Charged with 9-11-257 on Perdido River WMA

They will do whatever to prove all hunters are outlaws and increase their county revenue. If anyone has any ideas I would greatly appreciate any help. I am truly innocent of this charge and getting nowhere. This was my first violation of any type other than a couple of speeding tickets.

Judicial Court 31Jan2011 1:00 pm
Courtroom #3 at Baldwin County Courthouse in Bay Minette, Alabama
Mailing Address:
312 Courthouse Square, Suite 24
Bay Minette, Alabama 36507

Phone - (251) 580-1647
Facsimile - (251) 937-0225
Email - jwboffice@alacourt.gov

Prosecutor Brian Britt
Officer Christopher Nix, Alabama Wildlife Biologist Perdido River WMA

Date of offense 17Dec2010
Location of offense Perdido River WMA ( 1st time on this particular WMA)

I was walking down the railroad track North bound, hunter orange, with rifle on shoulder sling; 100 yards from exiting the WMA 10:30 a.m. 17Dec2010, stopped by officer Nix and charged with 9-11-257 ( Hunting from a public road or railroad). Defended in court plead not guilty and explained I was traveling back to my vehicle and showed the court the opinion of the Alabama AG stating that you must fire your weapon from public road or railroad to be guilty of 9-11-257. Told by the judge and prosecutor that the AG's opinion was simply an opinion and had no relevance. Told by the prosecutor that the Ag opinion was inadmissible.

Found Guilty 1000.00 fine and 180.00 court cost and loss of hunting privileges for 1 year.

Not one person was found not guilty in the entire courtroom


Personal History 49 yo Combat Disabled Vet ( 70% paralyzed right side, 100% blind in right eye) 18 years service USN
Hunting experience 37 years mostly on WMA's

If you park on a public road and walk to your hunting area you can be charged at any time.

and yes I love my country, but I do find myself asking myself would I make the sacrifice again to defend what we are rapidly becoming. I understand now why so many young people have so little respect for the law.

you should have asked for a jury trial, I feel your pain, I got a ticket for having duplicate harvest records. They gave me an extra one when I bought my Lic. If I had known I was in violation I would have Lied and told the officer that I killed it on my personel land and just showed the dup record and not my lic. OH well I go to court next week. Jury trial for me. NOT GUILTY

my advise, appeal the ruling to the alabama sup court. IF THEY WANT TO FIND IT, we are all guilty of something.

2 questions:

Was your gun loaded?

Is the appeal date past?

If the answer to #1 is No then #2 is relevant in my opinion. Which isn't worth much but if I was sitting on your jusry I'd vote not guilty.

I feel really bad for you! It sounds like if your gun was loaded your not going to win. You cant prove that you were not going to shoot down that railroad track if you saw a deer. I believe you and I'm sorry the judge didn't! Thank you for your service Bucky.

another asshole warden. Some dumba$$ will get on here and defend the warden before the day is up. Don't listen to them. They just have not been in the wrong place at the wrong time yet.

I agree. IMO I do think the key is whether the gun was loaded or not. There are other WMA's around the state where the wardens are adamant about writing tickets if you have a gun loaded on a public road. They don't care if your walking to your truck, from it, or out right obviously hunting from the road.

I am certainly no attorney and just saw 49er's post. I was just stating that I have seen wardens in different parts of the state write tickets for this. Whether the individuals paid them, won or lost in court - I don't know.

k bush,



9-11-257 does not prohibit the possession of a loaded firearm... even on a railroad right of way.

Section 26 and Section 36 of the Constitution of Alabama guarantee the right to carry a loaded firearm and except the matter out of the general powers of government. The game warden and the judge both swore an oath to defend those provisions just the same as Bucky swore to defend them.

The Attorney General is a constitutional officer of the state. Higher courts have stated that an attorney general's opinion, while not binding, is persuasive.



It is not a crime to bear arms for defense in Alabama... even when you go hunting.

Bucky, you need to speak to an attorney if you want justice to prevail. If you cannot afford one, the initial consultation should not involve a charge. You will probably be directed to help with securing court appointed representation by an attorney if you want to pursue the case.

Good hunting and good luck with your case.
I wish you the best,
Eddie

Most courts/judges will convict without a shot being taken, law says "hunting or discharging"..

I'm gonna guess the gun was loaded...

District court is by Judge, appeal to Circuit Court, ask for a jury. DA will "usually" settle it before court, lesser fine, to not have to try a hunting case like this. Fine seems a little steep, I'd expect at least half that amount.

doecommander, nice asshole comment, you wern't there and know absolutely nothing about the incident.

Like troy said, juries are the triers of fact. If the elements of hunting cannot be proven, an aquittal is in order.

BTW: troy (BhamFred) is a retired game warden. A fair one at that. Take his advice.

Keep us posted,
Eddie

Rounds in magazine nothing chambered. Scope covers on, 100 yard from vehicle. The judge punished me for dissagreeing with the officers definition of the law. You are not suppose to lose your hunting rights until the second offense. There is nothing in Alabama illegal about walking down a railroad track with a rifle, be it loaded or unloaded. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution and Alabama Constitution both give us this right. The prosecutor had to keep askig the officers what the law was on most of the cases. Another issue is that they totaly disreguarded the Alabama Attorny Generals opinion on the definition of 9-11-257 which stated that you must fire the rifle to be guilty. Warden informed me that I would have been charged carrying a bow, crossbow or spear. In his opinion as soon as I showed up at the WMA and drew a permit I was hunting.
The cost of fighting as a disabled vet is high. I have already given up amost a months income over this. I did purchase huntalabama.org and will do everything in my power to expose these LEO's and Judges that form the Good Ol Boy justice system in a lot of these counties that target hunters for revenue. There are some very good biologist and LEO's out there. I have known Bill Gray and Adam Pritchett for many years and have always found them to be fair and honorable, as well they run a fabulous program in Barbour county. The judge punished me for dissagreeing with the officer. You are not suppose to loose your hunting rights until the second offense. If I could give one piece of advice to hunters it would be stay away from Baldwin county. Few dear many, citations. Not one person was found not guilty on 31 Jan 2011. If the Attorney Generals opinions mean nothing maybe we should consider starting there with budget cuts.

Fred, glad you're back to straighten the nut out. I tried on an earlier thread, but was just wasting time. The dude has some serious issues with game wardens. Said all of you are assholes, but won't explain why.

I agree also that the issue is going to revolve on whether the gun was loaded or not.

This is why I always unload my weapon before reaching the road unless it is a closed road with the gate closed.Whether a round is in the chamber does not matter if shells were in the magazine and in the weapon it is considered loaded.

9-11-257 specifically states "firearms" nothing there applies to bows, spears.....

I, and ALL of the GWs and DAs, and Judges I know/knew disagree with the Attorney Generals opinion. The law, 9-11-257 specifically says "hunting OR discharging" a firearm. One does not need to discharge a firearm in order to be hunting.

If the gun as unloaded they you were not hunting.

Even if you have paid the fine you still have 14 days from court date to appeal to Circuit Court.....I'd appeal if that gun was unloaded.

troy

Unless I'm mistake.....

Ammunition IN the magazine constitutes 'loaded' and is specifically spelled out in the WMA Rules.

Danny, I'll see yer bet and raise ya....

WMA regs don't apply to a state law. The loaded firearm reg you speak of concerns IN a vehicle only. ONly other reg concerns roads, no mention of RRs....

troy

I thought the railroad law was a federal law since railroads fall under federal authority.

I know a lot of people who use walking railroad tracks to access deep parts of WMA's. So I guess you can't do that huh? Is walking down the side of the track in the gravel a violation too? What boundary constitutes "railroad tracks"? I would like to know because there is a place that I thought I might would need to walk some tracks to get somewhere, but not if I have to fight the law.

fred, I was told a few days ago that game wardens get paid a fee or commission for each ticket they write. Please tell me that this is not true.

You can not" hunt" within 50yds of railroad or road.

NOT TRUE. Wardens don't have a quota either, a set number of cases, or contacts, they have to make a month/quarter/year. State Troopers have a quota on number of contacts per shift, but just about any contact with a driver(wreck, warning, ticket, etc) is a contact.

GWs are paid a set amount each two weeks for working and only added overtime pay will increase the pay.

troy

ALDCNR has no law/reg that prohibits access down a RR to reach a hunting spot. Gun must be unloaded all the way.

I have seen instances where the RR objected to persons riding three wheelers down the tracks, I don't personally know of any problems with walking down the tracks.

troy

3toe,

30-06


On a WMA, the rule is no hunting within 100 yds of a "paved" road.

Regulation Book 2010-2011 bottom of page 83 paragraph (n)

Using only the Hunters Digest will get you in trouble.

ok 49er, what does that say to you. sir. give me your opinion

Wow, all of this seems really nit-picky. If the guy was doing as he said and just walking (with ammo in the mag but not chambered I think he said) then where does just plain old "better judgement" come in with the warden?

Look at it this way.. have you ever been pulled over for speeding and explained to the officer the reason, whatever it may be, and you were given a break.

As a firefighter, I know several police officers and a few wardens, they are all pretty good guys and use a lot of "walking around sense" when applying the laws.

I don't know, it all seems a bit harsh, all things considered if nothing else, let the guy off with a warning b/c of his service and ethical hunting background (according to his statement about no prior violations).

I'm not too savvy on laws and courtroom proceedings but I would try to get a court appointed attorney if my finances didnt allow me to hire one, and appeal. Personnally I would have went into the fight with an attorney to begin with.

Fred why is that?

Just my two cents

49er that is correct for a WMA, something I always have to remind myself of and unload well before I get to my vehicle. I actually came across a ladder stand recently on a WMA that may be within that 100yd boundary of a railroad.

The courts have stated:



The people reserve the right to bear arms... loaded arms. The state cannot trade permission to exercise the constitutional right to hunt for the surrender of a constitutional right to bear arms.

If it goes high enough in court, the Constitution will win.

rbgillaspie,



Like troy said, a salaried officer gets none of the fees or fines. An unsalaried officer can collect the same fee that a sheriff does but does not collect any part of the fine.

This particular warden likes to give people trouble. I live 1/4 mile from Perdido River WMA on the FL side. The river is the state line.

I took my 7 year old nephew with me to let our lab puppies swim in the river. We went to a sandbar on the river from the FL side. This same warden came to the sandbar from the AL side and tried to write me 2 tickets (one for me and one for my nephew) for not wearing hunters orange on a "Gun Hunt Day". I was not hunting and did not have a firearm!

I was not disrespectful, and he let me go with a warning. So to me that means that anyone fishing has to wear hunter orange on a gun hunt day too????

It was a total bunch of crap. He was writing tickets on the AL side of the river when I got there to a couple with their 3 kids for the same thing. Not wearing hunters orange while they let their dog swim.

There again, if these cases were to go high enough, many of them would lose out to the Constitution:




03/05/93 R.S.B. v. STATE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA
March 5, 1993

R.S.B.
v.
STATE

Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court. (JU-92-283).

49er, Ok I guess what I am getting at. Do we have unsalaried officers and who are they

I don't know.

DCNR 1-800-262-3151 (it's a free call)

I don't agree with this either and usually I am first in line to defend game wardens for the job they have to do. You could wander around photographing birds without the hunter orange during the hunt legally I think. May not be the smartest thing to do but should be legal. Maybe someone needs to let the District V supervisor know about some of these questionable actions.

I remember a case in New Jersey that was bogus and a lot of forum members donated money to assist with his court case. I'd be willing to donate towards the original posters legal fees if he appeals if others here would be willing to do the same.

No unsalaried officers.....

ALDCNR pretty much phased out the "deputy game warden" idea. They were unsalaried but had very limited authority.

troy

there is no requirement for anyone to wear hunter orange when NOT hunting at any time. You should of refused the warning, and called the Montgomery office to report such actions. A warning ticket can only be given for a violation of reg/law that the officer deems a warning sufficient to handle the violation.

IF an Officer wrote such a warning, or ticket, he needs supervisory attention.

troy

MY advise it to appeal your conviction to Circuit Court and ask for a Jury Trial. You are going to have to post an Appeal Bond to do so, but, if you win, you will get it back. Good Luck. If you need a lawyer, I will be happy to recommend one to you in your area.

Troy,

If you are retired you will know Bill Gray the supervising biologist. Bill will vouch for my character and ethics while hunting. I saw Bill in January at Barbour county, he could not believe that I had received a ticket. Chris Nix called Bill and told him that he had met me, but mentioned nothing of the ticket. I harvested a 198 lb 8 point on Barbour county WMA middle of January this year. I hunt hard but I hunt legaly. Nix told me that I would have received the ticket even if I was just carrying a bow and the citation had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I had a rifle. Officer Nix is known for being a liberal in his ticket writing. I feel that if you have a WMA that the tickets to hunter ratio is out of balance someone should noice. The Perdido River WMA is trashy and there is not even a descent place to use the restroom or camp. You can say whatever in his defense, but it is my opinion the young man leaves a lot to desired in a state biologist. I will not hunt in Baldwin county again, and will encourage other hunters not to hunt there. You have a kid with a badge who has no concept of law enforcement and a good ol boy court system to back him up. Some WMA's your odds of receiving a citation or much higher than harvesting a deer. If you drive down River Road on perdido you will see ground blinds in the road with rifles bointing straight down the road. This management area is poorly managed and most who had ever had any experiense with this WMA would say the say. If anyone here has ever had a good experience with Perdido River WMA or Chris Nix I welcome their input. I would love to hear from any hunter who has plead not guilty in Balwin county court and won. They also love to stack citations. On Jan 31 a kid who had a loaded weapon in his vehicle was charged with rifle roaded in vehicle, night hunting, hunting from a public roadway. Yes I did feel he was guilty. But this young man received more in fines than he can ever possibly pay. He would have come out better going to a zoo and dragging a deer out.
I only feel that hunters should be treated fairly by our LEO's and courts. Deer hunting is huge revenue in Alabama. Less privlidged hunters who are hunting public land should not be targeted or at higher risk of citations because of where they can afford to hunt.

Not Cool!

I should have made this more clear. He gave me a verbal warning, not a written. But he did make me load up the puppies and my nephew, and told me if he caught us back down there on a "gun hunt day" without orange he would write a ticket. I didn't know if I was in the right or wrong at the time, I don't hunt WMA's.

I found it hard to believe that everyone on the river that day was required to wear orange.

there is no regulation pertaining to non hunters on WMAs not being allowed on the WMA during a gun deer hunt that I can find.. Nor any requirement that a non hunter be required to wear hunter orange.

On a personal note I wouldn't get caught on a WMA during a gun hunt without an orange hat on...no matter what I was doing. Too many idjets.....

if in doubt always ask just what the reg/law number is that covers the violation....

Good to know about the reg/law #, never thought about that.

Where I was was at a public area that goes down to the river with parking on each side of the road for this particular reason. I walked right off of the road down into the river. I was not walking around through a clear cut or where anyone SHOULD be hunting. I know about the idgets, which is why I wont deer hunt on a WMA.

Even if I were to have been shooting ducks down there I wouldn't see where orange would have been required. Deer hunting I understand completely.

Appeal it!

I know one good attorney in Bay Minnette.
Allan R. Chason
Chason & Chason, P.C.
P. O. Box 100
300 D'Olive Street
Bay Minette, Alabama 36507
251-937-2191

And the last time they authroized any overtime for wardens was about 1989, if I recall correctly...

Like doekiller said, appeal it and request a jury trial.

On the WMA rules it states that you are required to wear Hunter's Orange while pursuing any animal (hunting), including samll game, on days of Gun Deer hunts.

But, Troy might can correct me again if I'm wrong! LOL

I've only had a couple experiences with GWs in Alabama and they were all pretty good. They would make a stop by our camp in Macon county about once a year. Pretty much checked the license, made sure everyone had their orange on, and asked about the gun (never even checked it - I don't know if it would have really mattered if it was loaded or not since we were at the camp and not on a state or county maintained road) - not overly friendly, but considerate.

I'm not aware of them ever writing a ticket at or on our club. They did smack several of our members for hunting over a baited field during dove season (field was not on our property, but a member's piece of land - up the road a mile or so - and yes it was baited by the land owner, unfortunately most didn't know they were hunting a baited field).

