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.
