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:
Quote:
An overbroad statute is one that is designed to punish conduct which the state may rightfully punish, but which includes within its sweep constitutionally protected conduct.  McDougal v. State, 324 Ark. 354, 359-360, 922 S.W.2d 323 (1996), citing 4 R. Rotunda & J. Novak, Treatise on Constitutional Law, � 20.8 (2d ed. 1992).   The Commission's rule, as amended, essentially shifts the burden to non-hunters who possess loaded or uncased firearms on city, county, state, or federally maintained roads or rights-of-way, to prove that he or she is not engaged in the prohibited act of road hunting.   When examining amended rule 18.04, we conclude that it may include within its sweep innocent and legitimate conduct.   For example, it is an affirmative defense to the charge of carrying a weapon that the person charged was carrying the weapon upon a journey.   See Ark.Code Ann. � 5-73-120(c)(4) (Supp.1995).   The amended rule is thus overbroad, and exceeds the Commission's authority granted under Amendment 35 to regulate the manner of taking game.
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.