A good friend of mine was a GW in Montgomery and then Coosa county - he and I talked a lot about fines and stuff like that. His thoughts were - if you broke the law - you were getting a ticket, no ifs ands or butts.

Hunting-231,



I wonder if he ever arrested any CAB members or DCNR bosses, no ifs ands or butts?

I've never, in 50 years of hunting seen the game and fish laws and regulations published together in pamplet form for general distribution to the public. That's a direct violation of a game and fish law... no ifs ands or butts.

All railroad tracks are considered private property of CSX or whichever company. I do not know how far the right of way is though.

I have rarely seen it enforced though. Most of the time the conductor or engineer will call someone in.

you recall INCORRECTLY.....

I worked overtime in 2003, they(DCNR) had overtime in 2004, and, I think< 2005. I retired 2005 so I have no knowledge of after that date.

and we didn't work any overtime in 1989 or until 2003......

troy

yer correct......but some don't allow small game hunting on days of gun deer hunts...

Sounds like this guy is an outlaw who has no respect for our game laws.

I guess my true issue is with the laws themselves and how they leave so much gray area. The officer did not lie in court, he said he observed me from a crossing 300 yards away, he stated that "he was moving slowly down the railroad track wearing hunter orange with a rifle on his shoulder". The officer also stated in court that I would have received the ticket even if I had been carrying a bow and arrows. All of which is true. You are required to wear orange on WMA's on hunt days and I am 70% crippled so I do not move real fast. Even if in the judge and prosecutor opinion I was wrong, taking my hunting rights for a year is supposedly reserved for a second offense. I feel I was punished excessively for arguing what I felt was right in a good ol boy courtroom.

if he said you would of gotten a ticket even if you had a bow...he was wrong as there is no such violation.

you got screwed on the loss of hunting rights...appeal is the only way to right that part....

troy

I thought it they were very strict on folks walking down railroad tracks....i.e. trespassing on railroad property. I have heard this many time from many people. Is it not true?

Ok .. so he is walking out to his truck. At what point did he consider his hunt over? Just because I am toting a loaded gun doesnt mean I am engaged In a hunt anymore. I walked through the woods yesterday to retrieve a stand, and I toted a loaded rifle. Would you have wrote me up? Probably. Why did I tote it? To shoot armadillos and coyotes. I dont think him simply walking down the track, especially toward his truck indicates an active hunt.

first, you don't know me or anything about me so please refrain from assuming what I would of done. Second, I'm retired....

The courts will usually decide that if you are toting a loaded gun in the woods you are hunting something.

What is it you think you would of gotten a ticket for???

troy

I doubt that any state GW will write you a trespassing ticket for walking down a RR track. Railroad detectives might though....

troy

Well it is funny at how touchy we can get! Fred .. I have read and know you are retired .. and yeah I dont personally know you. Good observations. Now, my "HYPOTHETICAL" question was .. would you have wrote me a ticket. As far as what for .. well I dont know. We have two other cases on the forums at the moment that came down to a judgement call. I agree you load a gun to go hunting, but at some point we all stop hunting and choose to return to our vehicle. And unfortunately, most of us choose to unload back at the truck rather than in the woods. I was watching Wild Justice, the show on California GWs. The last show had the really intense guy watching two or more guys possibly poaching bears. He didnt rush in just because they were in the woods with guns and dogs. And It appeared that they were obviously poaching. But, rather than rush in.. he was waiting for the actual offense to take place. The actual shooting of an illegal bear. I think that is what is sometimes what is lacking .. the common sense to study the situation and see if the intent is really there for the said offense. Do you really believe this guy was hunting from the railway? Do you really believe the Other guy was trying to hide his kill in multiple records? I think all most of us would like to see is the GWs use some better investigative skills and common sense to determine the true intent, AND to realize we as hunters can and will be ignorant and sometimes teaching us would go a lot farther than just throwing a ticket at us.

Yea I say amen to that. We are not all outlaws.

any TV show is a piss poor example of how to do things....those bear hunters committed no violation by removing the gall bladder. I'd of told that GW to pound sand. Hollywood crap.

ticket??? still don't know what for..permit? license? got a dead turkey in yer pocket??

I'll give ya an example of watching to see what is going on. I come up on a man and his ten year old son fishing. Father has a rod in his hand, says he is casting the rod for his son?? maybe?? If I watched him cast, reel in, cast, reel in without handing rod to son the HE is fishing...and has to have a license. If he casts the bait out and hands rod to son..he's not fishing IMO. BTW I always gave fathers taking sons fishing the benefit of the doubt unless the guy was a azzhole....

same for the OP.... walking straight down the tracks, gun slung OR walking, stopping to look thru binocs, standing still, etc....longer ya look the better grasp of what is going on. I wasn't there so I can't comment on what he was doing.

troy

Thanks fred. That does help a little. You are dead on there. If the GW has observered and knows there is reason to believe otherwise that makes a difference. So I take it you arent a fan of Wild Justice? lol . I thought the problem was the killing and just taking the paws or something, but regardless .. werent they poaching nonetheless?

I do know first hand how tv exaggerates things.. . for instance, Gas Pumps dont usually blow up when ran over, You cant see in a burning room ... you cant walk through a fire filled room and come out unharmed, even in fire gear. And For Pete Sake .. WE DONT RESCUE CATS!! How many cat skeletons do you see in trees?????

I don't personally know Chris but I have hunted on Perdido WMA many times and never had an issue. I'm sorry to hear that and it will definitely cause me to be sure and follow the rules to a T over there. Not that I don't already but I will be even more conscience of it now. Good luck if you decide to fight it. That sounds like a very petty thing to loose hunting privileges for a year over.

He ticketed a mutual friend. I say he WOULD HAVE ticketed a CAB member or DCNR boss - NO IFS AND OR BUTS if there would have been cause.

Under Charles Kelly a GW could arrest ANYONE if he made a good case, Mr Kelly would prolly call ya and ask the particulars of the arrest. NEVER any pressure to drop an arrest.

Current admin...not so much

I was called by the Chief and told to "un-arrest" a person I arrested the day before. There ain't no such thing.........

troy

Yes there is, just not a legal or proper way to do it. I've seen it done before when officers arrested a person on a warrant that had already been served. The fault was from the magistrate's office and the officers are told to explain the situation, apologize profusely, take them home and then hope they don't sue the city. I've seen this probably 10 times in my career, usually to habitual misdemeanor criminals. Only one has sued the city. Most are just happy to not be locked up again. The one that sued offered to settle with the city for $7000 and the city attorney turned it down. A jury then gave her $75,000.

I've followed this thread and the other with some interest because the use of police discretion is something that I have a keen interest in and study. The bottom line however is that presenting the one side just doesn't give enough info to make an accurate assesment. Keep in mind that officers are human. They make mistakes, they can have bad days, they can let someone cause them to act with emotions and not reason. We try to teach and train to not let this happen, but it can and occaisionally does. That is why there are recourses such as courts and formal complaint procedures against officers. These complaints are used to weed out those that can't cut it. Generally one complaint won't matter, but the cumulative effect of repeated complaints most certainly will. Despite Doecommander's assertions, all are not assholes. A few may start out their career that way but either they change or quit, largely due to peer pressure or they get terminated. Those guys don't last long very often any more. New guys often start out with piss and vinegar, but quickly are taught that that makes us all look bad and won't get you anywhere. The smart ones catch on quickly and change. The one's that don't won't cut it. This goes for wardens, officers, troopers, deputies etc.

Game laws are not my field, but I would have to guess that if I came across the poster in these circumstances, I would have issued a warning, assuming they were respectful and not confrontational, but as Fred says, I wasn't there so I can't say for sure what was proper.

FWIW, I definately think the loss of hunting privledges was overkill.

jawbone, I met with the person I arrested(not on a warrant), had him raise his right hand and I pronounced him UNarrested. He said "what the hell was that?" I made him swear not to include me in his lawsuit......:)

troy

troy, you made my day. There is still hope for America.

I keep seeing various people in this thread using the term hunting privileges. Isn't it, in fact, hunting rights?

AMENDMENT 597 RATIFIED
Sportsperson's Bill of Rights.

(a) All persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with law and regulations.

(b) This amendment shall be known as the "Sportsperson's Bill of Rights."

I've read this thread long enough to finally make a response. With most of the hacking on the warden, there are always two sides to the story. I've never had a problem with Mr. Nix. I think that the Perdido wma is a lot better place due to what he does out there. To the guys swimming with his kids, sounds that he could of been concerned with your safety and thought it might not be the best location for your family day during a gun hunt. And if the guy was walking down a railroad track looking around with a loaded rifle and nice buck would have showed his face, I bet he would of shot. So he was hunting in my opinion. Could be the high guilty rate in the county says something of the solid cases they make. Do it legal or don't do it. just sayin.

kat,



Sounds just like the Brady Bunch...



Do you really want your right to bear arms to hinge on the whims of individual officers whether they wear green, blue, black... wake up and smell the roses. You are giving your rights away.

Bearing arms is a constitutional right and the mere possession of them, loaded or not, is not a crime.

If the guy is walking through the mall with a hard-on, and some fine chic walks by, will he **** her?

You gotta make one hell of a leap to assume that crossing a R/R with a rifle makes one guilty of "Hunting or discharging a firearm" as the law defines.

2006 Alabama Code - Section 9-11-257 — Hunting or discharge of firearm from, upon, or across public roads, etc.
Any person who hunts or discharges any firearm from, upon, or across a railroad, or hunts within 50 yards of a railroad, or their rights-of-way, with a centerfire rifle, shotgun or a muzzleloading rifle shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

There are several places, at Lowndes WMA, where you have to cross a R/R to access the land.
I have done so many times, and I've seen both deer and turkey on the tracks, yet I have never attempted to shoot one.

This is true but don't be an ass and threaten someone with a ticket. Just advise the people of the hunt going on and that they are swimming at their own risk if they don't wear orange.

Reckon he had on orange when he was telling them how unsafe it is not to wear orange where there are people with LOADED (God forbid) firearms??

Good question!

And the moral of the story is, "Don't cross a railroad track with a loaded firearm because who's to say you would or wouldn't shoot a deer crossing the railroad tracks?" I have crossed that same RR multiple times going to what used to be my "secret spot" that nobody thought of going to. One of the Conservation Officers on that place met me at the truck a few years ago on my way out just to make sure my firearm was not loaded when I crossed that track. It wasn't thank The Lord. They are more than likely having problems with probably one or two dumb idiots who don't care about the laws in this state and are killing deer off the track. The only way to catch em is to patrol that track every gun hunt and ticket everybody that is crossing that track with a loaded firearm.

Well maybe they should work a little harder, and catch the ones that are causing the problems. Not a gentleman, who has give his life to his country, and just wants to go hunting. Kill a deer and not be screwed with.

by the way Bucky. thank you for your service. some of us still have a little respect. Maybe the commission needs to join the military like some of the rest of us. And learn how to be respectful of people.

Catching real violators does require the GW to work a little harder, a little smarter.

For what it is worth, the railroads do not like anyone shooting or throwing anything near the rails. they actually don't even like people being on the tracks. We've had to respond to many calls of kids with BB guns near the tracks and kids throwing rocks at the sides of trains. The RR police have actually wanted to charge kids with a felony for throwing rocks on one occaision. The point is they take this very serious (maybe too serious sometimes in my opinion), and will complain and send the RR police, (yes they have their own police), to make sure something is done.

Perhaps this is a case of the warden having to respond to numerous complaints from the RR about people "hunting" from their tracks. The warden is then almost put in a position of showing that they did something to alleviate the complaints. I've been there and done that before about the kids throwing rocks at the side of the train.

One thing that may have contributed to this that no one has mentioned. Wasn't it last year that a warden was shot while patroling some RR tracks ? If I remember correctly it was
right at dark. The hunter shot him thinking he was a deer since he had no orange on. I can't remember if it was Alabama or Ga where this occurred. Maybe Troy can remember this.The warden was shot in the chest , it seems the hunter was actually hunting on the tracks.

it was in Ga, he survived.

Key phrase in any court where a jury is not present, " I chose to stipulate and appeal". Like Troy said, most prosecutors will try to settle a case before it goes to trial in circuit court because circuit court judges hate for their docket to be full of petty stuff when they are trying to clear the drug, rape and murder trials.

The ****ing Railroad Barons got themselves exempted from every law and 7 of the commandments, when they began expansion to the west, 200 years ago.
Sumbitches still think they own the whole world.

A Baldwin county deputy was killed last year while hunting on a railroad. He was actualy hit by a train.

Where it really could become an issue is for those hunters who park just off public roads and walk into the woods.

The worst part to me outside losing a month of a disabled vets salary is the judge taking my hunting privileges for a year. That is supposed to be for a second offense. I truly believe because I disagreed with the LEO's definition of the law and contested it in court I was punished. I have no respect for either of the two biologist assigned to south Alabama or the Baldwin county court system. They have no clue as to justice only to process and procedures. I wont get to hunt for 1 year and I am out $1200 for an offense that the Alabama AG says I am innocent, but I will spend the rest of my life remembering how there is no justice in Baldwin county. I truly understand why so many people have so little respect for our judicial system, Especially minorities, they do not stand a chance in court without a high dollar attorney.

so according to the law, a guy could legally walk up and down or around the tracks with a .22 or .17 or any rimfire rifle and shoot squirrels, but not with a .410 shotgun?

I guess everybody should take time to read the rulebooks, because I've killed more than a couple of turkeys over the years around railroad tracks.....Railroad tracks are turkey magnets in a swamp.

That would probably help yes.

While it may or not be the true definition of hunting, it is widely accepted in Court that if your gun is loaded; you are hunting.

I don't think that you will ever beat that charge from the description of your activities, no matter your good intentions.

But, I would think that unless there is more to the story than what has been discussed, you should be able to appeal your loss of hunting privileges.

But, heck.....Troy has to keep me straight all the time. So, I very well could be confused on this, too!

I know someone who was on a jury in BC last week. The jurors they picked were all ones who were friends of LEOs, and/or had a good experience with a LEO. It was rigged from the beginning.

To answer the question, no he did not have orange on. Then again I personally have never seen a warden with orange on.

We were not swimming, I was letting our labs swim on the FLORIDA side, this was an AL warden. If someone would have been hunting there, they would have been in violation of hunting from a public road. The Fl side that I accessed the river from is private property that I have access to.

The "A" answer was to tell him to pound sand......

troy

That's what I felt like saying, but didn't want to be disrespectful to him especially having my nephew with me.

you learn real quick where and when to close the windows on a locomotive. North B'ham was the worst for kids throwing rocks at us.

There is so much gray area in the interpertation of this law law. In such lies the problem. The LEO plainly stated I would have been guilty even with a bow and arrow. I am in the process of trying to scrape together enough money for an appeal. I want to request a jury trial. Baldwin county has a bad reputation for policing for profit. I feel wronged and will continue to fight this conviction as long as I can find a way. Thank you guys for your input. I will let everyone know how the appeal goes. I urge everyone to write your represenatives to request clarity be provided for our hunting laws. The next citation may be yours.

Are you sure that the officer told you that you would have been guilty even with a bow and arrow, that seems a little far fetched? Also, doesn't the department of conservation hand out free pamplets that describes these laws?

Section 9-11-257
Hunting or discharge of firearm from, upon, or across public roads, etc.

Any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty or person otherwise authorized by law, who hunts or discharges any firearm from, upon, or across any public road, public highway, or railroad, or the rights-of-way of any public road, public highway, or railroad, or any person, except a landowner or his or her immediate family hunting on land of the landowner, who hunts within 50 yards of a public road, public highway, or railroad, or their rights-of-way, with a centerfire rifle, a shotgun using slug or shot larger in diameter than manufacturer's standard designated number four shot, or a muzzleloading rifle .40 caliber or larger in this state, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished for the first offense by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and shall be punished for the second and each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) and shall have all hunting license privileges revoked for one year from the date of conviction.

DEFINITION OF HUNTING
Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing,harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds.

