Anybody shoot on Weyerhaeuser land despite WARNINGS?

[solv3nt]

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!

Federal Criminal law and State Criminal law are not the same, but by all means, trespass away.

 

[The B]

Nobody is talking about federal law.

 

[solv3nt]

Nobody is talking about federal law.

You just mentioned US criminal law, which differs from State Criminal Law. Also, you don't have to prove "intent" to have committed a crime.

Take the story below, a janitor had a blocked toilet in a tenants room, so he diverted the sewage into a nearby storm drain that he thought was connected to the sewer line. He inadvertently diverted it to the river drain-off, which was a violation of the clean-water act, and a Federal crime. He didn't intend to commit a crime, just fix a blocked toilet.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204903804577082770135339442

Your degree in Criminal Justice should also have taught you that if you are speeding inadvertently, aka, you missed the slower speed sign, you are still speeding. Just because you didn't intend to speed, you can still be charged with speeding. If you happen to pass through a stop sign because you didn't see it, you didn't intend to pass through it, but you did unintentionally.

 

[IheartSig]

This is really kind of a self correcting problem.

Those that believe themselves above or outside the law, or work so hard to interpret the law in their benefit regardless of what others suggest or point out, typically wind up where they belong, dealing with the consequences of their actions.

It's just a shame that some are so selfish they don't see the long term ramifications of their actions on the shooting community.

 

[Liberty97045]

 

[IheartSig]

I had forgotten who I was dealing with...

Haha I remember that thread!

 

[spectra]

 

[clash]

The dumb is really strong around here. No matter anti-gun people outmaneuver us at every turn!
A simple question about an observation that a sign didn't make any sense, and people are turning into Weyerhaeuser lovers!

Went out again today, and actually found 2 long range spots on public land. 1 by mistake the other by gps 200 to 800 yards, and one offering 100 to 1100 yards. So you ladies can unbunch your panties! The beauty is both FFP (Final firing position )and target spots are driveable, so I don't have to hike to setup steel targets and then hike back! I really can't believe I found a 1100 yard spot!


Second location

 

[solv3nt]

The dumb is really strong around here. No matter anti-gun people outmaneuver us at every turn!
A simple question about an observation that a sign didn't make any sense, and people are turning into Weyerhaeuser lovers!

I don't recall anybody on this thread claiming their love to Weyerhauser. You asked a question regarding the legality of shooting on someone's property AFTER they had clearly asked you not to. I posted the law, which shows you in the wrong. People voiced their opinion that if you do get caught shooting on private property after being lawfully directed not to, a sign may or may not hold the letter of the law, you are more than likely going to get the property closed off to hunting as well.

You have repeatedly insulted the intellect of numerous people that you claim as fellow shooters, the same people that you were asking a legal question. Why ask a question if you already had an answer that you were looking for? Other than the road raging Portland biker, nobody has sided with your interpretation of the situation.

If you run into an a-hole during your day, tough break, but fortunately there was only one. If everybody that you encounter during the day is an a-hole, the problem is probably not everybody that you ran into, but yourself. Food for thought....

 

[clash]

I don't recall anybody on this thread claiming their love to Weyerhauser. You asked a question regarding the legality of shooting on someone's property AFTER they had clearly asked you not to. I posted the law, which shows you in the wrong. People voiced their opinion that if you do get caught shooting on private property after being lawfully directed not to, a sign may or may not hold the letter of the law, you are more than likely going to get the property closed off to hunting as well.

You have repeatedly insulted the intellect of numerous people that you claim as fellow shooters, the same people that you were asking a legal question. Why ask a question if you already had an answer that you were looking for? Other than the road raging Portland biker, nobody has sided with your interpretation of the situation.

If you run into an a-hole during your day, tough break, but fortunately there was only one. If everybody that you encounter during the day is an a-hole, the problem is probably not everybody that you ran into, but yourself. Food for thought....

It is very fitting that you felt fingered by my post, even though I didn't specify who was supplying the strength of said dumb! Well done!

I actually encounter a lot of nice people, here included. I don't know where the "everybody" you wrote about came from. You are the only one here who crossed the line with your tone, accusing someone of being a criminal when no crimes have been committed. A question was asked about the legality of a sign. Because someone writes on a sign that breathing is illegal on their property doesn't make it so! Even if it is their property.

