Anybody shoot on Weyerhaeuser land despite WARNINGS?

[eldbillbo]

The biggest concern for tree companies even the good ones is forest fires. Letting people shoot on their land risk the chance of a forest fire which can cost millions of dollars and risk the lives of those fighting it . Thats the main reason for not allowing shooting. Hunting is done in Oct and November which is the rain season for most of oregon and even then they are told no target practicing . Sure a responsible shooter would not shoot during the dry season but a responsible shooter would also follow the rules of the land.

 

[Member 5605]

I am trying to understand if it's a warning, if it's a get off the property now! Or if it's worse, not from what you think it is, but hopefully from someone who's been in that position.

A: You have a terrible way to respond to people, perhaps socials skills aren't the strongest in your field of life.

B: I've dealt with timber companies

C: my response was clear, re-read it.

 

[bullitt]

I am a forester.

Those no shooting signs are there for several reasons.

1) people don't respect other peoples property and shoot TV's, leave trash, etc.

2) fire danger in the summer

3) legal liability, people hurt them selves and then sue the landowner.

4) financial damage, trees with bullets in them cause lots of damage to sawmills. I have seen places where shooters have done tens of thousands of dollars of damage by shooting up trees. Both on purpose or the trees were just in the background.

5) weather you can see them or not. There are lots of other people in the woods. My coworker and I have both been shot at while working by people out in the woods shooting.

If it upsets you that private landowners don't allow shooting, I'm sorry. But they do it because unfortunately some people ruined it for everyone by being irresponsible. Would you let anyone and everyone shoot haphazardly on your property?

 

[clash]

A: You have a terrible way to respond to people, perhaps socials skills aren't the strongest in your field of life.

B: I've dealt with timber companies

C: my response was clear, re-read it.

It was a good response though, you have to admit!

 

[clash]

I am a forester.

Those no shooting signs are there for several reasons.

1) people don't respect other peoples property and shoot TV's, leave trash, etc.

2) fire danger in the summer

3) legal liability, people hurt them selves and then sue the landowner.

4) financial damage, trees with bullets in them cause lots of damage to sawmills. I have seen places where shooters have done tens of thousands of dollars of damage by shooting up trees. Both on purpose or the trees were just in the background.

5) weather you can see them or not. There are lots of other people in the woods. My coworker and I have both been shot at while working by people out in the woods shooting.

If it upsets you that private landowners don't allow shooting, I'm sorry. But they do it because unfortunately some people ruined it for everyone by being irresponsible. Would you let anyone and everyone shoot haphazardly on your property?

Finally a smart well written and thoughtful response to counter balance the nonsense! Factual, well organized. Unfortunately it took 24 posts! Thank you!

 

[The B]

I don't think I saw a solid internet armchair legal answer to the question of what can happen.....

You can only be guilty of trespassing if you're asked to leave an area that's open to the public and you refuse. Just like going into Washington Square with a pistol under your jacket - no legal harm will come to you, so long as you leave when asked. Yes - the sign clearly states "no heaters," or whatever stupid crap it says, but that doesnt mean you're trespassing if you do it anyway. Private requests to behave certain ways on private property aren't law.

 

[clash]

I don't think I saw a solid internet armchair legal answer to the question of what can happen.....

You can only be guilty of trespassing if you're asked to leave an area that's open to the public and you refuse. Just like going into Washington Square with a pistol under your jacket - no legal harm will come to you, so long as you leave when asked. Yes - the sign clearly states "no heaters," or whatever stupid crap it says, but that doesnt mean you're trespassing if you do it anyway. Private requests to behave certain ways on private property aren't law.