Pg. 14 of the Regulation Book.
Regulation Book

Not taking sides either way on this, just providing information.

Nothing in this definition of hunting includes walking with a loaded gun.

I feel your pain.

I was treated like a felon at Lauderdale WMA about 12 years ago. The well respected (that was a joke) GW and his woman sidekick completely tore our truck apart and then told us to hurry and put it back together. She threw truck paperwork on the ground for goodness sake.

I told Mr. Wallace and her where to go, called her every name in the book and him too! Begged them to write me a ticket for something bogus.

I was ready to go rounds with both of them.

Last time I set foot on Lauderdale WMA.

Then again, poachers should know poachers better than that.

Now, Freedom Hills is totally different. Never had a bad experience and Mitchell Marks has always been as courteous and nice as you could expect. No doubt he would write you up if you deserved it but he seems to have plenty of common sense.

To Bucky,
First of all I am a 55 yo veteran of the USN. My father and my grandfather are veterans. Several of my uncles,cousins and three of my brothers by marriage are veterans. Being a veteran has nothing to do with your complaint.
I have two older brothers that are not veterans and they do not hunt, but they and everyone of my family members, relatives and friends know that when hunting - before you step onto a public right of way or railroad, unload your gun...or you could be charged with a violation of law. It isnt hard to unload and reload your firearm. It only takes a matter of seconds to complete the cycle for most firearms. If it is hard for you unload and reoad your firearm then maybe you could take up swimming or some other sport that does not involve moving parts, like balls you could lose i.e. golf,tennis.
Second you cannot step off the railroad bed on Perdido River Mgmt. area and be within 100 yds of exiting the Mgmt area, (unless you cross the river into Florida). Once an individual treks back to his vehicle from the railroad bed on that Mgmt. area they would still have to drive at least a quarter of a mile to leave the area, (unless you drive into Florida- this is a moot point because all hunters have to check in and out of the mgmt area at the check station for safety reasons.)
Third, I know the two officers that contacted you the day you were standing in the R/R bed. They are as honest and conscientious as the day is long. What is really sad is that a ticket would not have been written for 9-11-257 if your gun had not been loaded.
Fourth, maybe everyone else in court that day plead guilty except for you.
Fifth, if someone blatantly coomits a violation, when the rules are spelled out in black and white ( FREE readily available handout Hunting and Fishing Regs and Info. 2010-2011 page 20 left hand column at the top paragraph titled 50 Yard Restriction), then yes you can be charged.
Lastly, what young people are you referring to ? All of them? There are many young people today that respect the law and its representatives. Young people that have guidance and violate are usually taught to violate by example. Young people that have no guidance and violate are a product of our society.
As far as all young people not having respect for the law is just an insult and you do not know what you are talking about...again.
The example I see you setting is one of deceit, misdirection and blame for everyone but yourself for your own mistake.

The Patriot

Well, what every you do, you only have until Monday the 14th to file your appeal.

And you weren't the only one... Imagine that...




LOL, now THAT's a good 'un!




Everyone, don't forget to say a warm welcome to our newest DCNR member.





Oops, looks like there's a newest-est DCNR member now!

To Bamachem
I dont plan on having a tombstone. I want to be incinerated and my ashes tossed back to whereever. Spending good money on a hole in the ground and a fancy headstone just does not make sense to me. Ill be dead and will not care. Maybe my friends and family will toast my passing and think well of me. I am a normal human being and I make mistakes like everyone else. I will probably be remembered for admitting to my mistakes and calling bullcrap when some people wont admit to theirs. How about you potstirrer? You gonna say and insinuate crappy things long enough for people to look forward to the day when they can piss on your headstone?

To Patriot;
1>Being a disabled vet has a lot to do with it if that disability left you 60% paralyzed on your right side and totally blind in your right eye. I am right handed. Try closing your dominant eye and shooting with you non primary hand while standing up walking. Until then try sticking to subjects you know something about.
2> Bill Gray, supervising Biologist for the state of Alabama has been a friend of mine for years. Bill stated after hearing the events that the ticket should not have never been written. I have no problem with Chris or Keith they were doing their job and interperting a very vague law. I greatly appreciate the service they provide I simply disagree with their interpretation of 9-11-257 and so does the Alabama Attorney General. Did Chris also tell you I volunteered if they needed any help at the WMA the morning I checked in. I picked up trash at Cahaba River WMA for many years as a volunteer.
3> Officer Nix specifically stated that the problem was not the rifle. It would not matter if I had been carrying a bow or spear. The charge was for hunting not carrying a rifle.
4>I congratulate you your family and friends on being such conscientious hunters and unloading. I truly cannot honestly say that none of the people I know have ever received a citation from DCNR. But then many of my friends do not work for DCNR. If you choose to ignore your constitutional rights and how law is enforced you won’t have to worry about any of this for very long. You will not be allowed to carry a rifle anywhere. Try listing the places that you can legally carry a rifle across your shoulder in our state, even though the second amendment gives you that right. That is a very short list. Maybe I took a different oath than you or your relatives when I entered service. And no, I am not refering to your DCNR service.
5>you offer a lot of opinion but no evidence. Show me in the Constitution of Alabama anywhere where anything is mentioned regarding the unlawful carry of a loaded rifle on a railroad. Taking my hunting rights for a year on a first and only hunting offense is BS. I went today and appealed and plan to put it before a jury. Baldwin court wanted me to sign a blank appearance and cost bond and then send it up to Judge Bishop and then let him fill in the blanks as part of the appeal. I am sure that you have some piece of fuzzy logic that justifies this.
6> Concerning society and your opinions on the downfall. Laws and courts help define the boundries of our society.
Just because I dissagree with an opinion on the law I still respect it
7> Look at your map again for Perdido River. I was parked at the North end of the paved road against the river. I was stopped less than 100 yards from the end of the management area North bound off the management area.



And you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uninformed. It is always good to think about other aspects. By the way, it is the 1st Amendment of our constitution that gives you that right to have an opinion and speak your mind. Thank you for your service.

My gosh, I am tired of this thread and the 'special' treatment that you must expect from repeatedly playing the 'veteran' card.

You broke the letter of the Law.

Pay the fine and move on OR go through the judicial procedure that you fought to protect.

BUT QUIT WHINING ON THE INTERNET!!!!
It really isn't changing anything.

Hogwild,


That's the stupidest remark that has been made in this entire thread.

No law trumps our Constitution.



You're saying it's illegal to possess a loaded firearm to prevent the appearance that someone is hunting.

Get real!!


Constitution of Alabama 1901

Try carrying your loaded gun into work with you at any Industrial Plant.

Or, better yet, into Court with you while you argue your case. LOL

YOUR interpretation and what the Courts say are 2 differnet things.

You really give bad advice!

When I was a kid my Dad told me some Game Wardens were interested in conservation and some were out to stick it to somebody. My experience has proven this to be true. I've met both.

Hogwild,



I advise citizens who swore to the defend the Constitution when they entered the military and those who did so when they entered public office or became enforcement officers that they should honor their oaths.

It's not bad advice for the rest of you to defend the Constitution whether you swore to or not.

Well at least Mr. Wallace is retired now!

Okay Bucky ,
I will try this one more time and then I quit. Talking to you, that is.
You dish out impertinence as if you had the sole rights to do so just because you were wounded and it is almost infuriating. You are not the only wounded service member.
While I was in the diving community in the USN, I knew several team members whose motto was "Adapt or Die" not "adjust to whine".
Now pay attention and read this with your one good eye.

Get your facts straight and tell the whole truth.
Bill Gray is not THE supervising biologist for the State of Alabama, he is the supervisor in District 4. Bill Gray was not there and I doubt he would second guess officers in the field without knowing all the facts. (Free handout AL. Reg Book 2010-2011 pg 11).
Lets just skip on down to the "ignoring my rights crap"... No one and I reiterate No One has said, hinted or indicated that you don't have the right to keep and bear arms - and I will fight to the death to keep mine. I took the same oath as you, you .... and however distasteful I will defend yours.
You were standing in/on private property owned by the railroad. In Alabama the r/r and its right of way is deemed private property. You had a loaded firearm, wearing camo, wearing orange and standing in the r/r tracks looking at a clearcut.
You were hunting..... 9-11-257.
You will not find anything in the Constitution of Alabama about carrying a loaded firearm on a r/r track. You will find it in the Code of Alabama 9-11-257.
I have no fuzzy logic.
Here is a thought, why don't the GW's turn over the info to the R/R police and you could be charged again for trespassing?
The location where you were stopped is 3/10 of a mile from the public road. The opposing side of that road( or north of that road)is mgmt area also.
My uninformed opinion is based on a lifetime of dealing with charlatans, 12 years in the USN, a 4 year college degree with a dual minor of Psychology and Criminology.
I guess your worldly and buffoonish opinion is based on...I don't know , maybe you got hit by a train.
Goodby and good luck

Patriot,

If you and I were on a jury hearing this case, you would not get your unanimous guilty verdict. Your ideas about what constitutes hunting are preposterous and overbroad.

Notice the words chosen by our legislature to describe hunting:




Nothing there about possession of firearms, whether loaded or not, and certainly not anything there about the clothes a person is wearing.

I have hunted Perdido since it opened and have never had a problem with Chris. Many times I have seen Chris help blood trail someones deer after hearing that they couldn't find it or it had crossed a property line. On the last hunt of the year I asked where Chris was and was told that someone had seen some bicycle riders on the management area and he was concerned with their safety and was going to let them be aware that a gun hunt was going on. There's a group of girls that ride horses on the management area but they have their orange on. My point is that I don't think Chris is all bad.

I don't know about your deal with the ticket and can only speak for myself. I hunt management areas only and if I walk down a RR or even approach a gate on the management area road I unload my gun. That way there is no appearance of hunting. I can't afford a ticket so I try not to give them a chance to write me one.

49er,
Define "hunting" please.

Again, I have no problem with Chris or Keith. They both acted professionly and seem to take pride in their work. I simply know what I was doing when cited and stronly dissagree with Chris's opinion of the law and feel LEO's are over zealous in writing tickets on WMA's. I also feel it unjust that I lost my hunting rights for a year for dissagreeing with Chris's opinion of the law. I know we have beat this topic to death and apologize if it seems to drag on. I have always enjoyed an assortment of forums for the exchange of ideas. If I was not interested in a topic I simply ignored the topic.

Nice. Another Class-act. So, you work near Airport Blvd and live out in the West Mobile area. We should go have a beer one evening and see if you still want to piss on my grave.

To 49er,
If this and if that is not the issue.

I did not give my def. of what constitutes hunting and what constitutes hunting is not the issue.

This is not an issue of the right to bear arms.

This is an issue of whether he was hunting or not.

Bucky admitted that he was on the WMA to hunt.
He was checked out as hunting. I say again,he was hunting by his own admission.
He was standing on private property owned by the R/R ( you cannot legally walk on the R/R without permission from the R/R in Alabama) and bordered on both sides by mgmt area when contacted by the GWs.
Here is an if for you-
( If you saw someone you did not know in camo and a loaded rifle on your property you would want them prosecuted for hunting without permission or at least prosecuted for trespass.)

The issue is that he was hunting by his own admission, but when contacted by the GWs he claims he is not hunting right then or that he had finished hunting.
This is an issue about someone trying to find a way get out of a violation and not being able to admit that they messed up.

I honestly hate that Bucky got hammered but jeez, all he had to do was pull the bullets out of the gun while he was on the R/R.

To Bamachem,
I don't live in Mobile area. I am flattered and I thank you for the invitation but I don't date because it would anger my wife. I certainly wouldn't date someone that already had their grave.

LOL... I'm sure you're "not my type" either as far as that goes.

As far as living in the area - LOL on that too.

Huntfish2,


I posted words the legislature used to describe hunting earlier. It's their place to define words they use in criminal statutes, not mine.

Nowhere is the mere possession of a firearm defined as hunting in the law. If there is any doubt as to the meaning, the interpretation is supposed to be made in favor of the accused:




I saw a cop wearing an orange vest with a loaded gun in the road at a wreck the other day. I don't define what he was doing as hunting from a public road.

I saw some tree trimmers wearing orange vests in the road just yesterday morning and they were looking from the road into the trees. I don't interpret that as hunting from the road.

The game warden who wrote the subject ticket was wearing green and had a loaded firearm on the railroad when he stopped Bucky. If the defintion of hunting is the mere possession of a loaded firearm, then the officer who wrote the ticket was hunting while on duty when he should have been working.

If you people think it is constitutional to make the possession of a loaded firearm while walking back to your truck after hunting a crime to help stop people from hunting illegally, then you probably agree with Sarah Brady that guns should be banned to keep people from committing murder. It's the same flawed logic that gun grabbing liberals use to attack our right to bear arms.

If the man who met Bucky with a loaded gun that day had been a robber instead of a game warden, Bucky had a gun without a bullet in the chamber because he was trying to appease game wardens who want to write their own laws. He would have been in trouble.

Bucky has a right to bear arms to defend himself while walking back to his truck from hunting. The Constituion still applies there.

Thanks for the link. (poster chose to delete it)

A good example of why even a bow hunter should be armed for defense while they enjoy their other constitutional right to hunt.

Robbers attack hunter who had no firearm

Patriot,

Go ahead and post your real name and I will be happy to check the BUDS grad list.

Patriot I have no doubt that you know Chris and Keith, you know details that have never been mentioned here. Ask them if I ever touched the rifle. Walking and looking is not illegal. It is called looking for an area to hunt. And by my own admission I was hunting a place to hunt. I had also hunted a place to park. If I was guilty of hunting from the moment I checked in; then I hunted before daylight, from a public road, through a school zone and through the truck stop by I65. I guess if I had had a fishing pole I would have been guilty of fishing from all those places as well. I checked in and drew a permit because that permit authorizes me to hunt and carry a weapon on a WMA.

Post some evidence to support your conclusions.

Until then I will truly miss you and I am not being sarcastic. You are obviously intelligent and offer good arguments. But I do believe there is a high probability you work for DCNR.

AW1(AW) Chuck (Bucky) Buchanan USN/RET.
The only easy day was yesterday.

Patriot
It is very low down for you to make fun of Buckey eye site.
I hope you have two good eyes.
I am a veterian so is my son, brother, nephew had an uncle in WWII 82 Airborn Div.
I think it was excessive to ban him from hunting for one year.
He has a right to his openion.

And somehow, through it all, you completely missed the founding pillar of our entire justice system ...
Presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, witness, evidence, proof of guilt.
Any of those ring a bell?

What exactly does "in the diving community" mean?
Hell I was "in the community" at Basic.
I even did some diving with the SeALs ... 3 or 4 times, they had to dive in the pool and drag my drowning ass up off the bottom.

If you want to know the original intent of 9-11-257, and the real definition of "hunting from a public road" check out the thread over in the General Forum entitled "Night hunters caught".

That's the intent of the law as it was first written. They screwed it up when they amended it to try to stop dog hunters from hunting where they were not supposed to. It didn't work, so it needs to be changed back like it was. Part of the job of the CAB is to recommend fixes to screwed up game and fish laws like this one.

Extortion is a crime. Extortion was not the intent of the legislature when 9-11-257 was written.

This question is mostly for BhamFred, however I want everyone to see it.

Ok since I have been on here bitching about my ticket. And I have called everyone and there brother bitching about it. I am sure that the officer that wrote me this ticket has heard about it. And according to the powers that be in Montgomery she has or will be called on the carpet about it. (oh yea my ticket is on the other thread)

If I go hunting for coyotes on my land, and I have corn out for my deer, what is to say that she can't charge me with hunting deer out of season.

I mean if you can be charged with hunting while walking back to your truck during deer season, then really what is to say that I can't be charged with hunting deer out of season. I MEAN I WILL HAVE A GUN, and it will be loaded.

I've seen it plenty of times...

I checked one of the worst poachers in Greene Co a week after deer season ended, sitting in a shooting house on a greenfield with a 264WM...said he was coyote hunting. I said OK, have fun. But I kept a closer eye on him. In that situation I would wait for further evidence of DEER hunting...like a dead deer....

Wasn't hard to show he was HUNTING, just not exactly what he was hunting.