I didn't take issue with anybody's else tone, despite the numerous participants, except yours. Why is that? So it's not everybody it's YOU the problem! There was a better way to participate in this debate, and some have very constructively I will add, even the ones who took a different take then the one I was expecting, read the forester's post. But YOU chose not to, and you brought accusations and the wrong tone to it. Review your comments, and look within. You said I am wrong, according to what? I didn't make a statement, didn't take a position, I didn't trespass, I asked a question, then challenged the answers I got because those answer didn't answer the question but instead made accusations. If this was an essay question, there would be a lot of F's here. Answer the question, or stay out of it, but don't bring your life's failures, shortcomings and frustrations to the forefront because you recognized a cheap way to bash someone! Something you artfully shrouded and clouded behind the guise of legality. All you were looking to do was demean and belittle. You just needed a legitimate reason to do so! It's very low of you! This is a forum of ideas! So what's the wrong about in the question?

If anything it would be more constructive to say: fellow shooter, even though no laws were broken, this will present a detriment for reasons 1, 2, 3... and so on like the forester did. But there is a nastier way to do the same thing. And you know both ways. and you made a conscious choice in line with the kind of person you are. The problem is, your expectation was the opposition would lay down and take your abuse.

 

[IheartSig]

It is very fitting that you felt fingered by my post, even though I didn't specify who was supplying the strength of said dumb! Well done!

I actually encounter a lot of nice people, here included. I don't know where the "everybody" you wrote about came from. You are the only one here who crossed the line with your tone, accusing someone of being a criminal when no crimes have been committed. A question was asked about the legality of a sign. Because someone writes on a sign that breathing is illegal on their property doesn't make it so! Even if it is their property.

I didn't take issue with anybody's else tone, despite the numerous participants, except yours. Why is that? So it's not everybody it's YOU the problem! There was a better way to participate in this debate, and some have very constructively I will add, even the ones who took a different take then the one I was expecting, read the forester's post. But YOU chose not to, and you brought accusations and the wrong tone to it. Review your comments, and look within. You said I am wrong, according to what? I didn't make a statement, didn't take a position, I didn't trespass, I asked a question, then challenged the answers I got because those answer didn't answer the question but instead made accusations. If this was an essay question, there would be a lot of F's here. Answer the question, or stay out of it, but don't bring your life's failures, shortcomings and frustrations to the forefront because you recognized a cheap way to bash someone! Something you artfully shrouded and clouded behind the guise of legality. All you were looking to do was demean and belittle. You just needed a legitimate reason to do so! It's very low of you! This is a forum of ideas! So what's the wrong about in the question?

If anything it would be more constructive to say: fellow shooter, even though no laws were broken, this will present a detriment for reasons 1, 2, 3... and so on like the forester did. But there is a nastier way to do the same thing. And you know both ways. and you made a conscious choice in line with the kind of person you are. The problem is, your expectation was the opposition would lay down and take your abuse.

Why are you so disrespectful? Read the things you have written thus far. Your replies are pretty much just petty attacks on people and accusations with no foundation. Are you 5?

 

[P7M13]

It simply comes down to respect. While you may not mind people walking onto your land and target shooting, even though you post signs saying you may not - that reasoning does not apply to other people.

1. If signs are posted, obey the signs.
2. If no signs are posted, and you don't know who owns the land, presume it's NOT OK unless you get permission.
   
3. Your right to possess firearms does not give you the right to use it in public, except in designated places.
4. You're an idiot if you think that lack of intent will excuse you under mens rea scrutiny. You intentionally walk onto property and intentionally shoot your firearm. Two clear cases of intent. Your ignorance of land owner's rights or land ownership is not an excuse. Try defending yourself from that one. If the sign is posted and you didn't see it, too bad. Smart money is on keeping your nose clean.

Blowjobs are illegal in New Jersey (Old law still on the book). Does that mean no one gets blown there, or gets prosecuted for it? 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.

Poor analogy. Harmless actions in private fall under completely different scrutiny. Here in Portland, you can go attend the beerfest at Riverfront Park completely nude. However, get a blowjob in plain view while there, and a whole heap of sheit will come down on your head.

