junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 2, 2014 22:23:41 GMT -4
I was reading this shit show waiting for the inevitable shitstorm and hit this reply: novascotiahunting.com/forums/index.php?/topic/30618-posting-land/?p=374618I can't find any regulations that say where you can and can't LOAD your gun. I can find lots of info about where you can discharge it. I'd love to ask that guy what he's talkin about but when I make an Id on that site, it doesn't let me do anything. Does anyone know of any laws that say you can't have a loaded gun within certain distances? Seems like a stretch to me.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 2, 2014 22:44:04 GMT -4
NVM... Found the answer to my own question. It's Federal: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-5.html?texthighlight=loaded+load#s-15. How many Federal laws are printed in the Hunting regulation book? 15. An individual may load a firearm or handle a loaded firearm only in a place where the firearm may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws. God I hate when people spew shit on the internet without backing up what they're saying. You know why they don't? Because then they can spew bullshit the other half of the time and hope you'll be lazy enough to just take their word for it. Anyway, much thanks to that asshat to pointing to the law you'd be breaking. Keeping people in the dark doesn't make you look smart, it just makes you look like a self-important asshat.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 3, 2014 4:18:53 GMT -4
You are so correct I assume you are referring to the longggggggggggggg post(s) that stick handle better than Bobby Orr around the issue, where perhaps, it becomes advantageous to that particular posters beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 3, 2014 7:51:21 GMT -4
thanks for the clarification Junko i tend to agree when i ask a question i want the facts and supported not someones assumption
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 3, 2014 10:42:41 GMT -4
You are so correct I assume you are referring to the longggggggggggggg post(s) that stick handle better than Bobby Orr around the issue, where perhaps, it becomes advantageous to that particular posters beliefs. It's the straight up bullshit that gets me. Take this quote from this post: So this fella knows what a dwelling is and knows where to find the definition, but he ain't gonna share it. We're just gonna have to take his word for it because he plays a lawyer on the internet. Here's why he's full of shit. The only definition of dwelling that would matter would have to be in the Wildlife Act. Since it ain't defined in the Wildlife Act, it's up to a judge to decide. This has already happened in NS in the case of R. v. Hicks. Totally unrelated to hunting, but it's the same thing. You just can't pull a definition out of your arse and pretend it's the one the law will use. A judge would probably consult Black's Law Dictionary and go from there, taking the intention of the law into consideration. Here's how it's defined there: Dwelling-place, or home, means some permanent abode or residence, with intention to remain ; and Is not synonymous with "domicile," as used in International law, but has a more limited and restricted meaning. Jefferson v. Washington, 19 Me. 293. Like in the R. v. Hicks case, the judge might decide to include trailers, tents, yurts and cardboard boxes to that. It's totally up to them. So to provide an actual educated guess as to what a dwelling is, it's a house/home until a judge says otherwise. See? That wasn't so f'in hard. Sorry for the rant boys, but the "experts" over there drive me nuts.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 3, 2014 10:54:31 GMT -4
That is the same post/Poster whom I was referring, and I still agreee with you. LOL
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 3, 2014 11:25:32 GMT -4
Junko did you happen to read the clarification on when a cross bow is considered loaded/unloaded and the required times to do so?