Fella is waist deep in a pond, wearing waders, blowing a duck call, shotgun loaded with #4s...he's probably duck hunting....

you wouldn't be hunting coyotes over corn ...would ya???

troy

No I would not, but only 200 acres, so I would be close. Ok just wanted to ask that question. But just so you will know. Coyotes do eat corn. Got pictures to prove it. I can't find one, but is there a law against baiting coyotes?

And had you been a ass, could you have written him a ticket for deer hunting or not. That is the question.

Even if a ticket won't stick, it is a pain in the ass to get one.

Oh yea, what about wanton waste? can you get a ticket for killing a coyote and leaving it dead where it is. OR DO YOU HAVE TO EAT IT.

Don't be so hard on Sammy

Petty Officer Buchanan,
I apologize for the eye comment. I have much respect for your sacrifices. I remain adamant about your injuries not being related to the issue.
I am ex Petty Officer None of any body's business.
I never claimed or insinuated I was a Seal team member. Everything I stated about my family's and my own veterans status is the truth. I went through some dive training with 5 Seals from different teams. I also went through some pre-d dive training with a mobile unit. When you figure this out , it is no ones business but mine and I hope you can respect that.
I did not start this disagreement. I stepped from anonymity and said "Foul" when you said some pretty bad and incorrect things about those biologists. You even went so far as to try to bolster your argument by using minority bias like a playing card.
The biologist wrote you citation for a violation, he did not interpret the law , he enforced it. It is not his place or his job to decide which law or regulation to enforce.
The sad part of this ridicule towards DCNR folks is that some of them are the same one's that will put themselves into harm's way for you and others regardless of race, religion or political affiliation.
This is just an observation but it seems to me that getting shot at sucks pretty bad, whether you are in combat in a foreign country or trying to apprehend a meth-head that is night hunting to support his habit.
I never said that you do not have the right to keep and bear arms, to the contrary I am a staunch and active supporter.
Good luck with your case
OS1 Nun-ya
Patriot

Understood OS1, I enjoy your input, some of your points are valid. Chris will tell you that even at trial I commented positively on both. Chris and I argued over this for 2 days. I don't mean any disrespect toward Chris in any of this. He has a difficult job to do. I just do not agree with his opinion on this. I would have probably let it go after the first case. I had paid my fine and walked away. Then I found out that my hunting privlidges had been revoked.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Thomas Jefferson

They are not hunting privileges they are rights.

It's part of the Natural Law

Also in regards to your carrying a weapon, you have the 14th amendment which was originally intended to require the states to protect individual liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd amendment applies

But we all know the government routinely ignores/makes up laws as it goes

I will back you up on this as well. Chris is not all bad, for that matter he isn't any bad... I have know Chris, his wife and younguns for a long time. Chris has and will continue to do what is expected of him. I have never once seen him act as if his badge and gun made him any different. Unfortunately like the Sheriff that was just in my office explained the arresting/ticketing officer is going to be the bad guy, it's just the way our society is and it sucks that it's that way. Anyone who works with the public will tell you that no matter what comes up, the officer, biologist, forester, hostess or whatever is always the one in the wrong... IMHO this is how most people act. I am not saying anyone is acting this way about Chris but it isn't fair to bash someone for doing their job, believe I've been there and will continue to be put in that situation. it's just a curse of the job. Have a nice day.

Thanks to all of who have and still serve and protect!!!

If hunting and fishing is a right, then there's no need for any laws, regulations, restrictions, licenses, seasons, bag limits or anything.

Nothing. Run free and hunt or fish at your leisure.

Same for driving. That might fall under "pursuit of happiness" for some people, or "liberty" for others, or "life" for just about everyone needing to go to the store for food or job to earn money.

So, don't pay taxes or get a driver's license or even a car tag.

Possessing and owning firearms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, reinforced by the Supreme Court. So we don't need to pay for any permits, gun carry permits or pay anything related to those. Safety courses for hunters also would be moot.

When you get picked up and taken to court, argue these things and see how far it gets you.

As I recall a number of years ago an amendment to the Alabama State Constitution was passed by a significant number of voters that hunting is a "right" in the State of Alabama. It did not state anything about it being an unlimited right to do as you please, only a right to engage in the act of hunting as allowed under the rules and regulations of the State.

I am sure there are some on here that can come up with the exact amendment if needed.

597

To Outback,
Nope, I got it.
His presumption of innocence was removed when a witness provided evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there existed a proof of guilt.
Bong

To 49er,
The man was there to hunt by his own admission and actions. He never denied being there to hunt. If he was indeed standing on the R/R on Perdido wma at the north end when contacted as Bucky said he was then he was 3/10 of a mile from his vehicle, not 100 yards as he said before. He admitted to hunting why would you have to prove that someone is hunting when they admit to hunting. Bucky simply tried to say that he was not hunting at the time the GWs saw him. The GWs disagreed with him and so did the court. That isn't an infringement on his rights nor is it extortion.

"a pliant and fertile text of misrepresentation of my political principles." - Thomas Jefferson

"What's your name girl? Sally...hmm, how long you been working for me? Why don't come see me up at the big house after dinner and bring a jug of that corn squeezins" - Thomas Jefferson (well he could have said it.)

you know my buddy Sammy?? Didn't take long to figger that one out LOL

troy

Did I miss something?
The guy was walking down (or across) a R/R track, on the way to his truck. The only Witness was Officer Chris Nix.

If it happened that way, the charge was bogus.
Wearing camo and carrying a rifle does not mean he was "hunting" from the R/R tracks.
The judge claiming the AG's opinion irrelevant is BullSchit!
The AG opinion was specifically applicable in this case.

I also happen to know and respect Chris Nix. He's an intelligent and energetic kid with good old fashion common sense. Like any of us, though, he can be wrong sometimes.
I figure it's like this;
A) There's more to the story than we've heard here.
B) Chris misinterpreted the intent of the law and made a mistake.

If it is illegal to wear camo and carry a gun across R/R tracks, then there's about 8,000 acres of the Lowndes WMA that is simply not accessible to hunters.

odd that every single judge I worked before and every single GW I worked with don't agree with the AGs opinion.......just sayin...

troy

I think it's a mistake to rely on the AG opinion too. The courts do call AG opinions persuasive, but when they are wrong, they are not binding.

I think the AG opinion is wrong. The law does not say hunt and discharge a firearm. It says hunt or discharge a firearm. The use of the word or means that either action is prohibited separately.

Bucky's defense should be based on the absence of evidence that either of the two actions were occurring when the officer observed him. He was walking to his truck with a firearm that had an empty chamber and scope covers were on the lenses of his scope.

Edit: Although the AG states that he was informing the judge who requested his opinion of the interpretation by the DCNR, it was his choice to give his own opinion as well. He should have known that the interpretation of the DCNR was wrong since it did not reflect the plain language of the statute in question.

so Outback, ya see a fella driving down the road, spotlight out the window, gun laying on the front seat...loaded....no shot fired...he isn't night hunting???

troy

But what if he gets stopped at a letls say check point and he has a spot light in his truck and loaded gun is he night hunting?

Here's some case law on that subject if you are interested:




quoting from:
website link

So by the rules on night hunting im ok with my generation 3 night vision, hence there is no light used.

Let's try one that would be more appropriate to THIS case.
Let say, a public roads splits my private land.
I'm carrying a spotlight and a loaded gun while checking on my cattle, at night.
(something I have done many many times)
I drive across the public road, with my spotlight & my gun, to access the other 1/2 of my private land.
Am I guilty of night hunting?

To Outback,
flamma fumo est proxima- This is Latin and it means (Where there is smoke there is fire) Yes you did miss something. Maybe it is my fault for not being clear enough and if so I would like to clarify myself now.
I heard the testimony and 2 (two) Gw's saw the defendant standing (not walking) on the R/R (privately owned) (9-11-257) track. 10 (Ten)- 15 (fifteen) minutes later when the GW's had made their way to the defendant he was standing in approx. the same place.

I present this and all other matters and evidence pertaining to it sine praejudicio.
The AG's opinion is gratis dictum.

Shazzaam! ... FINALLY!
That is the "more to the story" I was looking for.
It just did not make sense, to me, that you could deem a man "hunting" for simply dressing like a hunter.

To Bucky,
Thanks for the head banging.
In the Navy AW's were referred to as A** Whisperers.
Just kidding, can't wait to hear what AW's called OS's.
Don't forget your 10 foot stop.

I don't remember most of the squid rates.
The Marines took better care of me than the Navy.
CE1 (SCW) Outback

Let me help you remember'
"You go girl!"
OS1 Patriot

the law specifially exempts someone checking on his cattle.....no spotlighting..


by your idea, no discharge=no hunting.....

The GW's actually stated that they were crossing the railroad in their vehicle when they observed me standing on the track several 100 yards away. If you look at the map that observation point had to be close to a mile away. When they came up on the track they came up approx 100 yards behind me and I stopped and waited on them. Just before they reached me they had to cross a trestle over a stream. That trestle indicates exactly where I was and headed north. I was leas than 100 yards from the end of the management area. I do not deny that I was walking slow, looking or stooping to rest, none of that is illegal. Looking for a place to hunt is not illegal. If I would have crawled down the railroad track or stretched out and took a nap there, it still would not have been against Alabama law. Chris also stated that in the whole time observed I never touched the rifle. I will even agree to take a polygraph at my expense as to what I was doing on the track. If I am lying I will pay twice the penalties, if I am not, reprimand the officers for being over zealous in their citations and give me my money back. As well, I think I have enough evidence to prove my innocence before a jury. My GPS tracks my position and also records date time I never even brought it up because I was naive enough to believe that if you simply told the truth in court you stood a chance. I am also not naive enough to post my defense here.


By the way, the correct definition of AW is Aviation Wonderful,
and concerning civilian law enforcement, they have been guarding Navy gates for years. They must be doing a good job. We have never had one stolen.

Methinks that you are guilty as charged and are trying to wiggle out on a technicality.

Sorry, just the impression I am getting!!

But, unless there is even MORE to the story....I think that losing your hunting privileges for 1 year over this is excessive.

It can be confusing, but the loss of hunting rights is applicable for a 1st offense. You have to pay attention to the comma.

... "Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined no less than $$$, upon 1st offense, no less than $$$$, upon 2nd offense, (COMMA) and loss of hunting rights for 1 year".

Not saying it's just or fair, just saying.

Anybody else think Patriot may be more impressed with himself than others are? Anytime you say something and then have to interpret your own statement your a little full of yourself.

I take no offense Hogwild, to you or anything said for or against here, you are entitled to your opinion. That is what makes our country great. This whole thing from the start has been a technicality. I contend I was walking back to my truck as I swore in court. Chris says I was hunting. There have been very few of these tried as standalone charges. They are usually coupled with hunting at night or some other illegal activity. It is extremely difficult to find case precedence because very little exist. This year state legislators raised the fine by a factor of 4. You will see a lot of these in the future unless some clarification is provided. I wish our system was simple enough to go into court and state what happened and the officer do the same and get a fair ruling. Apparently it quit working that way long ago in our judicial system. Now it is based on precedence, rules, interpretation of law, and technicalities. My whole family is attorneys in Talladega and Tuscaloosa. Out of 7 siblings two of us are not attorneys. My first cousin is an attorney that all of you probably know. I live full time on a sailboat in Mobile. Throughout the year I deal a lot with Coast Guard, DCNR and Marine Police. From a lifetime of this my only charge of a violation was this one. Not so much as an expired flare or life jacket problem. Common sense would make most wonder why someone that has dealt with these people and respected the law his whole life suddenly went rogue.
As well, after this appeal I will have spent over twice what the fine would have been. Why would I do that to just weasel out? I paid the ticket as soon as the judge ruled and then I appealed. I just do not think it is right in any way the way I was treated for walking down a railroad. I do not feel those who wrote the law ever intended for how it is being used by LEO’s. It all tends to come around, next time it may well be someone you know arguing a charge and not just some stranger it happened to. I by myself do not have the power to change the law or how our judicial system works. All I can do is to continue to fight as long as I can and as hard as I can for what I believe, and god will decide the rest.



In reality this thread has probably done more to bring attention to our rights and regulations as hunters than many documents produced in Alabama this year. I think everyone here has made valid points, even Patriot. And heaven knows I have never known an OS to be right on anything.

Don't know what kind of GW Chris is, but he's a fine person. He and my wife are 1st cousins.

To bill,
"I am not young enough to know everything."
I pick at my veteran brethren, because we always have and I would hope they know I mean no true disrespect.

To 49er, I was arguing with you because you are apparently intelligent and it is fun to argue with you.

30+ years ago I was standing on a sidewalk with a shipmate in Oceanside CA. We (my buddy and I)had been unaware of the curfew that had been imposed in Oceanside and the popo had applied their bracelets to us(the drunken sailors), liberally and with gusto. After a short exchange of words one popo told me told shut up or he would bust my a**. I told him that I was in handcuffs and he could not do that and he could kiss my a**. Apparently I was wrong and when I opened my eyes I had bleeding lips a loose tooth and a knot on the back of my head from contact wih a brick wall. Now this must have satisfied the requirement for judicial punishment in Oceanside CA because after an apology from my buddy and (not a peep from me) the popo took us to the city limits and released us.
Over the years I have gleaned a lot of different thoughts and insight from that incident but one relation I point to here is that it is no defense that I did not know about the curfew. Another relation is that I could have suffered more than I did and I took my lumps and left. Another relation is that GWs in Alabama are a whole lot nicer than Oceanside popo.
I would not presume to say that I have all the answers, this is just food for thought.

To Bucky,
I would appeal for my hunting rights also.

I can't speak for Bucky, but if it were me, I would appreciate the on site ass whippin in lieu of the $1,800 court cost and loss of hunting rights.

No kidding.
I dont have $1800 to toss down. Experience has taught me that my skin grows back quicker than my bank account.

No offense to the vet, but this thread is more worn out than the Cam Newton story.

If you'd said you did NOT have the gun loaded at all, I would have been on your side. Ammo in the mag tilts the decision, barely, in the GW's view. It's a good lesson for those of us that may travel on public or private land to get to our permit property.

I can understand the GW's view. If you'd seen a shooter buck, you could have cambered a round and fired.

I feel your pain. It hurts worse if you KNOW you're innocent and would not have fired your weapon illegally.

Others take note and don't even have a round in your magazine!

Thanks for sharing.

If that is the definition of hunting, it should be written in the law.
Now, I'm not sure exactly how I would define hunting, if anyone cared to ask me, but I have a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun.

you could have a gun near a liquor store, does that mean you could have robbed it or you could have been talking to a pretty girl does that mean you could have raped her?

Outback hit the nail on the head. What overt act, if any, does someone have to commit to be hunting? If someone is walking through the woods wearing camo and an orange hat with a loaded gun is he hunting? What if he is sitting in your treestand on your property with an unloaded gun but a pocket full of shells, is he hunting?

What if he's sitting in his stand on his lease (or prop), wearing camo and an orange hat and its 0330hrs and his weapon is loaded...is he hunting?

What if I am walking around showing my out of town daughter my food plots, in street clothes and deck shoes at noon on my own property carrying my rifle(pigs, coyotes, feral dogs and low income appartments on my east line). Am I hunting? According to the POS in green I am to the tune of about $1000.If he found me actually hunting I would have considered him doing his job but he knew I was not hunting. I ever find his 4 wheeler unattended again and he will have a walk.

So, you're threatening to destroy state property should you find a GW's vehicle or ATV unattended?

he's a REAL bad boy Clem.......

BillyBadBradB ....just what was the $1000 fine for????

Don't just rage against my examples. They were just that, examples. I'm looking for an answer to the question.

What overt act do you think someone should have to commit before they are considered hunting? Everybody seems to have plenty of examples of what hunting IS NOT, somebody step up and define what hunting IS. Ya'll know there are a bunch of GWs that look at this site. Help 'em out and let them know what they should be looking for to identify someone who is hunting.

