Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/29/2001 5:07:51 PM EST
The nearest range to me is an hour away (such a pain).. but I live near a lot of wooded areas/forrets. What is the lagality of just driving way out of town and shooting in the woods or an open field, way away from any structure? would I have to know the property owner? Would the police even care? What about three miles out off of the Florida coast (international waters)? Thanks-
Link Posted: 4/29/2001 5:15:30 PM EST
If it's not your land, you need the permission of the landowner to be there. If it is National or State forest land, you must abide by the appropriate regulations for that area ref: firearms. I can't answer the question on international waters.
Link Posted: 4/29/2001 5:45:46 PM EST
You can shoot in international waters, but why would you want to? I'd get the permission of the land owner to shoot before going on his property. In some states you can be charged with tresspassing even if the land is not properly posted. I can't speak for Florida law, so I can't say if that's the case there. I can tell you that if you just walk out into a field and start shooting without getting permission, you're asking for trouble. Someone is bound to see or hear you shooting. They'll call the sheriff's office or game warden. These guys will want to know what you're doing. If you have permission to be there you'll be ok, otherwise you might be in a jam.
Link Posted: 4/29/2001 5:53:12 PM EST
It is very worthwhile to check. My county, Jefferson, seizes weapons, so I go into the adjoining county. You might check local gun stores and see if there any "unofficial" ranges set up. There are two in my area, and they save me a fortune in range fees. Good Luck!
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 3:12:22 AM EST
Yeah, just find some ole' farmer and ask him if he knows where you might be able to sight in your rifle. You might have to ask a couple of them, but as long as your respectful and don't look like a thug, one of them will end up letting you shoot on his place.
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 8:33:53 PM EST
go to your local BLM office(bureau of land management), they have land to shoot on, look for the FL BLM Office on the Net and it should give you some specifics. the natl forest around here says NO target shooting, but hunting is OK
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:40:48 AM EST
the natl forest around here says NO target shooting, but hunting is OK[/quote] SO you can shot at animals but notat targets? Strange...
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:26:55 PM EST
yeah it is strange, but its probably to keep groups of shooters coming into the woods and throwing lead and brass all over. where a hunter has to be licensed and is in pursuit of game. the forest service usually sets aside target shooting areas away from the general public
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 5:05:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By thee12nv: What is the lagality of just driving way out of town and shooting in the woods or an open field, way away from any structure? would I have to know the property owner? Would the police even care? Thanks-
View Quote
It always amazes me that those who are so quick to exercise their 2nd rights, are so quick to dismiss the property rights of land owners. If I found someone shooting on my property, I would promptly call the sheriff. I have my property posted criminal tresspass with my name and phone number at 8 different locations throughout the property line and access points. You have no clue if the property owner is out walking through his property and happens to cross into your line of fire without you noticing. Property records and the owner's contact information is public record at the county courthouse. There is no excuse for being on someone's property without their permission.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 5:16:40 AM EST
That Three mile swim out to international waters gets old. Especially with a rifle, ammo, and a rifle gong.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 5:49:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By markm: That Three mile swim out to international waters gets old. Especially with a rifle, ammo, and a rifle gong.
View Quote
One of the US Presidents (Tricky Dick I think), extended the three limit by fiat to 200 miles in order to exclude Japanese fishing vessels from fishing off the US coast. More recently drug interdiction has been cited as an advantage of having it that far off shore. (BTW, when will this erosion of civil rights due to the intrusion into them by the government, under the guise of ending illegal drug use, ever end?) PigPen
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 6:10:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By back40: It always amazes me that those who are so quick to exercise their 2nd rights, are so quick to dismiss the property rights of land owners. If I found someone shooting on my property, I would promptly call the sheriff. I have my property posted criminal tresspass with my name and phone number at 8 different locations throughout the property line and access points. You have no clue if the property owner is out walking through his property and happens to cross into your line of fire without you noticing. Property records and the owner's contact information is public record at the county courthouse. There is no excuse for being on someone's property without their permission.
