Concealed Carry permits....the unintended consequences.

[Madcap_Magician]

This is an issue for your Sheriff's Office, not the DNR. However, the problem will be the same. Generally (in MN law, anyway, but it's pretty common) unless an officer is on the scene, he or she cannot arrest for a misdemeanor (With specific statutorily enumerated exemptions like domestic assault) not committed in his or her presence without an arrest warrant.

Can't get an arrest warrant without probable cause. Can't get probable cause without evidence.

I think if you found property damage (even some good bullet holes in trees by the road), you might be able to get them arrested, but it would still be a stretch.

 

[hatt]

a. A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon in the person’s own dwelling or
place of business, or on land owned or possessed by the person.

You missed that part. Not a lawyer but it looks like an invited guest would fall under that.

"Actual possession is what most of us think of as possession—that is, having physical custody or control of an object" (United States v. Nenadich, 689 F.Supp. 285 [S.D. N.Y. 1988]). Actual possession, also sometimes called possession in fact, is used to describe immediate physical contact. For example, a person wearing a watch has actual possession of the watch.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession

 

[NavyLCDR]

a. A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon in the person’s own dwelling or place of business, or on land owned or possessed by the person.

You missed that part. Not a lawyer but it looks like an invited guest would fall under that.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession

"Actual possession is what most of us think of as possession—that is, having physical custody or control of an object" (United States v. Nenadich, 689 F.Supp. 285 [S.D. N.Y. 1988]). Actual possession, also sometimes called possession in fact, is used to describe immediate physical contact. For example, a person wearing a watch has actual possession of the watch.

According to that logic, then I would be in possession of any land that I was standing on whether it was public/private and whether I had permission to be there or not and thus, according to that logic I could legally conceal carry anywhere without a permit. I can be in possession of stolen goods. I can be in possession of public property. I can also be arrested for being in possession of property that I have acquired illegally whether that property is private or public.

 

[rdhood]

This has nothing to do with CCW and everything to do with your local population. Coyotes are nearly everywhere now, CCW is allowed in most states, and NONE of that happens on a normal basis anywhere. It is not the fault of the law. Responsibility resides with those who are doing this.

Similarly, just because someone with a gun murders someone else in Chicago, don't blame that on MY ability to own and operate a firearm. It is not the fault of the gun or the law, it is the fault of the thugs who committed the murder.


Too often in this country, we fail to place the blame correctly. The OP, like any anti who blames gun violence on guns, blames this on new CCW laws rather than the individuals committing the act!

 

[hatt]

According to that logic, then I would be in possession of any land that I was standing on whether it was public/private and whether I had permission to be there or not and thus, according to that logic I could legally conceal carry anywhere without a permit. I can be in possession of stolen goods. I can be in possession of public property. I can also be arrested for being in possession of property that I have acquired illegally whether that property is private or public.

Show me the link where an invited guest was charged. I told you I'm not a lawyer but having a say in what goes on on your property is fundamental.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Show me the link where an invited guest was charged. I told you I'm not a lawyer but having a say in what goes on on your property is fundamental.

So I can give permission for someone to operate a meth lab on my property and that makes it legal? Let's say I give you a ride to work, does that mean you are in possession of my vehicle during the ride?

In this situation, I would challenge that "possessed by the person" means more than being present by invitation. It means a legal contract, such as a lease or loan agreement, that confers control of that property to the individual. You don't possess my land just because I invite you over for a BBQ in my back yard.

 

[Hokkmike]

Rembrandt
The DNR is telling us that before the new and improved CC law, they could have charged these guys with uncased loaded firearms in the vehicle.....now they can't.

Could it be that the DNR is under enforcing the law or using this argument as a protest against the "new and improved" CCW law?

Certainly the capricious and arbitrary blind firing of guns into another person's property is blind and reckless.

 

[Speedo66]

That event had nothing to do with CC or game laws. Someone shooting onto your property sounds like reckless endangerment, possibly criminal tresspass.

You've got positive ID, file a complaint with your local law enforcement, not a fish cop.

 

[r1derbike]

I'm surprised the hunters were charged with assault, if rounds from those bozos came zinging by their heads.

I would be in fear of my life, but maybe that's not enough when the intent was not to kill the hunters.