The law is being misinterpreted by Leo’s and individuals charged as a result. All you have to do to understand the intent is read Alabama Attorney General Opinion 84-00123 which clearly states both the interpretation and intent of the law. The way some of the Leo’s are applying it is ludicrous. Does anyone here want to try and convince me that it is ok to hunt within 50 yards of an elementary school with children on the playground, or up against a shopping mall, or sporting event but that you shouldn’t walk down a road or railroad carrying a rifle? If it was the intent, then we have fools in our judicial system.
Drive down I-65 Northbound when you pass MM 130 start looking on your right all the way to the rest stop there are numerous stands within 50 yards of the interstate. It is legal under the definition of the law, because they own the land. The law was established to prevent the poaching of deer from roads, railroads and right of way. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with safety. Modern rewrites or republications say to “address safety concerns” because someone is either to stupid or lazy to do their research. Go back and look at the history of 9-11-257.
Someday, there is a probability that someone you know will be charged for something outside the law. Maybe your daughter at prom charged with drugs or paraphernalia because an officer found drugs in her car that her friend dropped during a routine traffic stop. Maybe it will be your son coming out of a bar with keys in hand planning to hand them to a friend to drive, getting charged with a DUI because the officer felt he was going to drive. Or maybe one of your parents fighting to survive on life support, and by some vague misconstrued law a judge allows the insurance company to stop paying. I spent money that I had saved for my grandchildren’s education appealing this because I feel it is that important. Your turn will come.

hey good luck to you bucky. I feel your pain.

Clem, I would never threaten to destroy state property on a public forum, I was just wishing out loud that some kind of Karma might bite him in the rear. Fred, the fine was for non-resident hunting w/o a license on my own property. My complaint was he knew I was not hunting.If he had caught me up a tree actually hunting I would have had no problem with him, just as I would have no problem with a State Trooper who stopped me running 85 down the Interstate. If ya can't do the time don't do the crime.

I found the following case from Arkansas while browsing around on gun rights websites that might interest some of you on the subject of loaded firearms being considered prima facie evidence of hunting:



Arkansas v Murders



I didn't find any case law for 9-11-257 in Alabama, but our courts take notice of how other states rule on similar laws to ours. The opinion makes some good points about overbroad statutes being unconstitutional when they interfere with the free exercise of constitutional rights just to make law enforcement easier. We've got a few other rules in our Regulation Book that could use some attention.

One question here for me. What does the gun being loaded have anything to do with the actual act of hunting? If I hunt the left side of the track from daylight to 9am, get down, approach the track, unload my gun or not, walk down and across the track and get into another stand from 9:30am till dark. For that period of time, am I technically "on break" from hunting or am I still considered hunting even though I am just changing locations? So if I my gun is still loaded and I tell the GW I am just moving locations, do I still get a ticket even though I know I'm just changing locations?

You may, or you may not, depending on the game warden who sees you.

That is the problem. People are not supposed to be at the mercy of an officer's interpretation of the law. The law is required to give men of average intelligence clear notice of what is required of them.

The opinon of the Arkansas Supreme Court that I posted above indicates that the possession of a loaded firearm is a protected right that cannot be infringed by an agency's interpretation of hunting by itself and with no other proof. There must be additional evidence to support a conviction of hunting from a public road or railroad. I believe Alabama's courts would agree.

Until hunters are willing to fight these cases thru the courts to protect their right to bear arms, that right will continue to be challenged by a few game wardens who do not defend our constitutions as they vowed to do. The mere fact that someone got a ticket and "had" to pay it doesn't prove there was a valid case against them.

If you aren't willing to fight for your rights, then unload your gun before you approach a road or railroad to appease the game warden. It is much easier and convienient to give in than it is to fight.

This is no longer about safe hunting practices, as you will see below. Here's how your right to hunt is affected in different situations the way I read it:

- landowners, handgun hunters, small game hunters and bow hunters can hunt right up to the right of way except on WMAs. Duly authorized law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty or persons otherwise authorized by law can shoot or hunt from or across the road itself.

- non-owners of the land can hunt using some guns and some ammunition right up to the right of way of the road or railroad. Otherwise, they must be 50 yds from it except on WMAs

- on WMAs it is unlawful to hunt within 100 yards of any paved
public road or highway, or from within the right-of-way of any
developed U.S. Forest Service road (paved or unpaved) which is
open for vehicular traffic (this is due to a WMA rule, not 9-11-257)

If you are not on privately owned land or on a WMA, there may be other rules that I have not listed. It's up to you to know about them.

That's pretty simple, ain't it?

I agree. That's why this whole situation is so in doubt. It is the ole glass half empty.... half full dilemma. As long as there is room for judgement in cases like this, it will always be a flip of the coin, what side of the bed did I wake up on this morning, or I haven't wrote a ticket in a while, I guess today is the day to be knit picky!! Is the right to bear arms or is it the right to somewhat bear arms. So I guess in this situation, according to this GW he was going to get a ticket if he was in a tuxedo carrying a slingshot!!

On the flip side of this coin.....

Let's say someone is spotlighting on your property at night with a loaded gun.

Are they hunting at night?

Or,

Are they just looking around and happen to be trespassing?

They might be lost...lol and aren't up to speed with gps technology.

I may see it different than a lot of other folks see it. The way I see it is that I'm not going to leave it up to the LEO. If I'm not hunting and I'm walking down the track I'm going to unload the damned gun. Simple as that!

I'll catch up with yall tomorrow. It's my bed time.

That's a pretty big stretch there.

You don't have a constitutional right to shine a light on other people's property and you don't have a right to trespass. Both can be illegal under the right circumstances.

Possession of a loaded firearm while committing those acts is only additional evidence that can be used in determining whether a crime has been committed. Are they checking power lines for an outage, fixing to commit a burglary of your home, are they night hunting, are they just turning around in the road ... you name it.

The mere possession of a loaded firearm does not define illegal hunting. That's the point you are missing. Sarah Brady don't get it either.

Another case of, "I want it my way, and I want it now!"

LOL

How much more evidence do you require than walking slowly, looking around watching the woods and toting a loaded gun to define 'hunting'??

Take that same person and put them on YOUR hunting club, lease or private property and THEN tell me what they are/were doing.

Hogwild,

You're talking about a misdemeanor offense taking precedence over the constitutional right to bear arms for defense of oneself. You take that lightly, I don't.

Criminal laws require strict interpretation in favor of the accused. That comes from our courts, not just me wanting it my way.

Game wardens take an oath to defend our constitutions. Perjury involved in an official proceding is a class C felony whether it's prosecuted or not. It is not taken lightly in the law. Game wardens should always be aware of the oath they took to defend our constitutions.

Here's you something to read that don't have anything to do with what I say and wanting to have it my way:



The subject is violation of 9-11-257, not trespassing or hunting without permission.

Now, here's you LOL since you seem to think it adds substance to an opinion.

The LAUGHING OUT LOUD is at you.

I would be willing to make a wager that if you found ol' Bucky wandering around on your hunting lease with a loaded gun, dressed in hunting gear and creeping along looking through the woods that you would want him charged with HUNTING without a permit....not simple trespass.

That is as basic as this situation is.
You are constantly trying to over-complicate it!

Then let's not overcomplicate it.

He was walking back to his truck by way of a railroad with an unloaded chamber in his rifle and scope covers on his scope lenses.

That is as basic as this situation is.

LOL

OK...now we are getting somewhere!

Walking down the RR tracks IS against the Law.

Cartridges in the clip/magazine of the gun define it as 'loaded'.

Many scope covers are 'see-thru' and their use does not render the gun inoperable.

Let's keep it simple like you said.

The law that was cited is 9-11-257.

What part of 9-11-257 makes it illegal to walk down a railroad track?

What part of 9-11-257 makes it illegal to walk down a railroad track, even with a loaded gun?

What part of 9-11-257 defines clips in an attached mazagine as a "loaded gun"?

What part of the scope covers being on is involved in the same?

Scope covers indicate that the scope was not in use for hunting. That's evidence in favor of the accused.

He still had a right to have them open for use in his defense, but he didn't.

The very fact that you try that defense is ironic, at the least!

You don't feel that a loaded gun means you are hunting.....but, you feel that the presence of scope covers means that you are NOT hunting.

Yep, a good LOL is about all this is worth.

Carry on!

You sound like Sarah Brady and her followers.

LOL Carry on.

The same comparison between yourself and Randall Weaver could be made.

You got your cabin ready?

No.

I'd rather fight my battles in court so we all win... like the Arkansas hunters I was talking about above:




Arkansas v Murders

You still have situational ethics.

IF Bucky had been 'strolling' through your property in the same manner he was exhibiting on the tracks; you'd want him ticketed for HWOP.

Everything else is BS.

There you go trying to make it complicated again. Keep it simple.

Tell the judges of the Arkansas Supreme Court that their opinon is BS. You haven't offered anything to support your position other than making personal attacks on me.


BTW: Show us something to support your statements here:

49r, regulations pertaining to WMAs consider a mag loaded gun to be a loaded firearm, irregardless of a chamber loading. I'd tell you what reg number but I don't feel like looking it up.... might be in a vehicle only?

troy

troy,

Hogwild needs to learn to back his own words up instead of just throwing crap out there and calling it the truth.

9-11-257 is the law that was cited in the violation at hand. It says nothing about loaded firearms or attached clips with ammo being the defintion of a loaded firearm. It only addresses hunting and discharging firearms.

AG Opinion 1994-062 states that the DCNR told the Attorney General that, in it's interpretation of the law, 9-11-304 did not apply to public rights-of-way or privately owned property. It only follows that the DCNR rule that prohibits carrying loaded firearms or firearms with ammunintion in the magazine or an attached clip in a vehicle would not apply there either if 9-11-304 does not apply there. It would be inconsistent to hold otherwise. [Edit: I don't doubt for a minute that there have been plenty of tickets paid in error on this one.]

The DCNR rule certainly does not apply to a person on foot who is walking down a railroad which is not a part of the WMA any more than a public road is. The rule only applies to firearms in vehicles as you stated that you thought it might.


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

I have added the following WMA rule for educational purposes:

Situational Ethics at it's finest!

And, if you look back, the 'Sarah Brady' comments were YOURS, not mine.

So, again; you have proved yourself a hypocrite.

Still nothing to support your position Danny?

Can't find the law that makes walking down a railroad illegal?

Can't find the law that defines a loaded gun as ammo in a clip?

You should know if something is true or not before you say it.

You have your reasons for believing in gun control, Sarah Brady has hers.

Constitutional rights and the law do not depend on what you percieve my ethics to be. I don't have a railroad running thru my property, but if I did, the mere possession of a firearm alone would not prove the person was hunting there either IMO.

Danny,





You have some weird ideas about my view of the law. Do you know anything about the situational ethics you refer to?


For educational purposes on situational ethics, I have posted the following:




From this link: Joseph Fletcher's Situational Ethics philosophy

You are not the Saviour of Personal Liberties that you try to portray yourself.

You pick and choose, then copy and paste a bunch of impertinent BS.
You always like to play the 'what does that have to do with AL' game UNLESS it is something you Googled up.

I don't care to copy and paste a bunch of junk, cluttering up the board. But, yes; walking on the RR tracks is trespassing.....look it up.

The constitution protects our libertly.





And the law does not prohibit walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. The constiution prohibits it from doing that.

And all you have to show for your infinite wisdom are 9 pages of rhetoric on an internet talk forum...........

Are you saying that our Constitution denies the RR Companies the right to private property?

No.

I said:

what is the outcome on the appeal. does anyone know.

Good diversion to avoid admitting that you were wrong and that it IS against the Law to walk down the RR tracks.

I may be unlawful to walk down the RR tracks. But does the company not have to file a complaint or order for you to be charged. Just a question. thought maybe Fred could answer.

Danny,

You're the one diverting attention away from the subject... i.e. - complicating matters.

Bucky was not charged with trespassing. He was charged with a violation of 9-11-257.


But since you insist:





You stated that it is illegal to walk down a railroad track. You still have not shown any evidence whatsoever that you are telling the truth.



Here's what the US Department of Transportation has to say about it:



DOT source of information

ALSO: DOT Factsheet

Why didn't you print the Law that proves what I posted instead of a bunch of opinions on the matter?

I know that when you Google it; it is the first thing that comes up. BUT, you'd rather go out of your way to try and make your point.

Sad!

Because there's not one.







Google "trespassing on a railroad", and the first thing that comes up is exactly what I posted above.

Google your exact words:


and the first thing that comes up is this:

Man walking down railroad tracks with shotgun in Maumelle let go

That certainly doesn't do much to help your case. You're digging the hole deeper and deeper.

We are still waiting on you to prove the truth in your words Danny.

The court date is April 4, 2011. I will post the outcome.

There are no trespass laws pertaining to RR's in the state of Alabama.

The Attorney General defines 9-11-257 issued in an opinion which I previously posted.

9-11-257 had a specific purpose and it was not safety.

It is an extremely slippery slope when you start down the road of loose interpretation of law by LEO’s.

I commend those that provide supporting documents for their arguments. If your opinion consists of nothing more than rhetoric, you are entitled to that opinion but are almost certainly biased by employment or other reasons.

Officer Nix when he cited me informed me that I was guilty because I had come to the management area to harm or pursue wildlife with the intent to kill wildlife, and by drawing a WMA permit I proved this point. If that is the state’s opinion on hunters utilizing Alabama land it needs to be addressed. I pulled a permit because it authorizes me to carry a rifle on a WMA.
I hunted probably 30 days this year. I saw numerous deer both buck and doe. I harvested one eight point and one doe. My grandchildren spent time with me on WMA’s this year. We saw a variety of wildlife and learned about the woods and the animals that live there. This is why we have conservation officers and not police officers in the woods.

I specifically asked Officer Nix with someone else present, if the citation was for having a rifle on a RR track. I was told BY Officer Nix the charge was hunting and I would have been guilty even if I had had a bow.

The only charge I have ever had in 50 years of life is a misdemeanor for walking back to my truck down a railroad track which I am in the process of appealing, and if you don’t believe after defending peoples rights for 20 years of my life that I won’t fight this to the top, you’re wrong.

OK, 49'er:



AND:



Maybe not SPECIFICALLY spelled out......but against the Law nonetheless.

Check your FRA Handbook for more.

Bucky,

Would you please tell Danny whether or not the railroad you was on was "fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders'. Did you have to climb a fence to get to the railroad?

I can't do anything for the poor guy. He's too busy laughing out loud to learn anything.

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?

I am telling you I would find him not guilty unless there was more evidence than we have seen here. Evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was attempting to catch or kill an animal. As in the words our legislators chose to use in our game laws over and over, law after law: take, capture, or kill, or attempt to take, capture, or kill.

In the famous words of the late Johnny Cochran, "if the glove don't fit, you must aquit".

Okay, fair enough. I guess If you and were on the same jury we would be deadlocked right about now. Hung jury it is!!!

Come on guys, you cannot tell me that you don't think there is reasonable doubt that he was not hunting.

I am jury, I look at his record. He is law abiding citizen his whole life. If he gets on the stand and tells me he was not hunting. WELL REASONABLE DOUBT.

You got to understand, his background to me is as good as the LEO's. This man fought for his country for over 20 years. He defended all of our rights.

And yall are going to sit here on this forum and say he is guilty when you don't know enough to say that.

I hope he wins his case. I really can't see how they can charge him with hunting unless he made a move to kill an animal. OK what if he was walking down the paved road trying to get back to his car. WAS HE HUNTING

Exactly right.

I suppose an adult male dog with a back leg hiked up against a fire plug isn't about to take a big piss...going by some 'boner for Game Warden' members. Troy says horseshit...I'll add that a lot of old bullshit has also been spread by some.

If the intent of the law is to never be in or near any of these areas with a rifle. You can not walk in or within a boundry of the following; public roads, any forestry service road, timber operations, railroads or within 50 yards of any WMA boundry. I was parked on Brandau road by the bridge. How do you ever get in the woods or out. The argument that this is for safety is bogus. Where is the law that prohibits hunting near school zones or shopping mall. I have heard it stated that LEO's target hunters on WMA's because it is so easy to find someone to cite. With the state's budget suffering they are encouraging citations. It is a fact that that while there are not ticket quota's officers are expected to make a certain number of public contacts. Out of those contacts a certain number are expexted to be citations or their evaluations suffer.

