Let me be plain and clear.

The only ones there were Bucky and one officer or two, depending on who tells it.

The officer/officers took a solemn oath before they assumed their duties. That oath requires them to defend this:

Constitution of Alabama 1901



emphasis added



If there was any doubt whatsoever that Bucky was committing the crime of actually hunting from the RR instead of merely appearing that he could have been hunting, there was a solemnly sworn duty to leave him alone.

What overriding interest of the other people of this state was endangered to the point that it warranted Bucky being charged with this violation?

I guess they didn't get the word on ALDeer :

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/201...m-biggest-star/

Every citizen does have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself...
Walking onto private property while hunting is not a defensive action, it is an offensive action which violates the rights of the landowner. It is not a violation of an offenders rights to be arrested for violating the rights of others.
He merely appeared to be hunting on the privately owned R/R track.

He may be a very good person as far as I know. I was not there but apparently a District judge believed that he was guilty of hunting on a R/R track and pronounced him guilty. My argument is about the violation of rights of the landowner. You are not defending yourself when you go onto someone else's property with out permission. You are violating the rights of others.

Bucky was not arrested for violating anyone's rights nor for hunting without permission on private property. There was no lawful grounds for such an arrest, as I have already pointed out.

Bowtech Dan,

Unless you are happy with well meaning hunters being charged with frivolous violations, I don't see the point in your jesting.

It isn't funny to me when a hunt is ruined and a paycheck is taken for no good reason. These officers need to be spending their time on more serious matters rather than harrassing hunters that have harmed no person nor have they harmed our natural resources.



An unloaded gun in your truck is worthless for defense. You got a problem with having a loaded gun in your truck?? The law doesn't, unless it's a pistol. You can also get a license to carry a loaded pistol in your truck.

Stick around. You might learn something if you pay attention and quit interferring.

No he was not. You bring up the rights issue when it suits you.
Yes there were grounds.
This is why we have judges.
I am a man of ordinary understanding and I am using the ordinary rules of common sense in saying that I believe Bucky was hunting. Thank you Thomas Jefferson

Interferring? Exhale that chest 49er. A little jest is okay to break up the "seriousness" of a message board. Y'all take yourselves too serious. On second thought, continue on. This is entertaining as hell.

There is at least some TRUTH in this thread! LOL

And Patriot is right about 49'er bringing up the 'Rights' issue to fit his needs.

He never did answer as to whether an individual walking around in hunting garb and toting a loaded gun on HIS hunting Club would be HWOP (Hunting Without a Permit) or would it be simple trespass and them exercising their individual RIGHT to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

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.



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

Now, to move to another matter altogether:

Danny,

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.

Does that answer your question?

2. Wearing hunting clothes and carrying a loaded firearm does not define hunting.


Wearing a mask and carrying a shotgun into a bank does not define bank robbery....but I hazzard a guess that it would get you shot by a guard....just sayin....

ANY of ya'll got ANY common sense?????

troy

Common sense says that Bucky was engaged in innocent conduct, not robbing a bank.

If thing goes to trial, you had better hope that 49er and Patriot is not on the jury or you will most likely get 25 - life.

If you were walking down a R/R with gun in tow, camouflage on, it should be considered hunting!!! If you are going to walk down the R/R, I believe all shells should have been taken out of the gun!!!

I guess if you were out on the lake, in your boat, with your poles and tackle box with you, you wouldn't be fishing either??? Believe it or not, sometimes you have to use a little common sense!!!

I live on a boat. I see my rods and tackle box as I type this. The only thing I am guilty of is typing on the computer and watching TV. If I carry my rod and tackle up to my truck because I am going somewhere to fish, I am not fishing. I can stop by Wal-Mart buy a license continue to my destination to fish and have abided by the law completely. Places that are illegal to hunt include WMA boundary roads, timber operations, and any improved roads. I will be the first to admit I have walked through theses all of my life and never had a problem from an LEO.

With your logic everyone leaving a bar should be charged with drinking and driving, regardless of their blood alcohol content. If LEO’s can simply say you were hunting, why are we spending taxpayer dollars on mechanical deer for hunters to shoot at? If the Alabama Attorney General’s definition of 9-11-257s is irrelevant, then why do we bother with his opinion? And what happened to Alabama open Carry Law as provided by Alabama’s constitution? You guys saying I am guilty are saying I was on railroad property and trespassing. Alabama has no law regarding railroad trespass. But if as you say I was on railroad property, then I am not on a WMA and Alabama open carry laws apply. You could spin this thing a million different ways. The truth is I was walking off the management area and back to my truck when stopped by 2 LEO’s who cited me for hunting from a RR.

I was exactly as measured by a GPS 147.5 yards + or – 15 feet from the end of the management area and headed off the management area and back to my truck when stopped, I asked the Leos’ why I was being charged with hunting and was told it was because I was walking slow and looking. I asked specifically if the charge had anything to do with the rifle . I was told no the problem was that I was hunting, it would have been the same charge if I had a bow and arrow. I asked the fine and his exact answer was “he did not know, the court set the fines” With the fine clearly stated in the law he either lied or did not know the law. This I swear on my children’s life, which I put higher than anything on this earth. I am 60% disabled (crippled on the right side) and totally blind in my right eye. I am allowed to walk slow, I will sit on the damn tracks if I so choose, it is not illegal.

And Patriot my veteran friend potes meos suaviari clunes .

For the rest of you in English, Patriot can kiss my ass.

I can see the logic in both sides of this argument so you will all be happy to know I will render no judgment. However, I do believe Bucky is telling the truth. I will always give a fellow veteran the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. On the other hand, I have respect for Troy's (Bham Fred) knowledge in these matters and his corn pone no nonsense reply's.

As for Patriot. Keep kickin the man while he's down. I get the impression you enjoy it.
And Hogwild, keep lerkin around and giving those suker punches. I KNOW you enjoy that!!

I think it might have more to do with the money than common sense or logic. Follow the money trail:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-244 Hunting by aid of bait (deer and wild $250
turkey)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-244 Hunting by aid of bait (small game) $25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-245 Using unlawful methods of hunting
(snare, poison, etc.) $100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-250 Taking deer from public water $500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-251 Taking deer at night $500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-254 Exceeding limit of traps for one day for $25
fur-bearing animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-11-257 Hunting from a public road/railroad $1000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
220-2-.11 Hunting by prohibited means $200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
220-2-.18 Exceeding or attempting to exceed the bag
limit (big game) $100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, 49er I am going to guess that you just got to the bottom of this.

I wonder how many of the guys would be screaming like crazy, if they had be charged with this.

If this charge stands. And they find him guilty. We are all in trouble.

If walking with a gun makes you guilty of hunting. I have hunted at night my whole life. I hunt at night everytime I go hunting. SHITttt. I wont worry about what time to get to the woods anymore. If I hunt till dark and walk back after dark. THEN I AM HUNTING AT NIGHT.

THIS IS BULLSHIIIT. I HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR TROY, BUT HE IS WRONG ABOUT THIS. A JURY WILL NEVER MAKE THIS STICK.

And Troy please dont say I am reading it wrong. What you are saying is that this is a Judgement Call. Well I say that the law will side with Bucky on this Judgement Call. There is a thing called REASONABLE DOUBT

Are we still on this subject? I think it is time some of you guys found a hobby!

You're still here.