View Quote
I agree with every word that you have written. I really do. Having said that, It amazes me that so many property owners are so unneighborly and unwilling to allow persons to use their land now days. I once had a member of another board tell me how he didn't think that I should have stopped just off the road to urinate!!!~ Now that has been common practice since property rights began not to mention the highway has a right of way for several feet either side of the road. Through out the history of this country, travelers have camped beside the road. This has been a part of our tradition. Now Cowboys on their 10 acre Ponderosa, patrol in Toyota 4X4pickup trucks as if they are guarding Fort Knox. Guys who have been out of the city for a couple of years and have no concept of how real country folk treat passers-by. If I discovered intruders firing firearms on my property without permission, my action (or reaction) would depend on circumstances. No, I would not want them firing without a backstop (such as a creek bank, etc). That would not be tresspassing....it would be irresponsible use of a firearm. I would not want them to make my pasture a regular shooting range but just stopping along the road and responsibly shooting an hour or zeroing their rifle would not bother me. Stopping for a picnic would not disturb me either. Nor would I object to hikers crossing my land and they would be welcome to spend the night camping if they wished....but I would want them to put the fire out when they left. IOW, I am willing to share what I have and be neighborly as long as the visitors are respectful of my property and act responsible. It worries me that so many others are forgeting those neighborly manners and are not country folk at all......just city folk moved to the country! PigPen
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 10:12:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 3:58:55 AM EST
Back40: I don't know what state you live in, but I have the following piece of advice: You say you have the property posted in 8 places. No word on how big the lot is. Here in my state, the posted signs must be of a certain size and type, posted so many feet apart along the entire perimeter, or they are just a happy thought , not enforcable. The person must have a reasonable chance of running into or seeing the sign as they enter the lot. You mention that the signs are on access points along your perimeter. What about the rest of the boundry? Check your state laws are in reference to posting your property line so the signs are enforcable.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 4:16:57 AM EST
Those floating targets while shooting in international waters are a bitch to hit! As far as people on my land wanting to hunt/fish/camp- I agree that a few have ruined it for all- i will not let anybody on the land without permission-including giving their name in case of any troubles.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:36:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By PigPen: I agree with every word that you have written. I really do. Having said that, It amazes me that so many property owners are so unneighborly and unwilling to allow persons to use their land now days.
View Quote
I think you can thank juries and lawyers (our moderator excluded of course :) ) of recent decades for a lot of it. A land owner is responsible for any injuries a tresspasser might suffer on their property due to man made hazzards. In other words, if I dig a line of holes intending to plant trees, and for some reason I never do, if in a few years they become over grown and concealed, joe ATV rider comes flying through, hits the hole, and flips over, I can be sued. Even if I win, I've spent thousands defending myself. People are just taking a defensive position in their life styles more and more. With lawyers taking cases on a contigency basis, the plantif losses very little, and the defendant losses a lot, even if he wins! I think the U.S. really needs to look at the legal systems of other countries where the loser pays all legal fees. I bet it would have a dramatic impact on frivolous lawsuits overnight.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:47:58 AM EST
tcsd1236: I've already done the research. State law requires signs at the access points, and every 1000 feet. Since the only access points are 2 of the corners, 2 more signs cover the other corners, with 4 more in between the 4 corners. Thats enough to cover the 1 mile trip around the property line.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:56:42 AM EST
Back40, Thanx for the exclusion. I agree with a lot of what you say, in general. I think the overly litigiousnous of many "gotta-have-it-now" people results in absurd behavior by landowners and business people. However, a lot of it is over-blown. At least in my state, frivoulous lawsuits are shot down in flames, with attorney's fees to be paid by the loser. Sure, you see the anomolies now and then, the McDonanld's coffee fiasco for example, but those are exceptions to the rule. So, yes it's a problem, but not as big as the media would have you believe. I also agree with you that the rules on "loser pays all" should be expanded. Now, for my disagreement. Landowners do not owe the same duty of care to trespassers in as they do to people invited or on their property with permission. Invitees and licensees (which are fancy words for intited guests or patrons) are owed a duty of care to at least warn against known defects. But, as a general rule, trespassers are not owed much of a duty at all.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 6:23:42 AM EST
Steve: Therein lies the rub, so to speak. Let's use the earlier example of the tree holes and the ATV's for instance. Open fields... the owner has not posted his land with the proper signs. technically, a person coming onto that land IS not a trespasser, unless he has been verbally told by the owner or has observed "no trespassing" signs. That person gets injured in the course of being on that field. The owner will be liable. THAT is why some land owners get nervous.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:23:25 AM EST
I totally disagree (with your example). The ATV operator is operating off-road, in the woods, not on a path designated for same and in an area he's never ridden before? 1) He assumes the risk of unknown hazards based on this example, and 2) He is contributorily negligent for a variety of reasons, the main one being he decided to hot-dog off path/road in woods (or overgrown field or whatever) he was not familiar with. Can he be sued? Sure, any litigious idiot can bring a suit. But the owner, IMHO, will not be liable.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 10:21:26 AM EST
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree unless a legal beagle on the board can jump in. You are right, anyone can sue. In this day and age, most likely the insurance company would settle out of court and the idiot would still rake in the dough. And the owners premiums would go up. Along with new posted signs. Which answers the question about touchy landowners.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 10:26:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By back40: I think you can thank juries and lawyers (our moderator excluded of course :) ) of recent decades for a lot of it. A land owner is responsible for any injuries a tresspasser might suffer on their property due to man made hazzards.