Another thoughtful and great answer. It turns out there are brilliant people here.
Ironically your answer was my suspicion, and that's really why I came here to ask, and that was the intent of the post. I was curious about this aspect. of it, not just for tree farms, but for anywhere, including the mall! If a sign says "No Entry" and you enter, clearly you are trespassing under state law, which is a clear cut problem. But if entry is legal, a bunch of activities are legal, including hunting which is effectively target shooting by the way(Because you are shooting at targets, live targets, but targets nonetheless). Can you then turn and tell a judge and jury, you are trespassing because you did something in particular. I was looking for actual examples someone went through, or at least someone intelligent enough, or who understands the law enough to tell me. I even posed the same dilemma. If I invite you into my home but have a no smoking sign inside. The minute you whip up a cigarette, I doubt I can have you arrested for trespassing. I d ask you to leave, and then if you refused, then I d have you arrested for trespassing. On the other hand if I woke up and found a stranger in my living room, then I wouldn't have to ask them to leave first, I could have them arrested. There are a lot of places like Starbucks and also Target stores now "Private Property" too that say, no weapons allowed inside. Do they get folks arrested for trespassing because someone was seen packing? All the cases I read about were about people asked to leave the store, or coffee shop, then if you put up a fight, you are trespassing! You cannot make a place public in the first place, and then claim state law which applies strictly to private places, not privately owned public places! And tree farms have to allow public entry because of the tax breaks they get. They can forgo those tax breaks and make the farms strickly private, with "No entry signs". But if they want the tax breaks for which we pay for, they have to allow the public on.

That's what I wanted clarity on, but instead of reading the post carefully and giving intelligent responses, people decide to come here and unload whatever frustrations their nagging wife or disobedient kids have accumulated upon them. So if you don't understand english or are frustrated with life, stay away from this thread. You don't need to say anything.

 

[solv3nt]

164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270. As used in ORS 164.205 to 164.270, except as the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.

(2) "Dwelling" means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.

(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:

(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;

(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;

(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or

(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.


(4) "Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge" includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.

(6) "Premises" includes any building and any real property, whether privately or publicly owned. [1971 c.743 §135; 1983 c.740 §33; 1999 c.1040 §10; 2003 c.444 §1]

<broken link removed>


It doesn't specifically mention signs as having the letter of the law, but are you willing to risk that? Why would you knowingly go onto someone's property and do exactly what they ask you not to do? By shooting on someone's property that has specifically asked you not to shoot, is only going to accomplish you either getting arrested, or them completely closing off their property to everybody. Don't be that jackwagon.

 

[IheartSig]

It doesn't specifically mention signs as having the letter of the law, but are you willing to risk that? Why would you knowingly go onto someone's property and do exactly what they ask you not to do? By shooting on someone's property that has specifically asked you not to shoot, is only going to accomplish you either getting arrested, or them completely closing off their property to everybody. Don't be that jackwagon.

Solv3nt pretty much hit the nail on the head. Does it really matter if you "can get away with it"? Why would you do something that someone specifically asked you not to do on their privately owned land?

From reading your responses it sounds a lot like you are looking for some kind of "get out of jail free" card to stack against your intent to go shoot on private property against the owners request. That's a crappy thing to do and it is yet another reason we lose traction with the public and our designated "public shooting areas" seem to be dwindling.

 

[solv3nt]

Solv3nt pretty much hit the nail on the head. Does it really matter if you "can get away with it"? Why would you do something that someone specifically asked you not to do on their privately owned land?

From reading your responses it sounds a lot like you are looking for some kind of "get out of jail free" card to stack against your intent to go shoot on private property against the owners request. That's a crappy thing to do and it is yet another reason we lose traction with the public and our designated "public shooting areas" seem to be dwindling.

Also, people may miss no gun signs on private property, but if it's concealed, you're not drawing attention to yourself. However, if you are shooting, which is typically pretty loud, mine are at least, then the odds are pretty good that you'll draw attention.

I have a buddy that was hunting in the Roseburg area, and he inadvertently went about 150' into a guys property. The sheriff was called, but the owner declined to charge him unless he did it again. He was very close to losing his rifle, CHL, and I think even hunting rights. The law doesn't directly state whether or not that a sign has the letter of the law, but is it worth risking everything?

