bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
fishin coyote
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1719
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/05/04 07:31:21
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 08:42:29
(permalink)
Gotta love the american justice system and technicalities(sp)
Mike
Nothing is Free!! Reward equals Effort
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 08:45:10
(permalink)
QUOTE: In some cases even the courts fail to use common sense
Sounds like the court knew how to read the law as it was written. Nice find Bings.
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3546
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 09:18:59
(permalink)
I got mixed feelings on it personally. I don't know the particulars but I see both sides of this one.
My rifle is a black rifle
|
TastyTrout
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 732
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/12/20 21:41:50
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 09:34:35
(permalink)
I guess if I just climb a bit higher in my treestand I can archery hunt anywhere I want... 
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths. Jimmy D Moore
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 09:44:27
(permalink)
The law is worded to keep a hunter from shooting and hitting someones house just as the law regarding shooting across a highway is worded to pevent someone from shooting and hitting someones vehicle. I have shot over top of my own house (and a road) at a deer on the other hill more than once and know of at least two others that have done the same over the years.
|
bulldog1
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5203
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/06/05 12:23:00
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 09:46:47
(permalink)
Pretty cool that one board member helped out another... 
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 13:25:51
(permalink)
Did I read that correctly -- that it was not a violation of a safety zone because even though it was well within the 150 yards at 88 yards, the bank was higher than the house top so the safety zone doesn't apply?
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
TastyTrout
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 732
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/12/20 21:41:50
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 13:33:56
(permalink)
That's what I got from it.
Men and fish are alike. They both get into trouble when they open their mouths. Jimmy D Moore
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 13:49:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DarDys
Did I read that correctly -- that it was not a violation of a safety zone because even though it was well within the 150 yards at 88 yards, the bank was higher than the house top so the safety zone doesn't apply?
I got the same thing myself..... Love all the comments about technicalities and loopholes garbage. It is the law as written, not a loophole,it is part of the written law.
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 20:11:10
(permalink)
That is the way the Attorney and the District Judge read the law but that is not the legislative intent of the law or is it the way I would expect a higher court would rule on it.
The intent of the law is that it would be illegal to shot through a safety zone unless the bullet was more that 150 yards over the highest point of the occupied building. If that hadn’t been included in the law then a person could set up at 151 yards and shot through between a persons house and barn at a deer, bear of what ever as long as the animal they were shooting at was more than 150 yards on the other side of the house and barn. In which case you could have hunters legally sending bullets right past you and there would be no violation because both they and the game are outside the violation.
It is clearly the legislative intent that it is not legal for a person to hunt anywhere within 150 yards, 50 yards for archery, of an occupied building regardless of the elevation of the hunter in relation to the structure. But, if the hunter is outside the safety zone and shooting from one hilltop to another hilltop they would be legal to shoot over an occupied building as long as the path of the bullet was more than 150 yards over the highest part of the occupied building, and that is what the law actually says even if some people do read it differently.
In this case the court was clearly in error of not only the wording of the law but also the Legislative intent of the law. Since District Judges are not a court of record no other courts in this Commonwealth are bound by that courts decision and can thus rule differently. In fact that District Judge might hear another case with the same circumstances and rule just the opposite way the next time. Until such time as there would be a Supreme Court ruling on the law it can and should stand as it is written and within the Legislative intent.
R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 20:29:10
(permalink)
It is clearly the legislative intent that it is not legal for a person to hunt anywhere within 150 yards, 50 yards for archery, of an occupied building regardless of the elevation of the hunter in relation to the structure. Since the law regarding shooting over a highway is also for safety reasons and it also does not specify a distance over the highway the shooter has to be how ae the two any different. Also---Can you point us to any writing, judgement, opinion, etc from the court or leglislature that states the Legislative intent is as you say.
|
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2393
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 20:37:01
(permalink)
§ 2505. Safety zones.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title or to any political subdivision, its employees or agents,
which has a valid deer control permit issued under section
2902(c) (relating to general categories of permits), it is
unlawful for any person, other than the lawful occupant, while
hunting game or wildlife, taking furbearers of any kind, or
pursuing any other privilege granted by this title, to hunt for,
take, trap, pursue, disturb or otherwise chase any game or
wildlife or to discharge, for any reason, any firearm, arrow or
other deadly weapon within or through a safety zone, or to shoot
at any game or wildlife while it is within the safety zone
without the specific advance permission of the lawful occupant
thereof.
