|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
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.
(Acts 1935, No. 383, p. 813, �23; Code 1940, T. 8, �105; Acts 1982, No. 82-522, p. 870, �1; Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-945, p. 566, �1; Act 99-442, p. 1007, �1; Act 2008-384, p. 714, �1.) ############################################################# Calulations: 50 yds. = 150 feet 150' X 5280' per mile = 792,000 sq. ft. per mile 792,000 sq. ft. @ 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 18.2 ac/mi.18.2 ac/mi. X 2 if road runs thru property = 36.4 ac. per mile off limits to large game hunting [applies only to leaseholders and permit hunting] ############################################################## Landowners and immediate family members of landowners are exempt. Small game calibre firearms are not included. Bows, crossbows and spears are not included. Handguns are not included. ############################################################## Questions for discussion: What is the intent of this law? Does it protect widlife? Does it promote public safety? Did it solve the dog hunter/landowner controversy? Does it need to be ammended back to it's original form? ######################################################################## Original form of statute: 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 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished for the first offense by a fine of not less than two-hundred fifty dollars ($250), and shall be punished for the second and each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) and shall have all hunting license privileges revoked for one year from the date of conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,655
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,655 |
Is the definition of "Public road", a road that is County or State maintained?
Genesis 27:3
Acts 10:11-15
Hunt Long, Hunt Hard and Safe
NRA LIFE MEMBER
"Odocoileus Virginianus"-Mother Nature's original fast food
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
"Public road" is not defined in the list of defintions for Title 9, Chapter 11.
Edit: In the absence of an express defintion in the law, I would take the position that the burden of proof that the road was a public road would be on the state.
Last edited by 49er; 04/05/11 02:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307 |
my guess is to promote public safety.
I used to live in North Carolina. People would dog hunt in the middle of the road. (dirt road)
I have no idea why they added the 50 yards to it. And why do you think that Landowner and immediate family are exempt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 37,407 Likes: 69
Freak of Nature
|
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 37,407 Likes: 69 |
which "original form" ya picking there 49r????  early 80's we had a "hunt to the centerline" rule for a couple of years till it got changed. I thin we are on maybe the fifth wording since 1980..... it's a public safety thing. troy
I've spent most of the money I've made in my lifetime on hunting and fishing. The rest I just wasted.....
proud Cracker-Americaan
muslims are like coyotes, only good one is a dead one
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
It was not a public safety issue according to the interpretation given to the Attorney General by the Department of Conservation. The courts say they are not bound by opinions of the Attorney General or the agency which is responsible for administering a statute, but they say they give them "great weight" and call them "persuasive". I can look up some case law on that if someone would like that. Here is a combination of an Attorney General's opinion and the interpretation of the Department of Conservation: ... the Attorney General may inform you of the
interpretation given to Section 9-11-257 by the Department of
Conservation to assist you in your reading of the statute.
The purpose of the enactment of Section 9-11-257 was to
prevent persons from shooting game on privately owned land
from a public road, highway or railroad, or the rights of way
thereto. In order to effectuate the purpose of the statute,
the department of conservation has interpreted the term
"adjacent landowner" to mean the owner of the land which
abuts the public road, highway, or railroad. Therefore, a
person is in violation of section 9-11-257 if he shoots from
or within 100 yards of a public road, highway or railroad
without permission of the landowner onto which he
shoots. [emphasis added] Attorney General Opinion 84-00123 The statute read at that time: Any person who hunts within a distance of 100
yards of any road, highway or railroad in
this state or who explodes any firearms while
hunting within such proximity of a road,
highway or railroad where such person does not have
permission from an adjacent landowner
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction, shall be punished for the first
offense by a fine of not less than $250.00,
and shall be punished for the second and each
subsequent offense by a fine of not less than
$500.0 and shall have all hunting license
privilege revoked for one year from the date
of conviction. [emphasis added] So, the issue was not public safety, but rather having permission from the landowner to shoot from the road onto the landowner's property. You are right, the statute has changed quite a bit since it's original version in 1935. I'm not sure how it first read, but I was refering to how it read before it was last amended. In the 1990 and 1997 versions of the DCNR Law Book that commissioners used to give you to comply with the law, the statute reads much like I posted above with the amendment taken out. That eliminates all the gobbledy gook about distance from the right of way and types of firearms that can't be used. That would allow leaseholders to utilize all of their property for hunting once again, while, at the same time, prohibiting everyone from shooting from, upon or across the road or it's right of way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 595
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 595 |
I have read a lot about the origins of 9-11-257 recently. 9-11-257 was never legislated for safety, the law was imposed to keep poachers from shooting into peoples property from the right of way of public transportation.. That is the reason that landowners are exempt from this rule on their own land. Also, if it had been for safety there would be hunting exclusion areas around schools, puplic parks, shopping malls, etc. Over the years the true definition as legislated as evolved into everyone thinking it was for safety. A high power rifle is a lethal threat to where anyone gathers out to a 1000 yard easily. That is why we have;
It is unlawful to discharge any firearm upon or across
any public road, public highway or railroad.
