Free: Contests & Raffles.
All three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walking
Would it matter if the rifle was unloaded while walking with the flash light?
Quote from: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:42:44 AMAll three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walkingHunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.
I for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.
Quote from: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:47:55 AMQuote from: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:42:44 AMAll three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walkingHunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.How's can mean "how is" or how was". In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.Fail
Quote from: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 09:59:32 AMI for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.My question is why have those cases stood up in court?
Quote from: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:56:13 AMQuote from: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 10:47:55 AMQuote from: Knocker of rocks on February 04, 2014, 10:42:44 AMAll three examples rely on intent and action. In neither case is it against the law to use a flashlight while walkingHunter walks out of the woods carrying a gun with a flashlight that is on. Officer asks him "hows hunting?" Hunter says "good"Individual just admitted to hunting, he is controlling a firearm, and has an artificial light.In WA the requirement for spotlighting were just met. I am not saying this is ethically/morally right, I am saying how these cases have been made.How's can mean "how is" or how was". In this case the past tense would be operative, because the hunter is clearly not hunting, he is talking to a cop in the parking lot.FailOk knocker to make you happy. "How is the hunting"
Quote from: Curly on February 04, 2014, 10:56:35 AMQuote from: bigtex on February 04, 2014, 09:59:32 AMI for one don't think the individual was hunting, at least from the evidence he provided. However I have known officers that have cited for similar incidents and the case has stood up in court.My question is why have those cases stood up in court?Because under the law if the officer can prove you were a) hunting big game b) in "possession or control of a firearm, bow and arrow, or cross bow" and c) having a spotlight, other artificial light, or night vision equipmentThen the law is violated. Like I said, the law isn't like Oregon's where the light must have hit an animal. If you meet those three standards then you have violated the law.Again, I want to say this, in this situation I would not have cited the individual unless there was overwhelming proof he was still hunting. If it was a guy simply walking out of the woods I wouldn't have thought anything of it. But like I said, this is where the intent of the law and the color of the law comes into play. Color of the law is simply if you meet those three things I posted then you can be charged.