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 3, 2014 11:55:08 GMT -4
Junko did you happen to read the clarification on when a cross bow is considered loaded/unloaded and the required times to do so? In reference to the distance regulations? As far as I can tell, the NS government doesn't really concern itself with where you have something loaded unless it's in a vehicle or vessel. The Federal law wouldn't apply to bows or crossbows since they're not firearms, so they wouldn't be able to charge you with anything for having a loaded crossbow within these distances. Nothing I could find anyway. They'd have to get you when you actually discharge it.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 4, 2014 8:35:11 GMT -4
Actually, the Wildlife Act is a bit more specific than simply just saying "dwelling"... So, when used as a noun, 'dwelling' encompasses a myriad of definitions...But for the purpose of the Wildlife Act, it is used as an adjective. The Wildlife Act provides definition of a 'camp', which includes the tents, and trailers, and such, but does not include 'camp' in the exclusionary definition. Does it make a difference?...You'll have ta ask the Judge. ...IMHO
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 4, 2014 8:43:42 GMT -4
So this fella knows what a dwelling is and knows where to find the definition, but he ain't gonna share it. We're just gonna have to take his word for it because he plays a lawyer on the internet. And here he finally shines his knowledge done onto the plebeians and confers his great wisdom.Again, this is total bullshit. It doesn't matter how anyone else defines dwelling, dwelling-place or dwelling-house anywhere else. You can't say which definition the Act is using because it's not defined in the Act. It's 100% up to the judge to decide. At that point, it becomes case law and that definition may be used in further cases. As far as I'm aware this hasn't happened in relation to the Wildlife Act. Now I would guess that the judge might decide to include any structure that a bullet could rip through and hit people/animals. But that's a GUESS. This asshat preaches his view of the law like gospel and it's obvious he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 4, 2014 8:59:30 GMT -4
Actually, the Wildlife Act is a bit more specific than simply just saying "dwelling"... So, when used as a noun, 'dwelling' encompasses a myriad of definitions...But for the purpose of the Wildlife Act, it is used as an adjective. The Wildlife Act provides definition of a 'camp', which includes the tents, and trailers, and such, but does not include 'camp' in the exclusionary definition. Does it make a difference?...You'll have ta ask the Judge. ...IMHO In most of the act and regulations it's used as a noun. Dwelling. That's the word most often used. In law the term dwelling-house is often used and considered to be a noun. See Black's definition of dwelling-house here. In R. v. Hicks they went with the definition of dwelling-place and tacked on their own stipulations. And you're right, it does define "camp". It seems they defined that term to allow transporting of firearms on Sundays in wildlife habitat. If dwelling was as all-encompassing as internet lawyer claims, there would be no need to define camp. They could simply refer to these temporary residences as dwellings. You're 100% correct. You WILL have to ask a judge. That's my point. Anyone telling you they know the definition of dwelling is up to their eyeballs in bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 4, 2014 9:36:21 GMT -4
Hopefully, people realize that anonymous postings to an internet forum are only sometimes qualified...and that the qualification(s) of anyone's opinion is subjective and, more often than not, wrong.
On the surface, what would appear to be a valid argument, holds no more water than a dip net.
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 4, 2014 13:45:08 GMT -4
Hopefully, people realize that anonymous postings to an internet forum are only sometimes qualified...and that the qualification(s) of anyone's opinion is subjective and, more often than not, wrong. On the surface, what would appear to be a valid argument, holds no more water than a dip net. Bingo
|
|
|
Post by CanadianGoldenEagle on Dec 5, 2014 3:31:45 GMT -4
Great to see that everybody still has the same feelings as myself regarding posts on the other site. I'm still banned from there and haven't checked it in a looooonnnnnnggggg time (I think it was February when I last checked).
Thanks for the clarification and details though Junko, they're much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 5, 2014 9:13:35 GMT -4
Ken how the rabbits running? like to get out for a bunny blast all members above are welcome as well !
|
|
|
Post by CanadianGoldenEagle on Dec 5, 2014 10:18:59 GMT -4
Haven't managed to see any around although I have seen some sign. Going out into the woods on Saturday to do some still hunting and see what I can find. I set the snares where I had them last year but there're too many areas they can run through even though I block off (problem is to get the things for blocking off one run I open up another area they can run through). I can't wait until the snow is down so that the chances are reduced. Other problem I'm finding is that when the grouse are spooked they seem to be causing too much ruckus and it's spooking everything else within earshot.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 5, 2014 13:26:56 GMT -4
...Other problem I'm finding is that when the grouse are spooked they seem to be causing too much ruckus and it's spooking everything else within earshot. Ken, Typically, it's not that the grouse are spooked that is scaring everything else. The grouse get spooked because there are predators in the area...including you...and everything else is just showing the same spooky response. Certain conditions, such as wind, will force grouse into a defensive mode, and later in the seson they always get a bit 'flighty'...but I'd suggest they aren't the source of your woes...IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by CanadianGoldenEagle on Dec 5, 2014 14:31:51 GMT -4
Thanks Bob. I'm probably being about as stealthy as a concrete block through plate glass as well which isn't helping matters.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 6, 2014 9:01:28 GMT -4
I'm kind've off topic, but...