How incredibly stupid does one have to be to do this?

 

[Nuclear]

The activity described would reckless endangerment in almost any state. If you found one new bullet hole in anything on your property that would be proof, just like finding a handgun bullet would.

I would also let them know the next time you hear rounds coming your way, you will return fire. I'd also let the local LEO's (not the DNR) know what is going on and what your response will be. I'll bet the LEO's will have a talk with the chuckleheads.

 

[DoubleMag]

I say the DNR reporting officer and his/her super needs their names publicized, along with any other elected LEO that agrees with, not acting on a property owners complaint on illegal trespass, and discharging of firearms.

I am a firm believer in ''make them famous''. They want to support this activity, they don't know split beans from coffee. If they can't get any evidence from a vehicle or occupants of a discharged firearm then they got their LEO degree off the backside of a cereal box. Time to turn in the capguns & plastic spurs.

You can also pursue Jed and Clem shooters civily, a letter from your attorney to them certified return receipt would be a shaker. Explain that one to your mommy, or your wife, Jed.

 

[Willie Sutton]

This is sort of interesting, if you want to follow my logic:

What you are seeing is a reaction to no longer being able to use a simple civil rights status to deter unwanted behaviour, and now the authorities need to actually use the laws that are *intended* to deal with the unwanted behaviour rather than falling back on an excuse to use one thing to accomplish another.

Example:

It used to be that people were harassed legally by the police for being black where black folks weren't wanted. That legal status was encoded in the law, and it was an easy way for the police to give unwanted people a hard time. Nowadays you can't do that, if you want to make a case for vagrancy, or anything else, you need to use the statutes regarding vagrancy, or theft, or <fill in the blank> but you can't use the cartch-all "we don't want your kind here and it's not legal to be your kind 'round here, so vamoose"... and I am sure that many mourned the change.

Now here we have police who would have taken the easy way out when arresting and charging these guys. "have a gun? You're under arrest". That made it easy to be a cop. Bad for the citizens, but easy for the cops (and for those who want the same results). Nowadays it's different... "Ok, your gun is legal..." and now the cops need to actually investigate the real crime, and to determine charges, and to use the court system to get warrants, etc., etc., etc... and yes it's harder to both (A) harass the innocent and (B) perhaps takes more work to actually deal with a perpetrator.


Freedom is not always something you want your neighbor to fully enjoy, is it? That pesky Constitution sure does make it hard to give folks a hard time sometimes... ;-)


Willie

.

 

[Sam1911]

Man, all I was trying to say in my previous posts, Willie nailed so much more eloquently.

 

[Ankeny]

I fail to see how concealed carry laws have anything to do with the situation.

Same here. It's a matter of slob hunters exhibiting poor behavior. Either there is a statute forbidding their behavior or there is not. Either you have enough proof to have the jurisdiction having authority to pursue the matter (if there was a law broken) or you do not.

 

[hatt]

So I can give permission for someone to operate a meth lab on my property and that makes it legal? Let's say I give you a ride to work, does that mean you are in possession of my vehicle during the ride?

In this situation, I would challenge that "possessed by the person" means more than being present by invitation. It means a legal contract, such as a lease or loan agreement, that confers control of that property to the individual. You don't possess my land just because I invite you over for a BBQ in my back yard.

Can you run a meth lab on your property? Bringing up ridiculous stuff doesn't do us any good. And yes I'm in possession of that seat and have rights until which time you ask me to get out of seat.

 

[40-82]

There is nothing new about illegal road hunting. Law enforcement officers might even catch one or two of them on your property, but they won't solve your problem. Either you're willing to put yourself in the position to see what they did and testify in court about what you saw or you aren't. Game law violators very quickly learn whose land to avoid. Poachers consider the off-chance of an officer being in position to see what they were doing an acceptable risk. Even if they are caught they'll be right back out there tomorrow doing the same thing.

As far as what happened in the incident you described: there were vehicles and shots which leads to suspicions and assumptions, likely correct suspicions and assumptions, but still far short of proof. You don't describe anything that would amount to usable testimony in court.