(b) Penalty.--A violation of this section is a summary
offense punishable by a fine of not less than $200 nor more than
$500. A second or subsequent offense within two calendar years
is a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500
nor more than $1,000.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "safety
zone" means:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the
area within 150 yards around and that area which is below the
highest point of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or
other building or camp occupied by human beings, or any barn,
stable, or other building used in connection therewith or any
attached or detached playground of any school, nursery school
or day-care center.
(2) When applied to properly licensed persons hunting
with bow and arrow or crossbow, the area within 50 yards
around and that area which is below the highest point of any
occupied dwelling house, residence or other building or camp
occupied by human beings or any barn, stable or other
building used in connection therewith and the area within 150
yards around and that area which is below the highest point
of any attached or detached playground of any school, nursery
school or day-care center.
(Nov. 25, 1988, P.L.1082, No.125, eff. imd.; Mar. 29, 1996,
P.L.41, No.13, eff. imd.; Dec. 19, 1996, P.L.1442, No.184, eff.
60 days; June 28, 2002, P.L.474, No.79, eff. 60 days; June 23,
2004, P.L.435, No.43, eff. July 1, 2004)
Cross References. Section 2505 is referred to in section
2741 of this title.
I sure don't like what the law states, but I agree with how the judge interpreted the law as written. Seems clear to me...
post edited by Esox_Hunter - 2012/03/01 20:39:27
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 20:52:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
It is clearly the legislative intent that it is not legal for a person to hunt anywhere within 150 yards, 50 yards for archery, of an occupied building regardless of the elevation of the hunter in relation to the structure.
Since the law regarding shooting over a highway is also for safety reasons and it also does not specify a distance over the highway the shooter has to be how ae the two any different. Also---Can you point us to any writing, judgement, opinion, etc from the court or leglislature that states the Legislative intent is as you say.
Just what was relayed to the WCOs when we covered the entire law and picked every word of it apart. I suspect this court ruling is probably going to get run up the flagpole though to find out what the Attorney Generals Office has to say about it. I am also sure that it need be there will be a push to get the State Legislature to make some changes in the wording of the law to make it more clear as to what the Legislative intent is. Does anyone really believe the Legislature really intended for it to be legal to allow a hunter to it in a tree higher then your house and hunt within your safety zone while doing it? I assure you the Legislative intent when they wrote the law was address the issue of hunters not being permitted to shoot through a safety zone, which is exactly want was explained to us, even if the shooter and the game were both outside the safety zone while shooting. When I get the time I will check to see if there are any current court opinions that address this subject but I rather doubt it since safety zone issues have always been pretty clear to this point. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 21:48:41
(permalink)
I would think that a safety zone is just what it states--- a non shooting zone for the citizens safety. Since I do not spend my time standing on the peak of my roof I would be in no danger from someone shooting over the top of my house.
By the same token, since I do not stand on top of my vehicle while driving on a highway I would be in no danger from someone shooting over the top of my vehicle.
Since the law regarding the 50 yard rule is relatively new and the wording is the same there has been two opportunities to review it. The guy in the tree has to be shooting at something far enough away and high enough on the opposite hill to keep his arrow or bullet from crossing below the top of the house and has to find a tree whose base is above the top of the house to climb in the first place. Seems more reasonable the law was written to prevent a WCO having to try to determine how far above the top of a building the projecile was flying. That would have been a joke. The only Superior court opinion I found close concerns shooting over a highway and the defendent was found not guilty on appeal. Payne vs C of P
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 22:40:47
(permalink)
here is the part I find most interesting.. although I did not read everything posted at huntingpa... and that the deputy WCO checked with the resident of the house and was told that nobody had permission to hunt within the safety zone. (What the resident said was hearsay, but I didn't object for other reasons why would it be hearsay ?? doesn't the law say lawful resident or occupant of the dwelling can or can not give permission to hunt within that safety zone.. without the specific advance permission of the lawful occupant
thereof. 88 yards would thus be at the least trespassing if not being guilty of being within a safety zone.. very odd case ....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2012/03/01 22:45:58
|
retired guy
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3107
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
- Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 23:09:27
(permalink)
Was probably considered heresay by that fella cause the landowner simply was not there to say it him or herself. Sometimes folks can make things seem a bit more 'grey ' than they really are -its in their best interest. If it had been a big issue they could have easily recessed and sent out a LE with a subpoena ( if the owner was hesitant) and brought them into court to say it for themselves. That simple move is quite likely why they chose to let it go. Clearly they all knew it was the reality of the situation. Not demeaning anybody here but that fella who fought the case would certainly wanted the owner there if he had permission - that would have quickly ended the whole thing. Wouldnt want anybody shootin over my house an family no matter how high up they were standin. Law needs to be tightened up methinks.