SOURCES: Code of Alabama ��11-80-11, 6-5-341, 9-
11-304, 9-11-257, and 13A-11-50 through 13A-11-85.
Last edited by Bucky205; 04/05/11 01:17 PM.
"There are no easy days, not even yesterday"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Bucky, I have read a lot about the origins of 9-11-257 recently. 9-11-257 was never legislated for safety, the law was imposed to keep poachers from shooting into peoples property from the right of way of public transportation.. That is the reason that landowners are exempt from this rule on their own land. That matches what the Attorney General described as the interpretation of DCNR back in '84. If they see if differently now, somebody needs to make it official. The law in it's present form keeps people who lease the land from hunting all the land they pay for. It still doesn't keep poachers from hunting from the road and shooting onto someone else's property, even if it does make it unlawful to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 733
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 733 |
I had no idea that the fine was 1000.00, Guess I need to be more careful crossing the dirt road on one of my leases. My luck I come out of one gate walk 40 yds go in another gate, never though much about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 622
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 622 |
It still doesn't keep poachers from hunting from the road and shooting onto someone else's property, even if it does make it unlawful to do so. No law prevents anyone from doing anything, it just makes it illegal to do it. Murder is against the law but it happens every day.
You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
That's right. You're catching my drift.
We can use any crime you want to instead of hunting from a public road.
You can pile all laws up you can come up with to try to prevent any type of crime and somebody will still commit the crime. In the mean time, however, the rights and liberty of law abiding citizens suffer with each new restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
I had no idea that the fine was 1000.00, Guess I need to be more careful crossing the dirt road on one of my leases. My luck I come out of one gate walk 40 yds go in another gate, never though much about it The ironic thing about the increased fines is this... It is now much more likely that hunters will choose to hire a lawyer and fight these intrusions on their rights. When the fine plus court costs are two or three times what an attorney's fees are in some cases to fight the charges, the hunter is much more likely to fight instead of just paying up. That can be a good thing for all hunters. We should not be harrassed for crossing a road with a loaded gun. We have a right to carry loaded guns in America, and that right does not end when we go hunting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 307 |
You are so right. If my fine was small, I would probably just pay it. As a matter of fact. I called my court house to see how much it was. COURT APPEARENCE only. Well if you are going to make me go to court, and I don't feel like I broke the law. What do you think most of us will do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 October 12, 2007 STATE OF ALABAMA v. DIANE BURNETT LUPO Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-02-5201). "We find both of the regulations under consideration to be unreasonable. ADEM argues that they are a proper exercise of the police power of the State of Alabama, going to the protection of health, public convenience, public welfare, protection of property, and the maintenance of good order. See James v. Todd, 267 Ala. 495, 103 So. 2d 19 (1958); Alosi v. Jones, 234 Ala. 391, 174 So. 774 (1937). While the above matters are clearly subject to the police power, and while the control of air pollution is greatly to be desired, we find that the restraint imposed by the two regulations before us, as written, imposes a restraint upon the use of private property that is disproportionate to the amount of evil that will be corrected. Thus, they fail the test of constitutionality under City of Russellville v. Vulcan Materials Co., supra." 437 So. 2d at 84-86 emphasis added Exactly what is the evil that is supposed to be corrected by 9-11-257 that is proportional to the restraint upon the use of private property as it applies unequally to landowners and leaseholders?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA November 5, 2004 DR. ANDREW E. POLLARD ET AL. v. UNUS PROPERTIES, LLC CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. UNUS PROPERTIES, LLC Appeals from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-01-6058). ... "The cases, of course, recognize the rule that the lawmaking authorities may not, under the guise of the police power, impose restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities; that governmental interference by zoning ordinances with such use, is not unlimited, and such restrictions should bear some substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or as otherwise elsewhere expressed, the 'public convenience or the general prosperity.'"