Every so often one of the law officers in my area wants to float the proposal to make it illegal to have a loaded gun in a vehicle. They go so far as to say that they will overlook the old farmers like me, who are after all only a part of the landscape and not a problem. They promise to use their new law to go after road hunters; thus right out of the gates giving up the idea of equal enforcement under the law.

A lsw officer is rarely lucky enough to be right there, right then to witness a major crime. It is far easier to create a series of harassment laws against having a loaded gun in a vehicle that are not inherently wrong in and of themselves. Free men are a problem to govern. It is much easier to dispense with all of that freedom and simply rule. The question you have to ask yourself is how much of your freedom are you willing to give up because you want to avoid standing up in court and facing a criminal.

 

[Duff_McGruff]

Just to make clear what the "unintended consequences" are.....the improved CC law has lead to the new sport of chasing game with and shooting from vehicles.

This just isn't true - guys have always run coyotes with trucks on private property. Running game (i.e. deer) with with any sort of machinery is still very illegal. Coyote hunting is basically completely unrestricted - no bag limits, no weapon requirements, you can bait and spotlight them, etc.

It is also illegal in Iowa to discharge a firearm from a roadway - spelled out pretty clearly in the DNR regulations booklet

 

[Rembrandt]

This just isn't true - guys have always run coyotes with trucks on private property. Running game (i.e. deer) with with any sort of machinery is still very illegal. Coyote hunting is basically completely unrestricted - no bag limits, no weapon requirements, you can bait and spotlight them, etc.

According to the DNR officers we've been talking to about this, running game with pickups has increased dramatically. While you are correct that coyote hunters have done this in the past, it has now spread to deer hunting and is getting worse.

While writing up a bunch of these guys last year for illegal use of radios, the wife of one offender asked the DNR officer "how are we suppose drive deer if we can't use pickups?" DNR officer replied...."try walking". A clear indication that these people don't know how game was hunted in previous generations.

It is also illegal in Iowa to discharge a firearm from a roadway - spelled out pretty clearly in the DNR regulations booklet

Made that point earlier, what we're talking about here is shooting from a vehicle on private property into someone elses land.

 

[Sam1911]

what we're talking about here is shooting ... into someone elses land.

And that right there seems to be the only illegal and/or actionable part of the whole situation.

If they're going to stop this -- or if other law enforcement officers less concerned with fish and game than public safety are going to stop this -- that's the thing they'll have to observe, arrest for, charge, and prosecute.

 

[Duff_McGruff]

According to the DNR officers we've been talking to about this, running game with pickups has increased dramatically. While you are correct that coyote hunters have done this in the past, it has now spread to deer hunting and is getting worse.

While writing up a bunch of these guys last year for illegal use of radios, the wife of one offender asked the DNR officer "how are we suppose drive deer if we can't use pickups?" DNR officer replied...."try walking". A clear indication that these people don't know how game was hunted in previous generations.



Made that point earlier, what we're talking about here is shooting from a vehicle on private property into someone elses land.

That may be true in your area but that's a problem with a bunch of idiots taking the term deer "drive" literally, not with the carry laws. If you don't mind me asking, what area of IA are you in?

If people are running deer with trucks it needs to be reported. Its poaching, no different than spotlighting and high powering them at night. I'm not disagreeing with you saying its a problem in your area but its a poaching/trespassing problem, not a problem with the carry law. As far as shooting from private property onto neighbor property - this is also a pretty clear violation. I can't sit in a tree stand with a bow and shoot a deer on the other side of the fence to property I do not have permission on. The problem, as was pointed out earlier, is the burden of proof. Pretty much have to catch them red handed in a case like that. Otherwise its just a he said/he said situation

 

[Trent]

This is sort of interesting, if you want to follow my logic:

What you are seeing is a reaction to no longer being able to use a simple civil rights status to deter unwanted behaviour, and now the authorities need to actually use the laws that are *intended* to deal with the unwanted behaviour rather than falling back on an excuse to use one thing to accomplish another.

Example:

It used to be that people were harassed legally by the police for being black where black folks weren't wanted. That legal status was encoded in the law, and it was an easy way for the police to give unwanted people a hard time. Nowadays you can't do that, if you want to make a case for vagrancy, or anything else, you need to use the statutes regarding vagrancy, or theft, or <fill in the blank> but you can't use the cartch-all "we don't want your kind here and it's not legal to be your kind 'round here, so vamoose"... and I am sure that many mourned the change.