Most of our LEO's do a good job, others not so much. They are not perfect. There is a group of state LEO's and officials in Mobile, AL right now being prosecuted for using their gas cards for personal use.

I can prove in court the officer lied when he wrote the citation. Also, he exagerated in district court to get a prosectution. LEOS fall under the laws of this state the same as I do. I spent over 20 years of my life defending what I thought was right with a much greater risk than a misdemeanor. I am sure as hell not afraid to stand in any court and defend myself.

LEO's are human and entitled to mistakes, most do a great job. But if I ever find the state encouraged borderline citations due to budget problems, I will file complaints against the state and the LEO and push them as far as they will go.

So run what you brung, I'll be there,

AW1/AW Charles B. Buchanan, USN(RET)

Charles, I have no up to date info as I retired five years ago, BUT five years ago there was NO number put out by Montgomery office on the number of tickets we should write or suffer lower evals. I had a District Capt tell us we "should" make ten contacts a MONTH, no high or low limit on number of tickets.

I could sit in my yard and make ten contacts a MONTH.

State Troopers were, then, required to make ten contacts a shift. Accident work, warnings, tickets, stranded motorist all qualified as a contact. I know of no min on number of tickets for troopers then.

troy

Good for you ... glad to see someone pursuing their claims through the legal system and fighting for it, instead of just bitching nonstop on a website.

Good luck to you.

Thanks everyone who has participated in this topic. It has provided good arguments on both sides. I still affirm I was doing nothing more than transiting back to my truck after looking for a place to hunt..

On April 4, 2011 the District Attorney of Baldwin County null processed the case.

congrats.

troy

Sorry you had to go thru this Bucky.

Good hunting,
Eddie

Good for you Bucky, maybe my case will come out the same.

Wonder why the DA did that, because he knew it was bullshit ticket to begin with.

As a presiding Judge once told me, "The Court has many things to consider in a case, other than guilt or innocence".

Good for you Bucky. Wonder how many tax payer dollars were wasted in this process? Would be interesting to know.

Bucky
I am very happy for you!
Where is that former Navy fellow, that was giving you a hard
time when all of this started?

Good job standing your ground and congratulations on forcing justice to prevail.

Latest Update,

The judge denied the the DA's motion to nolle prosuquied. Even though the State had already entered into an agreement to nolle proc. So we are headed back to trial on May 9, 2011. The assistant DA said this was the first time she had ever seen this happen.

Only if he sues for false arrest, which would be beyond difficult to win.




Wow. Interesting turn of events. I "suspect" that there have been numerous DCNR's browsing this and the other thread regarding ticketed offenses. Wouldn't surprise me at all if some phone calls were made from Montgomery to discuss your situation. That's the problem with the internet - sure, you can tell your story, but undesirable audiences can see/hear it too. Like this guy, and others...

So you had a loaded gun in your truck?

I am not a Lawyer, but I was told last week by the Chief of the DCNR that the DA or the Judge could throw the case out. Well that does not look like that is the case.

Not sure how the DA can enter into an signed agreement to nolle proc on the part of the state, then a judge deny the motion of the DA to do so. Makes you wonder who is prosecuting if it is not the Distric Attorney.

Well good luck to you Bucky. Not sure what is going on down there. But stand in there and defend yourself. Hell they can't do anything more to you anyway.

Hello folks,
Been busy, found out my neice has Type 1 diabetes. Sometimes life just aint fair. She is a doll and needs any prayers from those that are willing.
Been helping my bride and doing honey doos.
Read some disparaging remarks- Displaced Texan- You can always trot yourself back to Texas. We have plenty of female coyotes here.
I read the evidence just as you all have. To the people confused about law--- only a judge can dismiss a case. a DA or an Asst DA makes a recommendation and the judge decides.
Bucky was standing on a R/R, with a loaded rifle and was arrested for hunting from a R/R. He was not charged with hunting from or on a mgmt area once he clambered onto the R/R track. As he walked along the R/R track (his admission) he was trespassing on privately owned R/R property. He was not charged, as he could have been with trespassing. He was charged with 9-11-257.
Did Bucky fail to mention that his rifle was loaded with one in the chamber?
The only people that disagree with 9-11-257 are attorneys trying to win a case or people that do not know how to hunt.
Gee whiz did Bucky fail to mention that there were two LEO's present? Come on, these guys do not even get a pat on the back for catching someone cheating. The whole purpose in writing this jerk a ticket is to attempt to ensure fair chase for all hunters and to enforce a law that they did not write.
By Bucky's own admission , he was on a R/R track in Perdido River WMA and I task anyone to look at the northern section of the R/R in Perdido WMA and tell me what road Bucky could have legally been parked to support his theory of being 100 yds from leaving the WMA Mgmt area. If you consider Bucky's location when contacted by the LEO's on the R/R and the fact that Bucky still had to travel to the sign in shed to retrieve his hunting license (required to hunt prior to hunting on the Perdido MGmt. area) one could assume with great certainty that Bucky was hunting.
Bucky got caught. He is too chicken s*** to stand up and take it. I am disgusted and appalled that a fellow veteran would attempt to or allow the invocation of the venerable and inalienable right to keep and bear arms, in this instance.
It is my opinion that Bucky is lieing and tossing unfair blame on LEO's out of convenience for himself.
cucullus non facit monachum
To 49er- You are showing your colors
da locum melioribus

Patriot,

For those of us who only speak American English and are not lawyers, what does those Latin-y legalese quotes mean?


PS, sorry to hear about your neice...and the honeydo's (I hate those things)

Patriot,

Sorry to hear about your niece.

I was in fact on a railroad track, there were rounds in the magazine, nothing chambered, scope covers on, rifle on a sling across my shoulder, and the rifle was never touched. I was exactly 147.5 yards from the end of the management area transiting back to my vehicle. You know where I was stopped as I do.
It amazes me that Chris allows hunters to set up their stands in the middle of the management area roads with rifles aimed out the window at vehicles transiting those roads. Then he wants to preach safety to someone transiting back to their vehicle down a railroad track. I have a photo out my vehicle front window with a rifle aimed straight at me, get a clue.
DCNR has a tough job, but you guys are starting to throw wide loops in your issuing of citations.
Title 9 of the code of Alabama was legislatd for specefic reasons to aid in conservation. When LEO's start loosely applying that code for whatever reason then I have an issue as do others.
As far as having the gumption to stand up and face the music. I am fighting somthing I dissagree with on a very limited income. You will notice I post my real name and leave no question as to who I am.

Just google it. It's easy to speak a foreign language on a message board with google.

These phrases are not legalese they are just applicable. I am not a great thinker like 49er but I am interested in Latin an in a couple of the Amer. Indian languages. I toss out theses phrases because it seems that every other cyber person on this forum loves to show their favorite saying or quotation and that is okay. When someone uses a quotation at the end of their argument it is as if the writer is saying, " I am correct and I think Thomas Jefferson is smart and here is a quotation to prove it." Anyway I took this a step further by borrowing phrases and making some up just trying to be humorous. Pretty much every written quotation from the past 200-300 years is a revamp of a Latin phrase.
This world is not that big. Every time you take a step in the woods in Alabama, chances are pretty good that you are not the first human to step there and the same applies to thinking and speaking.
cucullus non facit monachum- (the cowl does not make the monk)
a wounded veteran does not automatically make an honest truthful person
da locum melioribus - (give place to your betters) he aint the lead dog.
Bucky I do not think Chris or the other GWs allow people to hunt in the road. If you saw someone hunting in a blind in a road why did you not tell someone then. That is like bitching at a fireman for letting a house burn when he didnt get a call about it.
If someone points a rifle at me I'll be pointing back and I will dang sure be letting a GW or a sheriffs dep. know about it then and not weeks later on a web forum.
What do you mean you guys? I was not there but that wide loop sounds pretty narrow and tight to me. There is no gray area between those steel rails.
The GWs are not interpreting anything they are enforcing a specific law.
What possible difference could it make who I am? Will my skin color or gender make me any less correct?

Patriot,



I bow to no man. We have no king in our Republic. My colors are known as "Old Glory".

Why don't you become a real patriot and honor your oath to defend our constitution:

Latin and Greek phrases

Definition of: da locum melioribus

da locum melioribus: Give place to your betters.

Not very fitting advice coming from someone who calls himself a "patriot" is it?


I like this better:

Declaration of IndependenceJuly 4, 1776

49er,
I have not given advice to anyone.I have never questioned anyones patriotism or suggested that anyone bow to someone else.
Apparently, if someone disagrees with you or pokes fun at you they are less intelligent or less than patriotic.
This was an issue of an individual not telling the truth. Bucky was hunting. He was standing on private property owned by the R/R when he was hunting.

The Constitution does not give a 1st Amendment actor the right to invade an unwilling listeners property for purposes of expressing his views. If anyone has a Constitutional right to be on a privately owned R/R track with a loaded gun as you tout, then that same person can show up on my property, your property or anybody elses property with a loaded gun.
Anybody that shows up on my property with a loaded gun, spouting crap that it is his or her Constitutional right to be here is going to get a quick lesson in my interpretation of the Constitution.
You crossed the line when you questioned my patriotism.

The LEO's know about that people are hunting from the road, Chris and I have talked about it. He saw the gentleman with his rifle aimed down the road where people were traveling the same day I did. He hates it, but the way the law is written since it is an unimproved road it is allowed. 9-11-257 was legislated to prevent people from shooting deer on private property from a public right of way. The statute has been clearly defined by several judges and attorney general's. By Alabama law you are allowed to walk down a public road or railroad to the area you hunt. The problems arise if you hunt from a public road or railroad.

If a man is walking down a pier with a fishing pole is he fishing? If you are waiting on a ride are you loitering? If you assaut someone breaking into your house do you need to be prosecuted? The list goes on and on. If you start down that slippery slope law provided by both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions rapidly fail.

Say what you want to say in plain language instead of in riddles and a foreign language. If I did not interpret your words correctly, then I have no idea what you meant to say to me.



He and I both contend that you are the one who is not telling the truth. Bucky said he was not hunting. I believe he is the one telling the truth and not you.



That is correct. They can. American citizens do have a right to bear arms for defense. If you do not post your property, fence it in or give personal notice not to trespass, then that statement is generally accurate according to our constitutions and state law.

That old statement that used to appear in DCNR publications stating that "all land is posted by law" was incorrect and no longer appears in those publications. You need to read what the law actually says. Bucky was not charged with criminal trespassing for good reasons... he was not commiting the crime of trespassing after being warned not to enter or remain on the property.



You crossed that line yourself when you defended an officer's mistaken interpretation of the law instead of defending the constitutional right to bear arms. Sorry you were offended by me pointing it out to you, but the truth is the truth and you needed to hear it.

My name is Eddie Maxwell. Perhaps you would like to introduce yourself with your real name.

everyone knows who this is. all you have to do is look at what he has posted on. He has a hard on for Bucky. OH Well, he will be ok. Bucky gets this in front of a jury and he will be found NOT GUILTY. A LEO cannot read minds. He does not know what Bucky was doing. Hell he may have stopped to take a piss. I think this is a bigger bullshit ticket than the one I got.

You know what Bucky. these basterds have convinced me. YOU ARE A OUTLAW. SUM BAG. And who cares if you are 60% disabled while in the US MILITARY. Hell you been a outlaw your whole life. You have been a bum your whole life. Never made a honest statement in your life. Your record shows that. You been in so much trouble. Hell the reason you got this ticket is because HELL everyone can tell this just by looking at you. THEY SHOULD HAVE HELD YOU DOWN AND HANDCUFFED YOUR SORRY ASS. DRUG YOU TO JAIL. I AM SO SURE YOU DESERVED IT.


as a patriot and a veteran I am sorry for what you are having to go thru. And people wonder why we don't want more government. Bucky have a great night, and please contact me if I can do anything for you.

Let's keep things in the proper perspective here.

The officers who are writing these tickets are the same ones who took a solemn oath to defend the US and Alabama Constitutions and to discharge their duties faithfully.

These are the same officers that are agreeing not to prosecute people after they give them permission to hunt game animals at night, hunt with the aid of bait, and to trap game animals. All of those are violations of the law just as hunting from a railroad is a violation of the law when it actually occurs. Their complicity is a violation of the law.

These same officers take another oath to tell the whole truth when they testify against you in court. If they can't keep one solemn oath, why should we assume they will keep another one.

Let me be plain and clear.
I was not there and I based my opinion on evidence that I heard. My opinion is that Bucky is not telling the truth. To say that I am not telling the truth is stupid.
I never said that he was cited for trespassing. I simply stated that he was trespassing by his own admission.
The criteria you stated about posted land applies to unimproved and apparently unused land (13A-7-1). The MGMT area is well marked where Bucky was hunting and I do not believe that the R/R allows anyone to hunt from the tracks.
This brings us back to 9-11-257 specifically the words ...(who hunts or discharges), if it said hunts and discharges then I might have a different opinion.

Patriot, you and Bhamfred make the same arguement. I don't want to come off as being stupid, but please. Do you not think that it is a stretch for the LEO to make the assumption that he was hunting just because he was stopped while he was walking back. Does he or does he not have a right to have a loaded weapon. Just because his weapon was loaded, that does not mean he was hunting. No matter how hard I try, I just can't see how there is not reasonable doubt.

Oh and to say that Bucky is not telling the truth is stupid. If you say you were not there. Then really how do you know what happened. I am sure that you think alot of the officer who wrote the ticket. But since you don't know bucky, how can you make the assumption that he is lying. Hell he might be the most honorable man in alabama, YOU DON'T KNOW.

Lmao

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.

Y'all are right about one thing:

He better hope I'm not on the jury!

And 49'er.....

YOU ARE STILL DANCING ALL AROUND A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A SIMPLE QUESTION!

Troy,

Common Sense just ain't so common anymore. LOL

Rob, trust me you don't want law enforcement WITHOUT any judgement calls...only by the letter of the law. What we do want is Officers with GOOD judgement.

Take an example of a man taking his five year old fishing. Dad sets up the tackle, baits the hook, and casts the line out, and immediately hands the rod to his child. Technically, by the law, dad was fishing. He dosen't have a license...he gets arrested by ol Letter of the Law Officer.

When I was working I'd set and watch a fella to see how it played out. Above senario would be no ticket, no warning, ya'll have a nice day.

Now same setting, lil different. Dad is tossing a baitcasting reel, with a Zara Spook on it. He casts, works the lure, hooks the fish, reels it to the banks and allows junior to "help" pull it on the bank. What do you think and would you check his license???

Same set but dad dosen't let junior do anything but watch...and when you approach him dad says junior is the one fishing and hands the rod to him.....

Tell me again you don't want any judgement calls made by LEOs.......

and, for the record, I HAVE seen bad judgement calls made by LEOs....but I believe, after 26 years of enforcement, that the good far, far, outweighs the bad.

troy

btw...I ain't wrong....

Hell Troy you may not be wrong. I was not there neither were you. But just going by what Bucky says it would have been hard for me to say that he was hunting.

60% of his body he cannot use. I am sure that the LEO ran a check on him before he wrote the ticket. If he has a problem walking, has to stop from time to time. Hell all I am saying is, I would have thanked him for his service and told him to come back anytime.

If I am out of line, I am sorry. Maybe it is the young people today that don't have any respect for anyone.


Yes I would check his license. yes I would write him a ticket. even if he was giving it to his child to real in. YES YES YES. But he was not walking with his fishing pole, he was sitting down with it. or he was standing up, but he was actively trying to catch a fish. I think it is a little different. MAYBE IT IS NOT.

Hell maybe I am completely wrong. I just don't see it.

I can't see how there is not reasonable doubt. How can there not be.

Troy,
I have a lot of respect for the LEO,s. When the F5 tornado hit Pleasant Grove, AL on April 5, 1998. LEO's, Firefighters, and Paramedics poured in from all over the state to help. All of their radio's were crystal controlled and on differenr frequencies, some were even on the the trunk system. I have a HAM license and volunteered to help with the communications since I could talk on all the frequencies. Robbie Love of the Concord fire department put me in charge of communications to help coordinate the search and rescue. I saw and talked to these guys for abot 72 hours. I saw them put themselves at risk to get people out of some very bad situations. From walking around live power lines to entering structures that could collapse at any moment they never hesitated.
In no way do I think we could do without our LEO's. I simply think they made a bad call on this and that is why I am fighting it. Chris and Keith both seem like very professional officers, but they were wrong on this one.

