|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123 members (3Gs, antlerhunter, BobK, mzzy, JA, Standbanger, CAM, rrice0725, BamaGuitarDude, dtmwtp, BAR II .270, outdoorguy88, mcninja, Holcomb, Whiskey9, CNC, IMISSALDEER, Parker243, Tall Dog, Paint Rock 00, Dixiepatriot, Raven, GomerPyle, Overland, El_Matador, cullbuck, fourfive45, Shotts, catdoctor, Gobble4me757, mw2015, coldtrail, leroycnbucks, grundan, Driveby, geeb1, 3bailey3, wareagle22, jmj120, donia, M48scout, Raspy, Auburn1716, JHL, centralala, hunter84, Geeb, gman, BigEd, HSV. HUNTER, TEM, Six shooter, gwstang, DGAMBLER, walt4dun, Floorman1, healy4au, quailman, JSanford1974, Mbrock, Xbow, desertdog, Ron A., Turkeyneck78, 6pt, DonH, Sixpointholler, beerhunter, mopar, canichols424, Hunt4Jesus, AHolcomb, Etyson, jwp0020, RLP76, Canterberry, dave260rem!, ALMODUX, courseup, sj22, somedude, Bgood, PikeRoadHunter, akbejeepin, TideWJO, !shiloh!, twaldrop4, jaredhunts, mjs14, Bigwhitey, TheVern, Rainbowstew, Koba, SC53, Antelope08, RockFarmer, stl32, abolt300, aucountry, TroyBoy1988, bamafarmer, roosterbob, Skillet, odocoileus, South Ala Hunter, AJones, BearBranch, Chiller, gatorbait154, TCG5, AU7MM08, Engine5, XVIII, Cahabariverrat, 9 invisible),
893
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 645
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 645 |
49er,
Its a subjective interpretation that is left to the trial court to determine on a case by case basis. I know that doesn't give you much guidance, but that is the only way the statute can be interpreted. I narrowly define "affected area" in baiting cases, but other judges may have a different view.
Your argument regarding the vagueness of 9-11-244 would have to be addressed by an appellate court.
|
|
|
|
|
