's my intention to make everyone feel dumb that disagrees with me. My intention is to make sure people believe what they say because they know it's the truth and not because it's just something someone else has told them is the truth.

Like Virgil, I've found that people are often offended by that. I hope you have learned, however, that I won't tell you something is fact unless I'm convinced it is from reliable sources. As bad as some people hate it, I will also share those sources with you.

No offense intended,
Eddie