From wading through this whole mess and reading.......this whole situation would have been avoided by simply removing the clip and ALL ammo from the gun before walking back to the truck.

Agreed it could have. But that still violates the constitution. That is what 49er and I have been saying for the whole thread.

He has the right to a loaded firearm. period.

If that law/reg requires his gun to be unloaded. Then that reg steps on the consitution of the US and Alabama.

So contact the NRA or 2nd Amendment Foundation, ask for assistance to argue that and go after them.

Maybe.

But there is no law against walking back to your truck with a loaded firearm. That is your constitutional right.

There is a law against coercing someone to refrain from doing something that is lawful:


emphasis added

Game wardens have no authority to keep you from doing a lawful act.

How many of us completely unload when transiting through area that is no hunting? We pass through that area and continue to hunt where it is allowed. I specifically asked the officer if the problem was the rifle. The officer stated no, the problem was that I was hunting from a railroad track. I would have gotten the same ticket even if carrying a bow and arrow. The officer then asked if a large buck had run out would I have tried to shoot it. I told him I probably would have been tempted but wouldn’t have shot. I also told him if the Swedish bikini team had shown up and invited me skinny dipping I would have been tempted to do that also but wouldn’t have. I had this conversation again on Dec. 18. with the officer. The officer showed me 9-11-257 then showed me the definition of hunting as posted in the 2010-2011 regulation book. Again the officer clearly stated the problem was never the rifle but that I was hunting. When asked what made it that I was hunting I was told because I was walking slow and looking. I have walked boundary roads, timber operations, public roads, within a half mile of a church on Sunday and in the dark, in the wee hours of November 14th prior to opening and never had a problem. I will swear this to anything sacred or loved in any court of law. In my opinion, I was within the law. If a jury of my peers find me guilty then I will live with it. But I still feel that I did absolutely nothing wrong. I have spent my life trying to do the right thing, this is the only time I have had to defend myself in court and it has been an eye opening experience as to our judicial system.

I can't help you there because I'm one of those people. If my gun has a clip, the clip is removed. If it's a shotgun, all shells are unloaded. There's no reason to NOT unload.
My father received a ticket similar to this many years ago. He was turkey hunting and heard a gobbler. To get to him he had to cross a corner of someone elses property. We had permission to cross but not to hunt. This one morning he decided not to unload his gun before he crossed. About half way across the corner he met a man wearing a green uniform that gave him a nice ticket for hunting on property without permission. I was with him but was only 12. The lesson I learned was to never put yourself in a situation where you can be accused of something. That's why I ALWAYS unload. I even make it a point to unload my gun before I get within 100 yards of any road when returning to my truck instead of unloading at the truck.
I guess you have to ask yourself in this situation, if you were a game warden and ran across a man with rounds in the clip of his gun and that clip was in the gun, what would you feel that person was doing? I guess you could just ask that person because we all know that EVERYONE would be perfectly honest in answering. I'm not saying what your intentions were because only you know. Sometimes you have to look at things from the other side though and put yourself in the other mans shoes. I'm sure the officer had ran into several people before you that hadn't done anything wrong either......at least that's what they all said. From reading your replies I feel that this was, if anything, just an honest mistake for not taking the clip out. A bad judgement call if you will. Good luck to you.

So by your thought process, there is no place that you could legally and constitutionally be forbidden to possess a loaded firearm?

And the whole disabled veteran bit is a weak argument; some of the most rule-bending, regulation-skirting, and sometimes law-breaking hunters on the place where I hunt consist of retired and retired disabled (according to the VA) veterans. When they get caught, the GW treats them like he would treat the rest of us non-disabled veterans and those that have never served a day in uniform - as somebody that willingly or unwillingly violated a law, regulation, or site rule.

I give up. Have a great time in Jail Bucky. Next time you feel like giving the state 1000.00 bring a chair with you. so you can sit down and hunt.

There is no reasonable doubt here. Your word does not count for anything. You have no defense, hell they want even let you tesify in your own defense.

I've been folowing this thread since it started, and I can honestly say I can understand both sides. Let me share a true stry that happened to me last year. Bear with me...

I was hunting on a WMA in Virginia (I was a resident @ the time),my partner and I hunted until dark and then met @ a prearranged location to walk back to the vehicle. We were walking on the road and heard deer on one corner of the woods. We stopped, listened, and even shouldered our guns. We were whispering to each other about them, where did they come out, where to set up tomorrow, etc. We came up with a plan, and then walked on to the vehicle.

We unloaded our guns and then : Bright light in our faces. Yep, GW.

He said he heard us the whole time and could get us on night hunting, hunting from a road and harrassing wildlife. My thoughts at the time was "sh!t; iwasnt hunting, I was done for the day".

He went on to warn us only.

Bottomline: I was damn lucky. I could have been royally flushed. The GW would have been justified for charging us with the whole shebang. TECHNICALLY we broke all those rules. However, the fact that he overheard our conversation, he could tell that we had no intention of shooting (unless we were charged at) and could tell we weren't hunting but TECHNICALLY SCOUTING for the next day.

I reitterate: we were lucky.

Btw, he got to know us and would ask us if we noticed anything goofy going on
(carcasses of illegal kills). I guess he turned us into informants

Moral of the story: on public land, I now follow every "jot and tittle" of any rule, regulation, whatever. Walkng in a questionable area w/ rounds in my weapon is not worth losing my privilege to hunt...

The fine is four times the fine for hunting out of season.

The fine is ten times the fine for hunting without a license.

The fine is forty times the fine for hunting without a WMA license.

Must be a terrible threat to our natural resources to look into the woods while walking back to your truck.

I wonder what the fine is for doing it in Wal-Mart?? or the local library? or the bank??

They are all considered Private Property like the RR.

There's not one. They are all considered public places. If you have actually read the law you should know that.

If they ask you to leave and you don't, then you're liable to be charged with criminal trespassing and a fine might follow if it is pursued by the landowner... just like walking down a railroad that ain't posted. The landowner or his agent can tell you to leave.

If you're going to argue the law, you need to read it and try to comprehend what you read. Just pulling things out of your rear end don't cut it.

9-11-257 does not deal with trespassing. Until you get past that notion, you're not going to understand the problem.

you need a bigger bag of popcorn.......

Reckon this one is big enough?

Well MT, since we are still having fun, here's you some more popcorn to munch on:


The DCNR's outhouse version of the laws and regulations [Hunter's Digest] states:




Notice this statement in particular: "It is illegal to take any action to harvest a deer within the 50 yard restricted area with a weapon or shot listed above."

This is a publication authorized by the DCNR. It states the agency's interpretation of the law even though it does not fulfill the requirements of the law. [The paraphrasing is terribly erroneous, BTW. It is not illegal to kill a deer within 50 yards of the road under many different circumstances.]



So, since the DCNR is splitting hairs, what does the official pamplet that is required by 9-2-8 say?

It does not say anything because it does not exist. Why does it not exist?



Who has clearly broken the law beyond a reasonable doubt?

Is it Bucky, or the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources?

You be the judge.

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.&#8194;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. &#8194; 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.
&#8195;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. &#8194;McDougal v. State, 324 Ark. 354, 359-360, 922 S.W.2d 323 (1996), citing 4 R. Rotunda & J. Novak, Treatise on Constitutional Law, §&#8194;20.8 (2d ed. 1992). &#8194; 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. &#8194; When examining amended rule 18.04, we conclude that it may include within its sweep innocent and legitimate conduct. &#8194; 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. &#8194; See Ark.Code Ann. §&#8194;5-73-120(c)(4) (Supp.1995). &#8194; 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. &#8194; 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

huntfish2,



I agree that we haven't heard all the evidence. We have discussed this case, as you said, on the evidence we do have.

As you saw, however, some were ready to convict the accused for things he did that were not a part of the charges against him. By discussing those issues, I think we may have all learned something from it. If nothing else, I hope I have caused the potential jurors reading this thread to think about the consequences of their decisions by weighing evidence presented by both sides in a case carefully along with only the applicable law instead of jumping to conclusions and accepting only what officers have said as credible evidence or considering other laws that do not apply.

I have often wondered if a game warden could make it stick if he cited me for violating that law simply because I didn't unload my rifle before getting back to my truck after hunting. I'm convinced now that I could present a good case against such charges, because I do it for self defense. I have found case law to support my position while discussing this, and I shared it with you so you would have the information as well. What you choose to do with that information is your decision to make.

There is something else I am aware of that had an influence on my interest in this case. There is a friend of mine who was accused of having a loaded rifle and hunting near the road when he was a young man. His version of the story is that he had unloaded his rifle well before he got to the road.

Two game wardens came by on the road in a personal vehicle and stopped. They cited him for hunting near the road and claimed that his rifle was loaded when it was not, and that he was hunting when he was not. It was their word against his. His dad is also a friend of mine, and he confirmed the son's story to be true. They both do not trust game wardens to this day, and I have confidence in both of them to be telling the truth.

I wish all enforcement officers were honest. The truth is, some are not.

I said I was done with this argument.

However what real evidence can the GW present. His opinion against bucky's. That is all. hell he can't even present a weapon. He did not take bucky's. It has been proven time and time again. In a case like this, how can there not be reasonable doubt.

If bucky gets on the stand and says he was walking back to his car. And the game warden says he never made a move to harm a deer. Well you tell me what he done wrong? A loaded weapon? Whatever. The law does not say that a loaded weapon constitutes hunting.

The States Definition of HUNTING.

Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild
animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing,
harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used
to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or
not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or
attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds. OR WALKING DOWN THE ROAD/RAIL ROAD WITH A LOADED GUN.

There I fixed it for everyone to see.

YOU ARE GUILTY NOW BUCKY!!!!

49er,
I knew you had a personal interest in this case, that something had happened in your past that made this personal to you. I didn't know if you had gotten a ticket or someone you knew had. 35 pages later and the truth comes out.

I feel a little like 49er,

Pursue- to follow in order to overtake or capture; chase

Shooting- to eject or impel or cause to be ejected or impelled by a sudden release of tension

Killing- the act of one that kills

Capturing-an act of catching, winning, or gaining control by force, stratagem, or guile

Trapping-a device for taking game or other animals; especially : one that holds by springing shut suddenly

Harrying-to make a pillaging or destructive raid on

Worrying-to touch or disturb something repeatedly


And of course he did not use any device to take a wild animal.

Come on guys really?


OH AND YES I DID GET A TICKET THIS YEAR. BUT IT WAS NOT AS BAD A MISJUDGEMENT AS THIS ONE.

Rob, just for arguments sake....

One drives to the hunting club, dressed in camo hunting clothes. One gets out of the truck, loads a 270 rifle, and walks 1/4 mile to a box stand in a cutover. One sits quietly for three hours, seeing nothing, and returns to the truck, unloads the rifle and returns home.

ANY hunting take place??

If so, then when??

troy

Ok Troy fare enough!!!

but there are still alot of grey areas even with your situation.

Did he stop and use the restroom? Did he make a phone call? Was it Daylight when he came out?

Just going by your little description, I would say he is hunting. However If questioned he may have stopped hunting when he got out of the Box stand. He also may not have started hunting till he got in the Box Stand.

Since you are putting me on the spot!! Let me ask you a question.

"you are my Game Warden, you find my truck at 4:00pm on Dec15th. You sit by my truck until I come out. It gets dark, it gets very very dark. (I am sure that most of us will agree that in Alabama on Dec 15th it is too dark to hunt about 5:00pm) anyway I am after 6:00pm when I come out. OH YEA MY WEAPON IS LOADED, I HAVE A FLASHLIGHT, I HAVE ON CAMO AND HUNTERS ORANGE. You ask me if I have been hunting this evening and I say yea!" BUY YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A SHOT!! HELL MAYBE YOU DID HEAR A SHOT COMING FROM WHERE YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN HUNTING!!!! AFTER DARK!!!!!

What do you do? Hell change it to 7:00pm!!
What do you do Troy?

Game Wardens are not God, they cannot read minds or see the past or the future!!!! Just because a Game Warden says you are doing something does not mean that you are doing it.

by the way, I think this is just good conversation, by no means do I intend to be disrespectful to you or your old department. Not that I think you give a shitttt. but I want you to answer with your Mr Green Jeans uniform on.

To answer yer question...in 26 years on the job I checked a LOT of folks coming out after dark to their truck. From minutes after dark to an hour+ after dark. Never accused any of those of night hunting or wrote any such ticket.

some folks walk a long way, some get lost, it happens. Don't mean they are nighthunting.

Now ifin you are sitting in your box blind at 7pm, with gun loaded, and shining a flashlight????? I'd say ya got some splaining to do.....

troy

All I have been saying is, that same judgement should have been used with Bucky. You agree, you just don't want to say it.

Ha Ha

But if your sitting in your box stand at 7:00pm asleep. Are you hunting then? No light of course!!!

If you're sitting in a box blind during turkey season with a bushel of wheat on the ground 25 yards away....AND ASLEEP....are ya hunting over bait????

I actually had this happen...I wanted to charge him for "sleeping over bait", but the Capt. with me disagreed......

troy

I bet that was a laugh!!

I am going to get my old blind next year in Arkansas with Roy Sanderson. I would love for you to come. Maybe we can get together and talk bad about the Federal Game Wardens.

They got me one time for a goose that I shot. Damn bird fell and hit the land. busted open bad. I got up walked out to it. Looked down at it. Turned around and walked back to the pit blind. 4 hours later, shooting time over, I rode up to my camper. Got some nice papers from the FEDS, he had a Arkansas GW with him. But the Arkansas GW could not talk him out of writing the ticket. OH and it was a Snow goose. hell you don't even have to have a license after reg season to kill them. And there is no limit.

Spoting Scopes are hell out there. seen boys get busted for lead just because they were shooting high birds. and buckshot is hell on high geese.

None taken! Good post.

Matt

The biggest problem in all of this is the wording of the hunting definition. Under that definition you could charge a number of people who were not hunting.

A jogger jogging down the road jumps a deer. Are they hunting since the are worrying wildlife?

A photographer is looking for deer to take photographs is he hunting?

A deer standing on the side of the road., you slow your vehicle both for safety and to look. Are you hunting from a public road?

This list goes on and on.

You can use this hunting definition to charge almost anyone at anytime in a mass of areas where hunting is not allowed. This was never the intent of 9-11-257.

I was for a fact walking back to my truck after scouting for a place to hunt. Chris knew that this was my first time on the WMA. I introduced myself and talked to him for a short time when I checked in. He reccomended I look down by the river if I liked oaks. Brandau road where I was parked is a paved road that goes all the way to the river. I parked walked in on a dirt road that runs beside the track the wanders around through a lot of scrub brush and dead ends at the railroad. Under the definition of hunting as published by DCNR. I was illegal when I parked by Brandau road and got out of my truck. Illegal when I walked the road along the river since it was within 50 yards of the boundry and guilty when I was on the railroad track. By the LEO's definition I was pretty much guilty most of the time I was out of my truck on Perdido River WMA. Call the LEO's at Barbour County WMA. Bill Gray has known me for 20+ yrears I have never had a problem with them even thinking I was an unethical hunter. My experiences on Barbour go all the way back to the 70's. Troy you probably knew Billy Sharp. Furthermore I in no way want to reflect badly on the LEO's at Perdido River, but in my opininion this was not a just citation, both the AG opinion and other case precedence shows this. The DA knows this is a very difficult case for him to win in front of a jury, on May 9th we are suppose to try the case. I will keep you posted.

Regardless the outcome, you will never catch me on a railroad again or on Perdido River WMA.

Joggers and photographers don't have a means with them to kill the deer so, no, they're not hunting.

Law does not say you have to have somthing with you to kill deer. Read the hunting definition again.