 

[aflineman]

It may not be just about trespassing either. You will most likely get arrested for damage to private property. I have personally see this happen on RFP land. They also sited the guy for illegal dumping, even though the stuff had been there a while. Both charges stuck also. Forest product companies have deep pockets. This was in the '90s though, so their sway may not be as absolute.

 

[IheartSig]

That's what I wanted clarity on, but instead of reading the post carefully and giving intelligent responses, people decide to come here and unload whatever frustrations their nagging wife or disobedient kids have accumulated upon them. So if you don't understand english or are frustrated with life, stay away from this thread. You don't need to say anything.

Haha no you didn't...be real, man. You wanted to bolster support of breaking a law or perceived law, so you could feel better about and/or validate the actions you likely already engage in. Then, when you got several answers you didn't want to hear, you condemned those and glorified the few that provided "legal loopholes" for you to continue engaging in the afore mention bad practice. THEN you go on to insult the very same community you pretended to ask information for?

wow. Good luck.

 

[Ron Eagle Elk]

It sounds to me like your looking for permission to disrespect someone's private property rights. Is it okay to not follow the rules of the property owner just because they happen to be a big, money grubbing, corporation? Once you don't follow their rules, will you then come onto my 200 acres and shoot it up, even though it's clearly posted? You want to shoot there, ask permission. If you get turned down, live with it, or buy your own property.

 

[The B]

I have a buddy that was hunting in the Roseburg area, and he inadvertently went about 150' into a guys property. The sheriff was called, but the owner declined to charge him unless he did it again. He was very close to losing his rifle, CHL, and I think even hunting rights. The law doesn't directly state whether or not that a sign has the letter of the law, but is it worth risking everything?

Why would he have been close to losing any rights, let alone those? If he was under that impression, it's because the responding deputy probably told him that. Unfortunately, cops have the same propensity for exaggerating and aggrandizing themselves as everyone else (some would argue more).

Because I call complete BS. There's nothing in the ORS that provides for the rescinding of gun rights because you accidentally strayed onto private property, to shoot or otherwise.

"Knowingly" and "intentionally" are elemental words, in law. Accidental trespasses aren't prosecutable.

 

[solv3nt]

Why would he have been close to losing any rights, let alone those? If he was under that impression, it's because the responding deputy probably told him that. Unfortunately, cops have the same propensity for exaggerating and aggrandizing themselves as everyone else (some would argue more).

Because I call complete BS. There's nothing in the ORS that provides for the rescinding of gun rights because you accidentally strayed onto private property, to shoot or otherwise.

"Knowingly" and "intentionally" are elemental words, in law. Accidental trespasses aren't prosecutable.

496.675 Seizure without warrant by law enforcement personnel. The persons mentioned in ORS 496.645 may at any time, without warrant, seize and take possession of:

(1) Any wildlife which has been caught, taken or killed, or had in possession or under control, which have been killed, had in possession or shipped, at any time, in any manner or for any purpose contrary to the wildlife laws.

(2) Any guns, boats, fishing or other apparatus used for the purpose of hunting or fishing, at any time, in any manner or for any purpose contrary to the wildlife laws. [Amended by 1971 c.658 §18; 1973 c.723 §28]
<broken link removed>

496.992 Penalties. (1) Except as otherwise provided by this section or other law, a violation of any provision of the wildlife laws, or any rule adopted pursuant to the wildlife laws, is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed with a culpable mental state.
<broken link removed>


498.120 Hunting on another's cultivated or enclosed land. (1) No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by the oath of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed land, or the agent of such owner or occupant.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries of "enclosed" land may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence, water or by any visible or distinctive lines that indicate a separation from the surrounding or contiguous territory, and includes the established and posted boundaries of Indian reservations established by treaties of the United States and the various Indian tribes. [Amended by 1959 c.318 §1; 1971 c.580 §1; 1973 c.723 §83]
<broken link removed>


So, you get arrested for trespassing, and your firearm get's confiscated on the spot. Since you were trespassing with a firearm, you used your firearm in a crime. You now have a weapon used in a crime in the police lockup; what would you put your odds of getting your gun back after your long legal battle? A Class-A misdemeanor means revocation of your CHL in Oregon.