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

You're not speeding if you don't know it? You can try arguing that defense once you have been fined. Why bother?

On a side note, my avatar is a photo of my wife on a day we went shooting _deep_ in the Tillamook forest (~9 miles in). While there, the sheriff rolled up and chatted with us for a few minutes, noted we were policing our brass and trash, thanked us and went on his way. I believe the outcome would have been much different had we been drinking and had trash strewn about, like I see in so many "shooting" areas.

 

[The B]

You're not speeding if you don't know it? You can try arguing that defense once you have been fined. Why bother?

Traffic code is separate from criminal code - there's no requirement of intent for guilt to exist. You'd be immediately corrected by the judge, if you even brought it into the conversation - so bother or no bother, it wouldn't do you any good.

Criminal law requires intent. Part of prosecuting a criminal case is the establishment of intent - you have to argue it, and prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended harm, depending on how the law was written. As noted, there are specific exceptions - but they'll be spelled out in the elements of those specific statutes, and are generally (entirely, AFAIK) limited to negligence/reckless crimes. But even these will still have a "knowingly" element.

 

[solv3nt]

I suggest respecting their PRIVATE property rights.

I fully understand WHY they do not allow target shooting. Trash everywhere, shot shells everywhere, old water heaters and other appliances left in the woods, shot up trees, etc.

You could probably get away with it but why be that guy?

There are private clubs accepting new members in the area. There is also plenty of public land.

Yes they do patrol yes the police do visit those areas and yes you can and most likely will get in trouble for shooting where you do not have permission.

Trespassing with a firearm can get you arrested at least fined I have heard they have cameras at some gates .

If someone opens their land up to use it and says here are the rules why would you want to break them in the first place?

Seem clear to me.

"You have access to be on this property as long as you are not doing xyz."

So you get caught doing xyz then you will be cited.

Simple enough. Why press the issue? Better yet why not call them and ask them if you can get permission to do so? State your intentions and how you plan to keep it clean and even clean up a little if there is debris when you arrive???

Why not go out there and shoot. Then you will know your answer.

No target shooting means exactly that. No target shooting. Not really rocket surgery.

Laws are for the lawless, don't be lawless... until the law is lawless anyway.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

This is really kind of a self correcting problem.

Those that believe themselves above or outside the law, or work so hard to interpret the law in their benefit regardless of what others suggest or point out, typically wind up where they belong, dealing with the consequences of their actions.

It's just a shame that some are so selfish they don't see the long term ramifications of their actions on the shooting community.

Why are you so disrespectful? Read the things you have written thus far. Your replies are pretty much just petty attacks on people and accusations with no foundation. Are you 5?

It simply comes down to respect. While you may not mind people walking onto your land and target shooting, even though you post signs saying you may not - that reasoning does not apply to other people.

1. If signs are posted, obey the signs.
2. If no signs are posted, and you don't know who owns the land, presume it's NOT OK unless you get permission.
   
3. Your right to possess firearms does not give you the right to use it in public, except in designated places.
4. You're an idiot if you think that lack of intent will excuse you under mens rea scrutiny. You intentionally walk onto property and intentionally shoot your firearm. Two clear cases of intent. Your ignorance of land owner's rights or land ownership is not an excuse. Try defending yourself from that one. If the sign is posted and you didn't see it, too bad. Smart money is on keeping your nose clean.

Poor analogy. Harmless actions in private fall under completely different scrutiny. Here in Portland, you can go attend the beerfest at Riverfront Park completely nude. However, get a blowjob in plain view while there, and a whole heap of sheit will come down on your head.



You're not speeding if you don't know it? You can try arguing that defense once you have been fined. Why bother?

On a side note, my avatar is a photo of my wife on a day we went shooting _deep_ in the Tillamook forest (~9 miles in). While there, the sheriff rolled up and chatted with us for a few minutes, noted we were policing our brass and trash, thanked us and went on his way. I believe the outcome would have been much different had we been drinking and had trash strewn about, like I see in so many "shooting" areas.