post edited by retired guy - 2012/03/01 23:10:19
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/01 23:38:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: retired guy
Was probably considered heresay by that fella cause the landowner simply was not there to say it him or herself. Sometimes folks can make things seem a bit more 'grey ' than they really are -its in their best interest.
If it had been a big issue they could have easily recessed and sent out a LE with a subpoena ( if the owner was hesitant) and brought them into court to say it for themselves. That simple move is quite likely why they chose to let it go. Clearly they all knew it was the reality of the situation.
Not demeaning anybody here but that fella who fought the case would certainly wanted the owner there if he had permission - that would have quickly ended the whole thing.
Wouldnt want anybody shootin over my house an family no matter how high up they were standin. Law needs to be tightened up methinks.
Actually I think the existing law is sufficient when it is read as it was Legislatively intended and I believe most courts will interpret it as it was intended when the Legislature wrote it and passed it. If not I am sure it will be corrected to make it clearer and to provide the legal safety zone protections intended. In this case I suspect that the Attorney threw it out in an argument as a motion to dismiss, the WCO did not adequately argue why it should not be dismissed on those grounds and the District Court Judge bought the defense argument over the prosecution argument. The important thing for everyone to understand though is that this ruling is none binding and no other courts are compelled to view the law in the same manner this District Judge has. At this point nothing has changed in the way WCOs are going to be enforcing the safety zone laws. Until we get either a Supreme opinion, a ruling from the Attorney Generals Office or a directive from the Bureau of Wildlife Protection that states they agree with this Courts interpretation of the law it will simply be business as always in doing our best to enforce the laws that protect the states citizens and resources. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
RIZ
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 915
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/04/17 11:44:29
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/02 00:57:05
(permalink)
i don't undrstand ow you know what the legislative intent was 26 yrs ago. do you have any writings on the subject to enlighten us? that would b gret . ithout that it's just your opinion and the wording of the law must be read and enforced as written, no matter how much you disagree with it.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/02 06:53:38
(permalink)
88 yards would thus be at the least trespassing if not being guilty of being within a safety zone.. That is why I think the law is correct as worded. If the owner of the buildings also owned the land within 150 yds of them he could prevent someone from entering that land if he desired. If he did not own the surrounding land then he is depriving the actual owner of partial use of that land as RSB enforces the law. In Pa we have many steep narrow hills with a road near the bottom and houses, barns, sheds, etc all along the road. To claim a non-shooting zone extending 150 yards above every out building would put hundreds of thousands of acres off limits to rifle shooting for no legitimate reason. Depending on the contour of the land one could be more than 150 yards measured on the ground but not as measured straight up. Added--Don't forget that regardless of the safety zone law the shooter is still responsible for the end result of the shot. IMO the law is correctly worded for maximum safety without unnecessarly restricting land use.
post edited by S-10 - 2012/03/02 06:58:37
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/02 08:15:08
(permalink)
So now we have to go by what the legislative intent of the law was when it was written.
Bad enough half the dam game laws are nothing but grey area.
Now we have to try and figure out what their intent was when the law was enacted ???
Guess that is where the 95% conviction rate comes from, WCO's just interpret the law the way the want to to get a conviction. Guess this WCO didn't have the DJ in his back pocket like some have claimed to have.
Sounds like the PGC should have had a competent lawyer on board when these laws were written..
Looks like a big pile of bullpucky to me.........
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/02 21:31:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bingsbaits
So now we have to go by what the legislative intent of the law was when it was written.
Bad enough half the dam game laws are nothing but grey area.
Now we have to try and figure out what their intent was when the law was enacted ???
Guess that is where the 95% conviction rate comes from, WCO's just interpret the law the way the want to to get a conviction. Guess this WCO didn't have the DJ in his back pocket like some have claimed to have.
Sounds like the PGC should have had a competent lawyer on board when these laws were written..
Looks like a big pile of bullpucky to me.........
