Archery discharge distance now 150'

[jrm]

Well, I don't think I have ever met anyone who thought that laws should be constructed to define only parts of the infraction.....lol. Left purposely vague? Left up to the discretion of cops and judges and the imagination of whatever citizens are involved? You believe that statutes should be purposely written in an obtuse fashion with the actual definition left up to a compilation of several obscure laws? Well, I'll just have to totally disagree with that assessment of how our laws should be written. None of it really makes a bit of sense to me. My thoughts are that keeping laws purposely vague is why we break laws every day without ever realizing it. It is also a reason why court time is cluttered sorting out situations that never would have occurred had the law been written in an understandable, complete, and all-inclusive fashion in the first place. If you think that is a good idea, then I will just respectfully disagree with that opinion.

This is spinning away from the original point and I am not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding me or not.

To clarify, I do not think laws should be intentionally vague. I believe they should not be overly specific as they are meant to cover a range of acts. Murder is illegal. I do not think there should be separate laws for murder by gun, by knife, by pencil, by paper clip. I do not think there should be separate laws to cover murder on Monday vs Murder on Tuesday. Of course, I also believe there should be an exception for murder in self-defense. I just don't think it is such an easy task to write a single law to cover every possible situation.

I also think that there should be room for common sense interpretation in a law. Look at some of these school kids getting suspended and expelled for having a pop-tart in the shape of a gun or pointing a finger at another kid and saying "bang." This is a direct result of the type of "all encompassing" rule you are championing. It spells out the infractions to cover all instances, has a "zero tolerance" provision and no allowance for circumstances. No interpretation, nothing vague, no trial needed. I guess we are on different sides of this issue.

I have been on rules committees for various organizations and have seen the side effects of "well intended" rules. It sounds easy to make a rule, until you see what happens to it in the wild. Fortunately, we were a local organization and any rule mistakes we made didn't ruin lives.

Laws, even good ones, have unintended consequences. I submit it is virtually impossible to write a law/rule that will cover every possible situation and circumstance. Our founders recognized this fact which is why our system is the way it is. "Better nine guilty go free than one innocent be convicted."

Courts are cluttered sorting out situations because people don't agree. That's what the courts do. Sometimes the law is vague, sometimes it is not clear if the law applies, sometimes people don't agree with the law. Sometimes, there is not law to cover the exact situation (which isn't always a bad thing - we have too many laws already.)

I am much more comfortable with a judicial system and jury of my peers settling a dispute than I am with a legislator - with no knowledge of the specific situation - predetermining the outcome. It would be nice if life were black and white and there was a law to cover every possible circumstance for everything we do. Actually, I don't think that would be nice - it would suck. I really think we would be better off without government writing a rule for every little thing. A little more reliance on common sense would be refreshing.

Back to the original question - I tried to find something regarding pointing a weapon at someone else (which was the scenario you claim would be "non-actionable" for someone "target shooting" in their backyard.) The closest I could find to a definitive answer is here:

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/what-crime-and-sentence-for-pointing-bb-gun-at-someone

The question is regarding pointing a BB gun at someone, and a NY Lawyer answers: "You would probably be charged with Menacing, which is an A misdemeanor. You can get up to a year in jail or three years probation, but if you retain a good criminal lawyer you may be able to get a Disorderly Conduct with a fine."

So I still maintain there is a law and penalty for such an action, which doesn't require anyone to get hurt before it is invoked. Again, I am a big fan on enforcing some of the many laws we already have rather than writing new ones to cover the same situation.

Edited April 4, 2014 by jrm

[Doc]

No, I understand you perfectly well, and I too am very clear with my rebuttal. I do not like half-laws. I do not like laws that lawyers and judges and cops can twist to their liking. I do not like infractions that are defined by a half dozen other laws. I do not like laws that are not clear and complete to the governed. It really is exactly that simple.

[Five Seasons]

Remember that crossbows are for some reason considered archery eqyuipment and their distance is 250'. A better title for your thread would be "vertical bow discharge limits now 150'"

Edited April 4, 2014 by Belo

[jjb4900]

as far as the laws go, the tools are there to charge people accordingly, The ECL is in place to cover environmental issues that relate to hunting, fishing and things related to the environment, then there is The NYS Penal law which covers the criminal issues, if someone is just violating a discharge law then they are charged under The ECL, if while doing so they act recklessly and place someone in danger of death or serious injury, they would be charged under the PL (reckless endangerment)...........the DEC Police have both those laws at their disposal as do the local police. There has to be separate laws distinguishing between the two because there is quite a difference in the degree of law that is being violated, one being a violation and one a felony, so you really couldn't have them fall under the same law.