View Quote
I agree that there are too many law suits and the courts and legal system has gone awry.....but......I believe it is more prevalent to blame the legal system for doing something that the person really wanted to do for other reasons. To Wit: 1. Keeping people off the Ponderosa. 2. Making money. This one is frequently seen in the medical profession. You know, " We better do this test that I earn a couple thousand dollars for to defend ourselves agains malpractice". 3. Scamming customers "No you can't watch the technician put the new parts on your car, our liability insurance won't allow you into the shop area". "you know how those lawyers are". I could go on but you get the idea and I'm sure you know some of your own. PigPen
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 2:44:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 2:44:33 PM EST by Steve-in-VA]
Originally Posted By tcsd1236: Well, I guess we'll have to disagree unless a legal beagle on the board can jump in.
View Quote
tcsd1236, I've tried and settled many premises liability cases in my present and previous law firm. Trust me, the standard of care for a landowner to a trespasser is not the same. Also remember, in a civil context (not criminal or the actual tort of trespass), "trespasser" is anyone on your property without permission (the definition discussed above- where somone does not have "notice"- is a criminal standard or that used in a civil trespass case). The insurance companies have done a number on the public and the media. Rampant scams are not the norm. Insurance companies pay out, generally, about a 50th of what they bring in each year and if they feel that no liability exists, they don't frikin pay. Trust me, I see it often- and when there is liability, they do not roll over (most of them anyway).
Link Posted: 5/4/2001 2:27:34 PM EST
Just a comment as far as liability goes. At least here in California, any property owner that makes their property available to the public for recreational use at no charge, can't be held liable for injuries suffered be people that are using their property. As far as people damaging property. Yea it happens alot. It is not restricted to rural areas either. I live in an urban area and I have a new batch of people's garbage in my yard every night when I get home from work. I can understand why rural property owners would not want people on their land.
Link Posted: 5/5/2001 3:26:39 AM EST
No intent in anger anyone in the following. But, If someone owns land, it doesn't matter why he doesn't want you there. It's HIS land. How would you feel if you walked out of your house in the morning and some guy was sitting in your car. He's not doing anything malicous, hasn't damadged anything, and has caused no harm. But, HE'S SITTIMG IN YOUR CAR! Wouldn't you feel like he shouldn't be there? Whats the difference? Maybe he should sit in his own car? What if he doesn't have a car to sit in? Does than mean he should be able to sit in yours? I don't think so. I think he should get his own car. If he doesn't have enough money to buy a car, then he shouldn't expect to sit in one uninvited. You've probably surmized that I do own property, and your right. It's mine, I should be able to do with it what I want. I sometimes have hunters that want to use it. My suggestion to them is to ask me first. If they treat me with respect and ask first, I have no problem at all. If they think that they have some kinda special privilage just because they are hunting, and don't have to ask, then I have a problem with it. It does not belong to them, it's not thiers to use anyway they like. You wouldn't want someone walking through your house unannouced, I don't want someone walking on my land unannouced. Maybe I'm wrong, but the only difference is that my house is well defined by walls, and my land is not. If someone is mistaken about the boundaries, thats different. But trust me, people in my community know who's land is who's, and generally respect it. In my teenage years, I rode dirt bikes all across the local farmland. I always asked ahead of time. I was never denied, and the owners appreciated the asking. Some of the owners would have been all bent out of shape if I hadn't asked, and had me kicked off. It's just respectful behavior to ask. Ask, and your can go there, don't asked and it's too bad. Just my humble opinion.
Top Top