Hunting includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing and trapping wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing, or using any device used to take wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, whether they result in taking or not, and includes every act of assistance to any person in taking or attempting to take wild animals, wild fowl, or wild birds.

And since this is the definition. Exactly which one did I violate?

[/quote]
I was for a fact walking back to my truck after scouting for a place to hunt.


[/quote]


If you was actually not hunting and only scouting for a place to hunt as you say, why did you have your rifle with you? For personal protection?

Right-of-way (transportation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Right-of-way.
Look up Right of way in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


A public right-of-way path that provides access to a field
A right-of-way is a strip of land that is granted, through an easement or other mechanism, for transportation purposes, such as for a trail, driveway, rail line or highway.[1] A right-of-way is reserved for the purposes of maintenance or expansion of existing services with the right-of-way. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned.
In the United States, railroad rights-of-way are considered private property by the respective railroad owners and by applicable state laws. Most U.S. railroads employ their own police forces, who can arrest and prosecute trespassers found on their rights-of-way. Some railroad rights-of-way include recreational rail trails.
In the United Kingdom, railway companies received the right to resume land for a right-of-way by a private act of Parliament.
Sometimes, in residential areas, building setbacks are based on a street right-of-way, as opposed to the front property line.

Look the weapon argument is bullshittt. And all hunters should be the 1st people screaming about it.

He was charged with HUNTING ON PUBLIC ROAD/RAILROAD

After reading the State of Alabama's definition of hunting. you make your argument that he was hunting. ONCE AGAIN HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH TRESSPASSING.

The only argument that holds water is, was he hunting or not?

After reading the definition, I cannot find that he was hunting!!!! I don't think anyone else who is on this forum reading this can either.

UhhOhh...I think we have a bingo.

49er...it does appear that huntnfish2 has brought out a [possibly] valid point. An I've been quiet, respectful, and carefully read your views without prejudice. But I've yet to read nary a post where you took the side of a State of Alabama Game Warden. What's up, man ?

huntfish2,



What is your point? Are you saying I've lied about something or I'm trying to hide something here?

How does my knowlege of a bad incident involving 9-11-257 change anything that I have said? It's an overbroad and vague law that can be used to entrap innocent hunters or punish innocent conduct, and it needs to be changed, even if the incident I mentioned had never happened. Bucky and all those like him should not have to go thru this.

Is that the best argument you have in support of 9-11-257?

mission,



Do you think I'm lying about something too?



What are you implying? I've posted repeatedly on this forum that I've never been cited for a hunting or fishing violation, and that I've never had a problem with any of the game wardens I have encountered. My personal experience has nothing to do with 9-11-257 and how it is written or enforced anyhow. So, again, what's the point you are saying is valid?

Discussing problems with vague or overbroad laws and unauthorized rules and regulations that game wardens did not write but are expected to enforce is not a general attack on game wardens. On the other hand, if they use the vagueness to write easy tickets, then they deserve criticism for their own actions. If anything, eliminating problems and confusion involving well meaning hunters would help them do their job better as well as help prevent bad feelings between them and hunters.

Interpretation of laws and rules should never be left up to the discretion of an enforcement officer. It should be written clearly enough that the average citizen knows for sure what is expected of him. That's what our courts say.

Since you are interested in game wardens, here's a good guy/bad guy story for you to read. It's about good game wardens chasing a bad game warden. No doubt the bad game warden's word was given a lot of weight when he accused hunters of violations in court before he was finally caught:

The Early Years by Rusty Morrow [page 77 in the magazine]

Then you might want to ask Alan Andress and Corky Pugh if they have ever had a problem with a game warden:

State dove hunt shut down

I would have shot a deer if I were in a place that was legal to hunt, and it was somthing worth shoting.
Many of us walk boundry trails or firebreaks going into the woods.
Many of us park on the side of paved roads and walk in from there. Many of us pass through or come upon timber operations that we pass through. If you go with the LEO's definition that ticked me. All of those place mentioned rate the same ticket that I received. In my opinion, very few people that I have known hunting management areas for 30 years have not been in a situation that an LEO could not try to apply the same law.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO WALK THROUGH ANY OF THESE PLACES CARRYING A RIFLE OR BOW. BUT IF YOU ALLOW THE STATE TO CONTINUE TO BEND THE LAW AS THEY SEE FIT FOR CITATIONS, VERY SOON YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

It is not illegal to walk boundary trails or firebreaks!!!



If you are pulled off the road and parked on your own property you are 100% legal!!!



There is nothing against the law about walking up on a timber operation while hunting and getting a ticket for it!!!!



No, I don't believe so. If you really believe half of the stuff that you are saying, you have more problems than a hunting violation ticket!!!

Just because you have been ticketed for a hunting violation that was clearly avoidable does not mean that you can start making up things. Everytime i get on here and read the comments that have been posted I fall out of my chair from laughing so hard.

MT, it is obivious to me that you are having as much fun with this forum as I am.

However your opinion does matter, as do all of ours.

Please explain how you would prosecute this case if you were the DA.

Please explain how you can determine BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that he was hunting.

I think you will find that if indeed he was hunting BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, then we are all hunting from the road if we have a loaded gun while driving home. Or we are hunting at night if we walk back to our truck with a loaded gun.

I agree it seems pretty simple. Unload your gun. You are not hunting. However he has the Consitutional Right to a loaded gun. IF A LOADED GUN CONSITUTES HUNTING, THEN IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN THE DEFINITION OF "HUNTING"

Make me believe your argument. And I will shut up. Yea I have a hard on for the GW's right now. I got a stupid ticket. But I really think that this ticket is pushing a major VIOLATION of our rights. YOU GIVE A INCH AND THEY TAKE A MILE.

anyway since we are having so much fun with this. Give it a try. OH AND PLEASE REMEMBER, WE ARE HAVING FUN WITH THIS. BUCKY IS NOT.

Why is a railroad right of way any different than a courthouse, a school, certain areas of airports, an airplane, and numerous other places that restrict a person's "right" to "bear arms in defense of himself and the state"? The preceding question has been asked in various forms in the 8 pages of this discussions and you guys have dodged it like you were in a presidential debate.

There are all kinds of court decisions affirming restrictions on constitutional rights. There is an awful lot of quoting of judicial rulings in the pages of this post, so you guys would appear to agree that courts are the arbitror of what is or is not constitutional.

And quoting 49ers's quote:

"PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE
Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

In this case you have somebody participating in a scheduled WMA hunt, has a hunting license (or is exempt from the requirement), a WMA permit (do not know if there are exemptions for senior citizens/disabled veterans), a loaded firearm, the hunter orange required for hunters participating in a scheduled WMA hunt, ...

Seriously, if you were not bitter at the AL DCNR, would you really, honestly say a person exhibiting the characteristics above was not hunting except for the fact that he was on a RR right of way where hunting is not allowed? If he was 51 yards from the RR right of way would he have been hunting?

WMD, what exactly did he do that is included in the definition of HUNTING.

Once again he was charged with hunting!!!!! Not tresspassing on the railroad property!!!

and just one more question. If it is hunting season, and you go hunting, when you are walking back to your truck and you are almost there, has there ever been a time when you weren't hunting?

Ever?

you never stopped before you got back and shot a target. You never made a phone call on your way back. you never stopped and took a piss, you never talked to your kid. you never kicked a rock. According to you and several others, there can never be a time that you are not hunting. If you are there then you are hunting. Well then what about before the season. you ever have a gun with you when you are building blinds, working on green fields. Were you hunting then.

WHATEVER!!!

and since when do you have to walk thru a court house, school, airport to get back to your truck while you been hunting?

So what you are saying is "If he was there after dark, he would be guilty of NIGHT HUNTING and HUNTING FROM A ROAD"

how can you make a difference of the two, if you look at it the way you are looking at it.

Mteague,

They are all published in the 2010-2011 WMA regulati0n book.

To hunt or discharge firearms within 150 yards of any camping area, dwelling, dam or timber operation, 100
yards of any paved public road or highway, or from within the right-of-way of any developed U.S. Forest
Service road (paved or unpaved) which is open for vehicular traffic; within a posted safety zone or on Sunday
within one/half mile of any church.

Here is a link to the whole publcation since you obviously missed it.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/wildlife-areas/2010-2011wmaschedulefinal.pdf

You may be right on the boundry. The regulations actualy states no erected treestands. I always thought it was no hunting there as well.

It always amazes me when

For someone who understands all the hunting laws in Alabama, one would think you would have known to unload your gun before hunting within 50 yds of a R/R!!!!


You keep stating you were not hunting the day you recieved your ticket. Well I have always been told that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it must be a duck!!!

I hate that you got a ticket but sometimes you have to take responsibilities for your actions. Should have unloaded that gun.

I guess it depends on where you are hunting and where you are parked. When do you have to use a railroad to get back to your truck?

But, according to you, a constitutional right is a constitutional right. Shouldn't matter if you are trespassing (for which Bucky was not charged and is not the subject of 9-11-257) disguised as a deer hunter during a scheduled WMA hunt or if a person is in a court house, school, or airport. The point that you obviously did not get is that your constitutional rights can have their scope limited depending on where you are and what you are doing. To you, Bucky, and 49er, Bucky was just exercising his constitutional right to "bear arms in defense of himself and the state" while to the GW it was PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE of hunting from a RR.

just suck it up and pay it

No, sir. Of course I don't think you are lying, 49er. I've never thought that you have ever lied. I thought you were being a bit tough on Game Wardens at times. After your reply, I feel much, much better about it. You rightly and nicely replied and I appreciate it. Peace to you.

MT,



I guess you'll hate it too if you go to Perdido WMA and get your own ticket. If you do as you stated above, that's probably what will happen, and you will be the guilty one instead of Bucky.

The difference in you and him, you will have unloaded your gun 50 yards too late before you get to your truck if it's near a paved road, and your fine will be much less than his for committing essentially the same "crime".






Should have unloaded your gun.


Then the game warden will grin and say, "GOTCHA"

The fine has been paid since I appeared in court the first time. I simply dissagree with the officer's definition of 9-11-257 and will continue to fight the citation.

The law is vague and overbroad as stated by the Honorable Judge Hodnette. That is why the AG's opininion came into existence. Judge Hodnette of Mobile county wrote the AG and asked for an opininion on the definition. Judge Hodnette felt that 9-11-257 was so confusing that it should be invalid by default.

The reason this discussion has gone on as long as it has is due directly to the wording of the statute. This applies to many of our hunting regulations. The statute leaves room to support both sides.

Commissioner Lawley did not even include railroad in the 2010-2011 published hunting regulations. Commisioner Lawley included the rest of 9-11-257 and for whatever reason omitted railroad. If this publcation is capable of standing in any court without further evidence the publication should be accurate as to the regulations.

The copy of the 2010-2011 regulations as signed by Comissioner Lawley. Which is in fact the official copy, is not the same as the the supposedly official copy published on the DCNR official website. Exactly which copy of the regulations do you want hunters to follow? Or maybe we will allow law enforcement to simply mix doctrine as they see fit to enforce law.

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure"

Thomas Jefferson

Vague laws involve three basic dangers: First, they may harm the innocent by failing to warn of the offense. Second, they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because vague laws delegate enforcement and statutory interpretation to individual government officials and law enforcement officers. Third, because citizens will take extra precautions to avoid violating the law, vague laws inhibit our individual freedom.


Happy Easter Everyone it is going to be a beautiful day here in South Alabama.

the publication with the ads in it will NOT stand in court as the official rules, regulations, laws.

I don't know why they don't just print the regs/laws as they are actually written.

troy

Well you may be right WMD. But I argue that if indeed you are right. then that gives the GW way to much authority. IF A LOADED WEAPON AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS INDEED THERE TO HUNT. IF THAT IN IT SELF MAKES HIM GUILTY. THEN I AM GUILTY OF EVERY LAW THEY HAVE. IF THE GAME WARDENS OPINION IS LAW. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. then what is to say that the same GW cannot right you up for hunting at night, just because your weapon was loaded.

I mean it is dark, you came to the woods to hunt. you got on camo, you bought a hunting lic. you got on orange. You have a grunt call with you. SIR I THE ALMIGHTY GW PROCLAIM YOU TO BE HUNTING.

HERE IS YOUR TICKET.

x 2, Troy.

troy,



It's clear that the law requires it, but nobody is holding them accountable. I reqested the publication required by law from our new Attorney General after I was told at DCNR Headquarters by Cpt. Roleau to ask there because they didn't have it. I got no reply from the Attorney General.

It's not right to charge hunters with nit-picking violations with stiff fines when the agency leaders don't comply with the law themselves and then get away with it scot-free.

I beat if Bucky's name was Cameron Newton, we would at least have about half the people on here that thinks he is NOT GUILTY!!!!

GOOD LUCK TO CAM, by the way from a LSU fan, we are just mad that we didn't pay him.

That damn Miles, he knew we needed a Qtrback.

Huhh!!!

I was browsing thru our state constitution today, and I thought about you, Danny.

Constitution of Alabama 1901







Workin' in a coal mine, going on down, down, working in a coal mine, OOOPPS, about to slip down, OOOOWWWW!!....

I read thru the 16 pages of thread today and must admit I am confused. If Bucky was walking back to his truck and the pocession of a rifle didn't have anything to do with with his ticket, he was "hunting". Not tresspassing on RR ROW. Slowly walking, looking into the woods, "hunting" was the charge. If he had not had a rifle or any other weapon, then under that clouded GW violation definition he could have been guilty of "hunting" even if he did not have any kind of weapon?

Latest Update,

Showed up this moring ready for trial. The LEO was not there and the DA was not ready for trial. So Baldwin county rolled it out until sometime in September. This is the 3rd time that the DA has not been ready to proceed. Don't know. They don't want to try it and the judge will not null proc it, maybe they just plan on leaving it hanging forever. Doesn't seem right.
One thing I have discovered from circuit court. It would have been cheaper to get drunk and run down a deer at night than to walk down a railroad track.

Bucky, have you got a lawyer????

"Usually" if the LEO isn't present, esp on the third try, the judge will dismiss the case. Esp if the DA is not ready to proceed.

You're getting the run around, and drug thru the mud. Raise some hell if they try it again.

Geeze..

troy

Yep. Pay a lawyer to file a motion to dismiss. I'm no attorney but I think they are infringing on your right to a speedy trial.

Yup

They are counting on you not showing up. You don't show up and they find you guilty and fine the crap out of you.

Hey Bucky, just wanted to check and see what is going on with you case.

Wanted to update. Have been doing nothing but waiting on a trial date.

I got my jury trial today and argued the case as best I could. The jury found me guitly after some deliberation. Even though hard to swallow I will accept it that I was in the wrong. The biggest lesson I learned is never defend yourself. It is almost a guaranteed no win situation. Again, I have nothing ill to say about the officers. Yhey stated their side and I stated mine. We argued it in a court of law and he won. He did reccomend to the judge when sentenced that I reain my hunting privlidges, and she allowed me to do so. I really appreciated him doing that. Talking to the jury after the trial I found out that checking in and drawing of the permit was the states best evidence in proving I was hunting.

I truly appreciate all of the input that all of ypu provided.

The only thing we can do is fight as long as we can as hard as we can and god and courts decides the rest.

Godd luck to all and good hunting

Bucky,

Sorry you chose not to be represented by a lawyer. I think you could have beat the charge with good representation.

Any further explanation as to why the judge refused to accept your plea agreement?


As for what the jury said:


So, they thought you were hunting continuously from the time you arrived until you left the WMA just because you checked in and picked up a permit that gave you permission to hunt? All of them agreed to that?

[Edit: to address your following statement.]



I don't agree that you were in the wrong. I haven't found Alabama case law to support that opinion, but I did find case law in Arkansas that proved some young people were not in the wrong after they were charged with road hunting. It turned out that their state was wrong after they continued to fight for what was right:



Our DCNR also has a constitutionally overbroad defintion of hunting. You are a victim of that overbroad defintion. You were not in the wrong. Our state is in the wrong just as Arkansas was in the wrong.

I commend you for coming back on here and giving us an update even though the results were not in your favor. This action tells me all I need to know about Bucky. Good hunting to you as well sir!!

X2!