Leary v. Adams, 226 Ala. 472, 474, 147 So. 391, 392 (Ala. 1933) (citations omitted).
[emphasis added] also: ... Otherwise expressed, the police power may not be employed to prevent evils of a remote or highly problematical character. Nor may its exercise be justified when the restraint imposed upon the exercise of a private right is disproportionate to the amount of evil that will be corrected. Bolin v. State, 266 Ala. 256, 96 So.2d 582, conformed to in 39 Ala.App. 161, 96 So.2d 592 (1957)."
Once again, I ask, "What evil does 9-11-257 as ammended correct?" Maybe it should read as follows: 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) two-hundred fifty (250)dollars, and shall be punished for the second and each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) five hundred ($500) dollars and shall have all hunting license privileges revoked for one year from the date of conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,041 Likes: 7
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,041 Likes: 7 |
Wish they would also outlaw hunting within 50 yards of land lines unless you lease the adjoining property.
A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams
He alone is educated who has learned the lessons of open-mindedness
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
Laws and regulations aren't going to solve all the world's problems. The confusing language in 9-11-257 was added in a failed attempt to curb illegal dog hunting. It didn't work. Prohibiting people from hunting on their own land to suit you is not the proper role for our government. Your problem has already been addressed by the law, and it carries a pretty stiff fine. Stacking up laws on top of each other won't solve any of your problems. It will only contribute to the problem we already have of having too many laws and regulations to keep up with when we try to enjoy our liberty and freedom. Section 9-11-241
Hunting, trapping, etc., of wild game during day on lands of another without permission.
Any person who hunts, traps, captures, injures, kills, or destroys, or attempts to hunt, trap, capture, injure, kill, or destroy any wild game on the lands of another between the hours of daylight and sunset without the written permission of or accompanied by the landowner or person in possession or control of the lands 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 at the discretion of the court may have all hunting license privileges revoked for up to one year from the date of conviction. Any person shall be punished for the second and each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) and the revocation of all hunting license privileges for one year from the date of conviction, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a period not less than 10 nor more than 30 days.
This section shall not apply to the members of the family, guests, servants, or agents of the landowner.
(Acts 1936-37, Ex. Sess., No. 191, p. 224, �1; Code 1940, T. 8, �92; Acts 1975, No. 1119, p. 2208, �1; Acts 1982, No. 82-489, p. 813, �1; Act 2008-384, p. 714, �1.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,767
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,767 |
Since the property I hunt is gated on both ends and doesn't technically go through on a county or marked road, it doesn't affect our club at all... You can sit in a chair in the middle of the road if you are so inclined to do so and hunt. no rule against it..
"Honor to the soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause. Honor also to the citizen who cares for his brother in the field, and serves, as he best can, the same cause." --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,997 |
If you owned the land and it was a public road, you could sit in a chair by the road and hunt deer as long as you didn't shoot from or across across the road... just like when you hunt rabbits or squirrels whether you own the land or not.
Anything in the wording that has anything to do with ownership of the land or ammunition used needs to be taken back out. Those words have nothing to do with safety. They were added to a good law and screwed it up in an effort to stop illegal dog hunting. It didn't work, and it needs to be changed back like it was.
|
|
|
|
|
