|
|
Post by melody on Jun 1, 2016 18:18:40 GMT -5
HCO 3251 Increases the penalties for safety zone violations to a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1000.
* May 24, 2016 12:46 PM
* Rep. Jim Cox
* Violation of Safety Zones
* Several times over the past year, I have heard from constituents who no
* longer feel safe in their homes due to firearms activity taking place
* in close proximity to their residence. In several instances, their
* homes have been struck by bullets. Recently in my district, a woman
* was shot while in her house by a stray bullet that was fired by someone
* target shooting in their back yard.
*
*
*
* Current law states that it is unlawful to hunt for, shoot at, trap,
* take, chase or disturb wildlife within 150 yards of any occupied
* residence, camp, industrial or commercial building, farm house or farm
* building, or school or playground without the permission of the
* occupants. It is unlawful to shoot into a safety zone, even if you are
* outside of the zone. Driving game, even without a firearm or bow,
* within a safety zone without permission is unlawful.
*
*
*
* These safety zones are obviously being violated. My proposal would
* increase the current fines and add the revocation of hunting licenses
* in order to deter the violation of safety zones.
*
*
*
* My legislation will increase the penalties for safety zone violations
* to a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor
* more than $1000. A second subsequent offense within two calendar years
* is a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $1000 nor
* more than $2,500. In addition, the first offense would result in the
* loss of hunting privileges for 1 year and 5 years for a second offense.
* Should a third offense occur, no hunting license could again be issued
* to that individual.
*
*
*
* Please join me in sponsoring legislation that will help ensure the
* safety of our citizens on their own property while upholding the Second
* Amendment rights of those who choose to abide by the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by davet on Jun 1, 2016 18:50:18 GMT -5
Smells of revenue raising. OTOH, it would help deter those idiots that hunt within a safety zone. The loss of hunting privileges for the first offense seems steep.
|
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jun 1, 2016 20:28:46 GMT -5
I like it, you should not be hunting in other peoples back yards, even if xbow laws suggest that you can.
Hunters should be a big step morally above those whom they effect.
A bit of class goes a long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 7:04:54 GMT -5
So the woman was hit by someone "target shooting" and they want to increase penalties on hunters when hunting is one of the safest sports out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 7:05:53 GMT -5
I like it, you should not be hunting in other peoples back yards, even if xbow laws suggest that you can. . How would you suggest that deer be controlled in very residential and urban areas where bowhunting with all forms of bows accounts for a majority of the harvest? |
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 7:08:41 GMT -5
The loss of hunting privileges for the first offense seems steep. Yep. Since I hunt in the SRA often, I can see where overzealous enforcement would pinch people way too hard when the service hunters in these area provide is huge. I will oppose if it gets any traction. |
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jun 2, 2016 7:11:53 GMT -5
The loss of hunting privileges for the first offense seems steep. Yep. Since I hunt in the SRA often, I can see where overzealous enforcement would pinch people way too hard when the service hunters in these area provide is huge. I will oppose if it gets any traction. Of course you would find laws that actually protect land owners offensive, nothing surprising there. |
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 7:30:20 GMT -5
I like it, you should not be hunting in other peoples back yards, even if xbow laws suggest that you can. . How would you suggest that deer be controlled in very residential and urban areas where bowhunting with all forms of bows accounts for a majority of the harvest? |
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 7:32:04 GMT -5
Of course you would find laws that actually protect land owners offensive, nothing surprising there. And how would this law protect the landowners? Apparently the push for this was an target shooting incident. The people pushing this legislation have a greater risk of being assaulted in their own homes than injured by a hunter. Much greater risk. Hunting is very safe. Well documented. I can see this law causing some to reconsider hunting in close proximity to built up areas where hunting is needed the most. Yet, again not surprised you choose to ignore the good data that we have nationwide that puts hunters in a positive light to further personal wars and agendas. |
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jun 2, 2016 11:38:36 GMT -5
Hunting in urban areas helps to control deer numbers, and many Beemers have been saved due to hunters. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 12:07:43 GMT -5
I like it, you should not be hunting in other peoples back yards, even if xbow laws suggest that you can. Hunters should be a big step morally above those whom they effect. A bit of class goes a long way. How would you suggest that deer be controlled in very residential and urban areas where bowhunting with all forms of bows accounts for a majority of the harvest? Still waiting.............. |
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jun 2, 2016 12:24:50 GMT -5
I like it, you should not be hunting in other peoples back yards, even if xbow laws suggest that you can. Hunters should be a big step morally above those whom they effect. A bit of class goes a long way. How would you suggest that deer be controlled in very residential and urban areas where bowhunting with all forms of bows accounts for a majority of the harvest? Still waiting.............. What is it, do you just read the words that you want, I didn't say anything about stopping hunters, I said arrest them and fine the hell out of the slobs who can't play by the rules. "Over zealous" was the term you used, slobs and trespassers are the scourge of hunting in this state, you want them protected I want them out! |
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 13:16:53 GMT -5
What is it, do you just read the words that you want, I didn't say anything about stopping hunters, I said arrest them and fine the hell out of the slobs who can't play by the rules. Okay. Here are your words again. Sure looks like you are saying that hunters should not be hunting in peoples backyards(safety zones)in regards to the context which was hunting in urban areas and safety zones. How do you suggest we kill the deer since archery hunting in these areas accounts for the majority of the harvest? |
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Jun 2, 2016 13:26:51 GMT -5
What is it, do you just read the words that you want, I didn't say anything about stopping hunters, I said arrest them and fine the hell out of the slobs who can't play by the rules. Okay. Here are your words again. Sure looks like you are saying that hunters should not be hunting in peoples backyards(safety zones)in regards to the context which was hunting in urban areas and safety zones. How do you suggest we kill the deer since archery hunting in these areas accounts for the majority of the harvest? And the wheels on the bus go round and round.......... confused-smiley-013 |
|
|
|
Post by turkeykiller on Jun 2, 2016 14:20:38 GMT -5
To me, it is not worth the effort to pass. Just like trespassing, the outlaws will still ignore the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 2, 2016 14:35:16 GMT -5
And the wheels on the bus go round and round.......... confused-smiley-013 So would you like to clarify your statement about hunting in or in close proximity to back yards(safety zones) in the urban areas? Is it this, which would result in hunters not hunting in close proximity to developments? Or is it something like this; "You should not be hunting in back yards(safety zones), even if xbow laws suggest you can, without permission of the landowner." |
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 3, 2016 6:47:58 GMT -5
That is what I thought....
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmerstutzen on Jun 3, 2016 15:04:35 GMT -5
Proof that being a legiscritter does not require an IQ. I wonder if any one has explained to him that target shooting is not hunting. We already have a law to cover such careless target shooters. It is called reckless endangerment.
|
|