Now here we have police who would have taken the easy way out when arresting and charging these guys. "have a gun? You're under arrest". That made it easy to be a cop. Bad for the citizens, but easy for the cops (and for those who want the same results). Nowadays it's different... "Ok, your gun is legal..." and now the cops need to actually investigate the real crime, and to determine charges, and to use the court system to get warrants, etc., etc., etc... and yes it's harder to both (A) harass the innocent and (B) perhaps takes more work to actually deal with a perpetrator.


Freedom is not always something you want your neighbor to fully enjoy, is it? That pesky Constitution sure does make it hard to give folks a hard time sometimes... ;-)


Willie

.

Holy crap, Willie.

That was superb.

I'm filing this in the brain-pan for future reference in debates. IL CCW is surely going to bring about some of these same questions eventually.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Man, all I was trying to say in my previous posts, Willie nailed so much more eloquently.

Yup Willie Sutton hammered that one home.

I've always hated laws of prevention, which always sweep with too broad a brush.

For example the Assault Weapon Ban. They though taking certain types of guns from EVERYONE would curb violence committed with them. So in their mind restricting the liberty of the majority in order to weed out a minority was justified. History is full of this type of thought going bad.

These new laws are not causing these people to be negligent. Law Enforcement needs to stop them for negligent behavior, not something that someone thinks makes the behavior easier.

 

[hatt]

Made that point earlier, what we're talking about here is shooting from a vehicle on private property into someone elses land.

And a concealed carry permit doesn't grant anyone that ability. The incident has nothing to do with permits.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Holy crap, Willie. That was superb. I'm filing this in the brain-pan for future reference in debates. IL CCW is surely going to bring about some of these same questions eventually. "


Thanks. Cogitate on the line of reasoning and rhetoric for a while and it'll possibly be a useful tool in debate.


Further:

It's pretty pathetic when the police can't be bothered to actually investigate and prosecute actual crime because they are so used to being able to take the easy way out. But our concern ought not to be to make their jobs easy. If you want to do a job, do the job. If it's a hard job to do, either do it, or step aside. I can see them now:


"Aw...gee... we used to be able to just arrest them for having a gun <sniffle>... now we need to set up a stake out, drink stale coffee all night, and pee in a cup <sob>... I hope I don't pee on my own trousers like last time... <sniffle>... what has the world come to? I need to actually INVESTIGATE and then actually PRODUCE A CASE.... <wail...> Policing was so EASY when all I had to do was to hide behind a law that violated folks constitutional rights, but made it easy to fill in the papers and go home early <sob...> Oh woe is policing... what else can go wrong? Does anyone have a donut to spare?"


Color me unimpressed.



The DNR in this case is either too thinly spread out, undertrained, or (most likely) simply too lazy to deal with the real crime being fostered upon the OP. Feel sorry for them? Not me... Feel sorry for the OP for having these overworked, undertrained, or lazy "civil servants" protecting him from crime? Absolutely. He ought to be peeved at the DNR, not at anything else.


And not for nothing: I wouldn't discriminate too much between so-called "hunters" shooting at my property in the middle of the night and criminals assaulting me by shooting at my place at night. Ya'll shoot at my place in the dark and I'm there? Ya'll can expect aimed fire to be returned with alacrity and enthusiasm. These jokers are ARMED CRIMINALS, not hunters. Treat 'em as such and demand that the DNR and police do the same.




Willie

.

 

[gunnutery]

The new CCW law in reality only made it safer for everyone who chooses to participate by obtaining a permit to carry. Instead of 99 individual sheriffs issuing or denying permits for 99 different reasons, you have (mostly) everyone who applies for a permit accepted and can now carry a gun on their person, in their car or out in the open.

Just because some inconsiderate and lazy people ruined your outing by being reckless shouldn't be blamed on the new CCW law. This group seems to have just found a lazier way of "hunting" within the law (except for shooting into another's property). But we've always had people shooting from cars, shooting into another property, people hunting from vehicles, etc etc. We will always have those kind of reckless people around, now there's just more people able to defend themselves against those types.