I know what the Legislative intend was because I was there when the new law was being explained back in 1986 and before it even went into affect. I do suspect there is some written documentation of the Legislative intent of the law from back in 1986 but I do not have a copy of it. The Legislative intent has always been the most valid part of every law. I feel that the law is written so that it clearly includes the areas that are within 150 yards of the highest point of an occupied structure and also that it is clearly unlawful to hunt within 150 yards of an occupied building regardless of the plain the hunter is on in relation to the contour of the ground. I am also confident that most courts will also read the law in the manner I have explained. The law has been in use for over twenty-five years with many other hunters having been cited and convicted yet this is the first time a lawyer has come up about hunters not being in a safety zone if they were at a position elevated above the structure that the defendant wasnt still found guilty. That fact alone gives cause to believe that this was just an error of the law made by one District Judge. But, as I already said it really doesnt matter what that Judge ruled anyway since his opinion on it is totally none binding in ANY other court. And, it was not the Game Commission who wrote the laws; it is the State Legislature who writes, vote on and pass laws. Many of, if not most of, them are lawyers so I suspect they at least feel they were well qualified to be writing laws. You people can believe what ever you want but my advice would be not to be inside a safety zone even if the elevation is above the structure without permission of the occupants unless you plan on trying your luck with your local court system. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 10:50:53
(permalink)
Mabee the fellas sitting at the table when this law was written should have raised the question then instead of just rubber stamping it.
That or it wasn't a problem and there was a reason it was written that way.
Either way enforcing a law just beacuse you feel the legislative intent of the law is different than the WRITTEN law is totally wrong in my book.
As 30,000 poster would say "THE LAW IS THE LAW".......Not what you beleive it to be...
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
retired guy
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3107
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
- Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 11:21:54
(permalink)
Legislative intent is no different that seeking info on intent when they Wrote the Constitution. We hear 'original intent' all the time in Constitutional matters for ex. Its a mainstay of the system- All too often WORDS and be interpreted differently by different folks so the notes and such on the actual making and intentions of the legislation have great merit. Just went through it here on a Zoning issue- they actually brought in the guy who wrote the statures to advise on the meaning of the written words as they were presented, explained and passed.
post edited by retired guy - 2012/03/04 11:24:03
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 11:27:25
(permalink)
So now what you are saying is we are at the mercy of the WCO's and their interpetation of what legislative intent was when the law was written..
Talk about Grey area.....
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 12:29:27
(permalink)
I thought we were advised to leave the interpetations to the experts in previous threads?  ...WF
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 12:41:01
(permalink)
Am I missing something here...
are some of you really suggesting that it is okay to be within a safety zone just because you are higher than the building ??????
Surely you do not think that that guy, or any, would have passed on a deer 10 yards under his tree stand if it stopped there ????
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 12:42:17
(permalink)
I thought we were advised to leave the interpetations to the experts in previous threads?...WF An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes that can be made, in a narrow field.  Niels Bohr
|
retired guy
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3107
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
- Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 13:17:08
(permalink)
HEY BING- UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR POST YOU HAVE STRONG THOUGHTS ON THAT STUFF HOWEVER NEVER INTENDED OR SAID THE INTENT OF L/E WAS THE STANDARD. Only the intent of those producing the legislation. How others interpret it can sometimes BE the issue of contention- therefore- original intent rules.
Sorry bout the shoutin.
Ex- 6 people readin the same thing can come up with 6 different interpretations of what it may or my not say-often depending on how THEY want to do the interpretation in the first place-- back to the intention of the one making it in the first place..
See folks all the time picking out parts of laws and making opinions on what the think it may or may not say instead of making a reasonable common sense interpretation after a careful reading of the entire statute..
We are a Nation of Laws- can get difficult and tricky- aint always happy bout it all myself but its our system and it works.
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5035
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Safety zones
2012/03/04 13:25:49
(permalink)
Totally understand your position RG.
I guess the only point I have to make is.
We as hunters only have what is printed in the "written" game code to go by and be law abiding hunters.
There seems to be alot of WCO discretion and Grey area in many of our game laws.
As many say it all depends on your WCO.
In my eyes it shouldn't be that way, some get off and some do not. The law should be enforced acrooed the board equally for all. Then we "all" know what that standard is and can adhere to it.
We have someone here who was present at the dicussions when this law was written.
There must have been some reasoning at the time to add that language to the bill.
We are not hearing that.
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|