 

[solv3nt]

"Knowingly" and "intentionally" are elemental words, in law. Accidental trespasses aren't prosecutable.

Please let me know how well that the "I didn't know I was breaking the law" defense works for you.

 

[The B]

Please let me know how well that the "I didn't know I was breaking the law" defense works for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

In the US legal system, intent is almost always required for guilt to exist. This isn't a secret - do some reading. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, as the saying goes - but not intending any harm is. Usually. Laws that allow for a lack of intent, generally negligence/reckless type laws, always spell out the conditions in which a person can be guilty without direct intent. Wording is generally along the lines of ...in a manner a reasonable person would believe to cause harm.... etc.

You'll note that "intentionally" and "knowingly," the words you're referencing, aren't mine: they're in the elements of Criminal Trespass. No "intentionally," no crime. No "knowingly," no crime.

It's right there in front of you, man.

 

[The B]

So, you get arrested for trespassing, and your firearm get's confiscated on the spot. Since you were trespassing with a firearm, you used your firearm in a crime. You now have a weapon used in a crime in the police lockup; what would you put your odds of getting your gun back after your long legal battle? A Class-A misdemeanor means revocation of your CHL in Oregon.

You're not trespassing if you don't know it. Read the law.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm sorry, but I don't see "knowingly" in the law anywhere.... Wikipedia isn't the law....



164.205 Definitions for ORS 164.205 to 164.270. As used in ORS 164.205 to 164.270, except as the context requires otherwise:

(1) "Building," in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. Where a building consists of separate units, including, but not limited to, separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, each unit is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building.

(2) "Dwelling" means a building which regularly or intermittently is occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present.

(3) "Enter or remain unlawfully" means:

(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so;

(b) To fail to leave premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge;

(c) To enter premises that are open to the public after being lawfully directed not to enter the premises; or

(d) To enter or remain in a motor vehicle when the entrant is not authorized to do so.

(4) "Open to the public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain is required.

(5) "Person in charge" means a person, a representative or employee of the person who has lawful control of premises by ownership, tenancy, official position or other legal relationship. "Person in charge" includes, but is not limited to the person, or holder of a position, designated as the person or position-holder in charge by the Governor, board, commission or governing body of any political subdivision of this state.

(6) "Premises" includes any building and any real property, whether privately or publicly owned. [1971 c.743 §135; 1983 c.740 §33; 1999 c.1040 §10; 2003 c.444 §1]


164.245 Criminal trespass in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §139; 1999 c.1040 §9]


164.255 Criminal trespass in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person:

(a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling;

(b) Having been denied future entry to a building pursuant to a merchant's notice of trespass, reenters the building during hours when the building is open to the public with the intent to commit theft therein;

(c) Enters or remains unlawfully upon railroad yards, tracks, bridges or rights of way; or

(d) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 to 453.912.

(2) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the owner of record of the premises if:

(a) The owner notifies the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the premises that the owner intends to enter the premises;

(b) The owner enters or remains on the premises for the purpose of inspecting or decontaminating the premises or lawfully removing items from the premises; and

(c) The owner has not been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a criminal offense that contributed to the determination that the premises are not fit for use.

(3) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §140; 1993 c.680 §23; 1999 c.837 §1; 2001 c.386 §1; 2003 c.527 §1]


164.265 Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm who, while in possession of a firearm, enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass while in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [1979 c.603 §2]


<broken link removed>

 

[The B]

My days of internet combat are over.

Fact: unless otherwise provided for in a given statute, you have to prove intent, in US criminal law.

Have a nice day!