VA SB 886

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Insinuating someone is smoking weed, and shooting, in any thread here at MML? Are you serious? This thread is starting to swirl the drain,folks...

There is no insinuation, please read his post where he says he will "burn one," then shoot a muzzleloader. "Burn one" is common vernacular for smoking marijuana, which is why I interpreted it the way I did. As in my original response, I apologize if I was wrong.
 
There is no insinuation, please read his post where he says he will "burn one," then shoot a muzzleloader. "Burn one" is common vernacular for smoking marijuana, which is why I interpreted it the way I did. As in my original response, I apologize if I was wrong.
I also took it to mean he was smoking mary jane....might just be our LEO training, but I doubt it.
 
I also took it to mean he was smoking mary jane....might just be our LEO training, but I doubt it.

He was? Where do you get was? Your wording should say he WOULD smoke Mary jane :lewis: BAD COP, no Doughnut for you!

The question Phenix asked me was “How would you respond to a landowner adjacent to your property growing marijuana which spread just over your property line because he didn't properly control it?”

My response was “I WOULD Grab a Lawn Chair, Sit down and BURN one!
 
Last edited:
Okay he would then.:rolleyes: Not a big deal...
I'm doughnut free now almost 18 year's!:thumb:

This thread has run it's course. Looking forward to what the court decides.
 
Last edited:
DEFEATED! SB 886 was defeated in Committee. 12 NO, 1 Yes, 1 abstention. Right to Retrieve is Preserved!

OA9z6LI.png
 
Last edited:
They don't respect their God-given 2A rights, what makes you think they would respect your landowner rights for others not to trespass at will??? What a shame!
 
In Minnesota and wounded game or hunting dogs that stray into private property, the dog's owner or hunter has to gain permission to enter the property to retrieve either. Guns, other dogs yada yada have to be left at the fence separating the properties unless that private property owner specifically allows for either to be brought in. Violating this is punishable by law. The way it should be. I'm not big on running deer with dogs. I feel that if you can't shoot a deer by you going out and hunting it WITHOUT a dog, you shouldn't be out there hunting the deer. And if you're hunting some other game with a dog, as the owner you are responsible for keeping the dog in check. Can't keep the dog in check? Then put the dog in training so you can be a responsible owner.

And ported.....the second amendment is a "conditional" constitutional right, not God given. Don't mean to be nit-picky but there is a huge difference.
 
In Minnesota and wounded game or hunting dogs that stray into private property, the dog's owner or hunter has to gain permission to enter the property to retrieve either. Guns, other dogs yada yada have to be left at the fence separating the properties unless that private property owner specifically allows for either to be brought in. Violating this is punishable by law. The way it should be. I'm not big on running deer with dogs. I feel that if you can't shoot a deer by you going out and hunting it WITHOUT a dog, you shouldn't be out there hunting the deer. And if you're hunting some other game with a dog, as the owner you are responsible for keeping the dog in check. Can't keep the dog in check? Then put the dog in training so you can be a responsible owner.

And ported.....the second amendment is a "conditional" constitutional right, not God given. Don't mean to be nit-picky but there is a huge difference.
No disrespect intended MrTom, but I just read page 9, and 61, of the MN hunting regulations book, again. What I read doesn't line up with what you posted. Sorry for the slight thread derail folks. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
I had the occasion last fall to assist the land owner where I hunt track and retrieve a bow shot buck from a neighboring property that was posted. At the initial request to the owner of that property to get the deer his son said no. A CO was called and a CO and a deputy from the county were both available on site within an hour and the owner himself was approached. We were allowed a light and a knife to get on the property to find and collect the buck. Period. We offered to take a dog to track the deer. No go.

The CO stayed on site until we found and dragged the deer back to the road, then went back to the owners home and thanked him for letting us get the deer back. The CO was with us as we did this. I was uncertain as to what was the rule on this and the CO said there are rules in the book but that ultimately it is the landowner's voice that will be heard. If one says NO. Then NO it is. To go on the property after being told no and being caught doing so is a fineable offense and goes on your permanent record. The CO stated squarely that it doesn't matter if its wounded game or fetching hunting dogs or even livestock that have wandered, if the property is posted against trespass the owner has to give permission for anyone except a CO or other legal beagle with a badge to enter and the landowner can dictate what else goes in there. The CO stated that most cases of trespassing while hunting involve going on posted property without the necessary permission to retrieve an animal in clear view, BUT the people in question took a weapon with them. The CO said that 99% of these cases would have sailed along with a warning had the bow or gun been left at the fence where it is supposed to be left.

My buddy the owner where I hunt asked why the CO hung around and we were told that trespass issues can go south as fast as domestic disturbance calls and that some investigation goes into such calls to be certain that whoever says they shot the deer are on the up and up. He also stated he can do an on-site registration of the deer, especially a large buck, so that any claims against it can be dis-claimed with him as witness.

This was the fall of 2019, October 29th in fact. It was made perfectly clear to us that posted property and getting on it is entirely at the discretion of the land-owner and he can set the rules for entering outside of any law on the books, meaning what he says and ok's or not is the end of the discussion. I have no idea what is written on pages 9 and 61, but much of what's printed in the synopsis is discretionary to the attending CO.....meaning he can interpret the rule in several ways and act as he sees the evidence at hand fitting. Trespass is one such occasion as many things can come into play. When a legitimate hunter is faced with this and denied it its usually a case of "trash hunters trying to get by with something they know full well is against the law" having ruined it for the far more common nice guys. I only know that the man with the badge was telling us. And I'm not going to call him a liar.
 
MN reg book

Exceptions
• A person on foot may, without permission, enter land that is not posted to retrieve a wounded wild animal that was lawfully shot, but may not remain on the land after being told to leave.
• A person on foot may, without permission, enter private land without a firearm to retrieve a hunting dog. After retrieving the dog, the person must immediately leave the premises. This exception does not authorize the taking of the
wild animal.
• A person on foot may, without permission, enter land that is posted with “Walk-In Access” signs.
Permission is required on agricultural land even if it’s not posted.
Hunters and trappers must always respect private lands.
 
AS I mentioned....officer discretion, as told by an officer. Every instance is different and can involve other circumstances. "may not remain on the land after being told to leave"...this being key. We were told not to enter, which is the same thing, so the CO was called. Different day, different officer....maybe things would be different as to retrieving the game. The MN reg book is a synopsis, not the actual law. Get a ticket regarding a fish or game infraction and fight it and you'll be quick to discover that the real law is in a manuscript sized book, not in a synopsis as a brief over-view.
 
Last edited:
We finally had our day in court this week. The local Sheriff's Office failed to serve the summons for five months. Big surprise. Anyway, the judge found sufficient evidence to convict the guy and deferred disposition for one year with a good behavior condition. In other words, the judge found sufficient evidence to find him guilty, but did not sentence him; the judge will only impose the sentence if he does not behave within the next year. Unfortunately, I cannot post the video yet, as the next step is the civil case; this was simply the criminal hearing.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top