Last year I was up in one of my hunting partner's stands at what we call the front plot. All evening, I had watched 3 grouse pecking about the plot, and they eventually moved into one of the little clusters of alders that intersperse the plot. Out comes this little spike...munching his way along...and as he moves towards the alders...t-h-rrrrrrr-u-mp...off goes the first grouse. He stops and watches it fly off to the lower corner of the field. He takes 2 more steps...t-h-rrrrrr-u-m-p...off goes the next one, heading to the same corner...and again he just stops and watches...
The li'l fella keeps munching his way along, and I'm waiting for the third grouse to bust, but nothing...and nothing...and nothing... ...and just about when he gets his nose close to the alders...t-h-rrrrrrrrr-u-m-p...off goes the third grouse!!! Well...if that little guy didn't turn a cartwheel in mid-air, he was pretty darn close to completing one! He flipped right straight backwards, and when he hit the ground he stopped and stared at the grouse heading off to that lower corner. At that instant in time, I was able to read that deer's mind..."You s-o-n-o-f-a-b-i-t-c-h !!"
I was darn near choking trying not to laugh out loud.
(The next morning, I was in the same stand, and as the frost was lifting from the field, one, then two, then the third grouse busted out of that lower corner. They must've roosted there for the night. I got ready , expecting to see a deer come out from that general area...but got treated to a sight when a gorgeous, huge, Tom bobcat made his appearance. I got to watch him for 10 or 15 minutes as he stalked about the edge of the field. Beautiful critter.)
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 6, 2014 9:17:49 GMT -4
Yes they are
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 8, 2014 13:49:19 GMT -4
My god, just when I thought things couldn't get any more ludicrous. Check out this.Imagine that? So all you have to do create your own private hunting preserve is strategically place $20 Canadian Tire tents all over your property or Crown property for that matter. It's perfectly legal to camp on Crown land (unless it's specifically stated otherwise). There you go. Fill your boots. Again, they decided to define camp for a reason: (f) “camp” means a temporary residence other than a principal place of residence and includes a tent, trailer, vehicle or vessel which may be used for the purpose of a shelter or temporary residence; If everything that is a camp is a dwelling, it's redundant. If you go with the standard law definition of dwelling as a house/home (which is the best you can do with the information given) then the camp definition would be necessary based on it's usage in the transport laws. I'm just gonna sit back and watch the fireworks on this one. Too rich. The above conclusion is so dumb and incendiary that I'm starting to think this guy knows better and is just having a blast trolling.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 8, 2014 14:19:25 GMT -4
Btw, the enforcement page on the DNR site has a document that explains all of the stupid trespassing stuff pretty clearly: www.novascotia.ca/natr/enforcement/pdf/trespass_2.pdfI don't know why every thread about that shit goes on and on the way it does. No one can be charged for trespassing while hunting on forested property whether you give them written or verbal notice. They can be charged with lots of other things if they're breaking other laws and you can sue for damages but hey, everyone in that thread already knows that. They just like to fight about it. I'm gonna warm up some popcorn and enjoy the shitshow.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 8, 2014 15:42:40 GMT -4
Actually, junko, you can be charged for trespass, but you will not be prosecuted (ie. found guilty in court). A peace officer will charge you (write the citation) which includes a fine you can pay out of court. In other words, you agree you're guilty, in the eyes of the law. However, should you decide to fight it, you will have to go to court...plead not guilty...and if the prosecutor decides to proceed with it, you will have to go back to court for the hearing...present your evidences / case...and wait for the judges interpretation of the exclusion to hunters in the PPA.
People keep referring to this exclusion as a 'right'. It is not. It is extended privelege with very strict parameters / guidelines that have to be adhered to.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 8, 2014 16:27:27 GMT -4
Actually, junko, you can be charged for trespass, but you will not be prosecuted (ie. found guilty in court). A peace officer will charge you (write the citation) which includes a fine you can pay out of court. In other words, you agree you're guilty, in the eyes of the law. However, should you decide to fight it, you will have to go to court...plead not guilty...and if the prosecutor decides to proceed with it, you will have to go back to court for the hearing...present your evidences / case...and wait for the judges interpretation of the exclusion to hunters in the PPA. People keep referring to this exclusion as a 'right'. It is not. It is extended privelege with very strict parameters / guidelines that have to be adhered to. That's an interesting take. Where are you getting this information? "A peace officer will charge you"? Can you back this claim? The law explicitly tells them not to. I guess you could argue that someone could be charged with lots of laws that they didn't actually break, but if you think that's standard operating procedure you're mistaken. If an officer makes it a habit of charging people for crimes when there is an explicit exclusion for that charge in the exact same Act they're using for the charges in the first place, they won't be an officer for very long. Especially if the person they're charging can show them this part of the Act in their hunting regulation booklet. Read the article from DNR, it's not that complicated.