I don't know where I got "everybody" but here's the majority of comments on this thread. Minus the road raging Portland cyclist and yourself of course. Also, where did I call you a criminal? I said, that the law states that you are a criminal if you do xyz, but I'm not the one giving you the title, you earn it by doing xyz.

 

[solv3nt]

Traffic code is separate from criminal code - there's no requirement of intent for guilt to exist. You'd be immediately corrected by the judge, if you even brought it into the conversation - so bother or no bother, it wouldn't do you any good.

Criminal law requires intent. Part of prosecuting a criminal case is the establishment of intent - you have to argue it, and prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended harm, depending on how the law was written. As noted, there are specific exceptions - but they'll be spelled out in the elements of those specific statutes, and are generally (entirely, AFAIK) limited to negligence/reckless crimes. But even these will still have a "knowingly" element.

Please cite a source other than wikipedia or your criminal justice degree.

 

[solv3nt]

Frankly before people get on their high horses

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

Another thoughtful and great answer. It turns out there are brilliant people here.

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.

The dumb is really strong around here. No matter anti-gun people outmaneuver us at every turn!

It is very fitting that you felt fingered by my post, even though I didn't specify who was supplying the strength of said dumb! Well done!

I actually encounter a lot of nice people, here included. I don't know where the "everybody" you wrote about came from. You are the only one here who crossed the line with your tone, accusing someone of being a criminal when no crimes have been committed. A question was asked about the legality of a sign. Because someone writes on a sign that breathing is illegal on their property doesn't make it so! Even if it is their property.

I didn't take issue with anybody's else tone, despite the numerous participants, except yours. Why is that? So it's not everybody it's YOU the problem! There was a better way to participate in this debate, and some have very constructively I will add, even the ones who took a different take then the one I was expecting, read the forester's post. But YOU chose not to, and you brought accusations and the wrong tone to it. Review your comments, and look within. You said I am wrong, according to what? I didn't make a statement, didn't take a position, I didn't trespass, I asked a question, then challenged the answers I got because those answer didn't answer the question but instead made accusations. If this was an essay question, there would be a lot of F's here. Answer the question, or stay out of it, but don't bring your life's failures, shortcomings and frustrations to the forefront because you recognized a cheap way to bash someone! Something you artfully shrouded and clouded behind the guise of legality. All you were looking to do was demean and belittle. You just needed a legitimate reason to do so! It's very low of you! This is a forum of ideas! So what's the wrong about in the question?

If anything it would be more constructive to say: fellow shooter, even though no laws were broken, this will present a detriment for reasons 1, 2, 3... and so on like the forester did. But there is a nastier way to do the same thing. And you know both ways. and you made a conscious choice in line with the kind of person you are. The problem is, your expectation was the opposition would lay down and take your abuse.

Do you actually read what you write? Please show me an accusatory post of mine directed towards you, as I have shown you plenty of petty attacks by you.

 

[The B]

Please cite a source other than wikipedia or your criminal justice degree.

Hmm.. dig out my law books and cite sources for solv3nt....

Go for a ride, and not care about a dude on the internet.......

Dig out law books for solv3nt.....

Ride my bike in the sun.......

Dig out books for solv3nt........

Ride...

solv3nt.....

It was a hard choice, but I think you're gonna have to do your own homework, guy.

 

[AMT]

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

Ben, this may not be 100% true. I know of a large entity the in PNW that has a lot of land. There have been times that the law has been called. The entity has pressed trespassing charges.

The defense is usually "I didn't know I was trespassing...."

The entities attorney's usually ask a couple simple questions:
1: Is it your property? Usually answered "no".
2: Where you invited onto the property? Usually answered "no".
3: You were trespassing.

*It may be plea-bargained down, but the initial charge is trespassing.

I don't want to argue facts, I just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[solv3nt]

Hmm.. dig out my law books and cite sources for solv3nt....

Go for a ride, and not care about a dude on the internet.......

Dig out law books for solv3nt.....

Ride my bike in the sun.......

Dig out books for solv3nt........

Ride...

solv3nt.....

It was a hard choice, but I think you're gonna have to do your own homework, guy.

So you're not going to back your argument with "facts" other than wikipedia or your criminal justice degree? I cited Oregon state law to back my arguments.

 

[Member 5605]

There be a whole lotta like in this thread now.