|
|
|
Post by cochise on Dec 8, 2014 20:01:28 GMT -4
You're putting emphasis on words that was not intended...and I'm not going to get into an argument over it, junko. If I wanted to do that, I'd go back to it on the other site.
I'm extremely well versed in the PPA and its implications towards landowners and hunters. You only have to read a few of those threads to learn of people who have been charged...I personally know people who have been charged...and I even know a landowner who was himself charged (and convicted under the criminal code) and another that a police officer threatened to charge.
It is not always a cut-and-dried circumstance.
Have a good day.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 8, 2014 21:04:14 GMT -4
You're putting emphasis on words that was not intended...and I'm not going to get into an argument over it, junko. If I wanted to do that, I'd go back to it on the other site. I'm extremely well versed in the PPA and its implications towards landowners and hunters. You only have to read a few of those threads to learn of people who have been charged...I personally know people who have been charged...and I even know a landowner who was himself charged (and convicted under the criminal code) and another that a police officer threatened to charge. It is not always a cut-and-dried circumstance. Have a good day. Cochise, even if I misread how emphasis was supposed to be applied in your statement, and I apologize if I did, I still addressed that point in my second sentence. You SHOULD NOT be charged with trespassing for lawfully hunting on forested land. The fact that people seem to think this is likely and something we should just accept does not sit well with me at all. You're basically telling people that if I break no law and hurt no people or property, that if someone else somehow feels violated by my actions I should expect to be punished for them. Maybe not prosecuted, but many see having to go through the system as punishment enough to pay a fine and let it be. This is not how law is meant to work and it should be unacceptable to anyone. I'm not arguing for this particular law on one side or another. I'm pointing out how the law SHOULD work. What you describe is abuse of the law. And I've read the threads. All hearsay threats from people interested keeping others off their land from what I've seen. I have never seen one person come forward to say they've been on the receiving end of these charges. Regards.
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 10, 2014 9:25:45 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lguthro on Dec 10, 2014 15:52:48 GMT -4
the way most or of Laws, bylaws, standards, policy and procedures are written by one organization where a a spereate jurisdiction has authority and can override said decision. Look at the gun laws Federal saws one thing provincal says another. There a more loop wholes and grey area then even a lawyer can understand. Laws that supposed to work and protect us almost never work as intend. The old saying is true laws are meant to be broke and someone will figure out how and how to do it legally
|
|
junko
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by junko on Dec 12, 2014 9:11:54 GMT -4
Still following the whole trespassing shit show on the other site and there's something that's come up a few times that people should know... I remembered it coming up in one of those threads and had to do some googling but I found it... You're not liable if some random hunter hurts themselves on your forested land unless you did something to intentionally cause them harm. Like setting booby traps or some shit. Here's the Act: nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/occupier.htm Sections 4,5 & 6 cover it.
|
|
|
Post by mwo on Dec 12, 2014 9:38:21 GMT -4
Junko, not sure of your involvement over there. However for clarity I am against section 15 of the PPA. However I also understand it to the letter and abide by that particular Act, regardless. Some over there are throwing drama and insults into the situation. Private preserves, land barons, and similar issues. One has nothing to do with the other, but it sounds good, Drama is attractive. In the case of WOT, he knows his stuff, make no mistake, although he is confused over para 4 of the same PPA. Others also know the PPA, inclusive of me. I have been fighting the PPA section 15 for 4 years now, Politically, Legally. That Private Members bill that you dismissed earlier, that is mine. So how is that for transparency? As well, someone cannot use one law to their individual advantage, like WOT is with his trapping adventures and then dismiss other laws because they do not work for him, example Helmets on ATV's. Again for clarity, I intend to challenge the PPA, Politically/Legally until it is amended or I am dead.
|
|