[burmjohn]

Remember that crossbows are for some reason considered archery eqyuipment and their distance is 250'. A better title for your thread would be "vertical bow discharge limits now 150'"

 

I would have though you would have suggested "Discharge limits now 150 for Real Bows only" 

 

I give you an B+ for suggesting a good title. 

 

[G-Man]

what about a vertical crossbow set back distance? Edited April 4, 2014 by G-Man

[Mustang51js]

That thing is cool

[burmjohn]

hickory-creek-vertical-in-line-crossbow-2-1582-p.jpgwhat about a vertical crossbow set back distance?ver x-bow.jpg

Its 201.7952'

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Doc]

as far as the laws go, the tools are there to charge people accordingly, The ECL is in place to cover environmental issues that relate to hunting, fishing and things related to the environment, then there is The NYS Penal law which covers the criminal issues, if someone is just violating a discharge law then they are charged under The ECL, if while doing so they act recklessly and place someone in danger of death or serious injury, they would be charged under the PL (reckless endangerment)...........the DEC Police have both those laws at their disposal as do the local police. There has to be separate laws distinguishing between the two because there is quite a difference in the degree of law that is being violated, one being a violation and one a felony, so you really couldn't have them fall under the same law.

The DEC firearm discharge setback law is a definition and safeguard relating to the legal way that a firearm (or bow) should be used around occupied structures. There is nothing that precludes the DEC version of setback from including prohibited items in the line of fire as well. That additional aspect of firearms usage should not be left up to interpretation or judgment or after the fact arbitration. And that is what I am proposing. 

 

Also, remember that there are other people that absolutely must understand these laws in their entirety beside LEOs and prosecutors and judges. Scattering their definitions all through several sets of law books definitely is not serving the public that must live under these laws. Particularly when it is unnecessary.

 

Can there be additional levels of severity that might be added by NYS penal laws? .... Absolutely that sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps the argument could be made that firearms discharge laws are not an Environmental Conservation Law issue at all, but if that is where the law winds up residing, then the law should be complete, and it is my opinion that elements in the line of fire should fall into that same law just the same as the distance from those elements.

 

[jjb4900]

The DEC firearm discharge setback law is a definition and safeguard relating to the legal way that a firearm (or bow) should be used around occupied structures. There is nothing that precludes the DEC version of setback from including prohibited items in the line of fire as well. That additional aspect of firearms usage should not be left up to interpretation or judgment or after the fact arbitration. And that is what I am proposing. 

 

Also, remember that there are other people that absolutely must understand these laws in their entirety beside LEOs and prosecutors and judges. Scattering their definitions all through several sets of law books definitely is not serving the public that must live under these laws. Particularly when it is unnecessary.

 

Can there be additional levels of severity that might be added by NYS penal laws? .... Absolutely that sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps the argument could be made that firearms discharge laws are not an Environmental Conservation Law issue at all, but if that is where the law winds up residing, then the law should be complete, and it is my opinion that elements in the line of fire should fall into that same law just the same as the distance from those elements.

 

are you saying that people need to be told they can't shoot in the direction of houses and buildings? sad to have to say that some people need to be told something as simple as that. I have a pretty good understanding of the laws and how they can be used, but like you're saying the average hunter just reads the hunting regulations (we hope) and has at it thinking as long as he does what that book tells him is legal, he is good to go.

[SteveB]

are you saying that people need to be told they can't shoot in the direction of houses and buildings?

 

 

Sad to say but yes, many do - especially it seems urban archers shooting in their own back yards.

Read here or any archery forum and you see how many do it with what they feel may be an OK backstop.

Feel being the key word as on these same forums you will hear stories of deflections, etc that the backstop did not work for.

[Doc]

are you saying that people need to be told they can't shoot in the direction of houses and buildings?

Well, we already know of one post on this forum where apparently the shooter was doing exactly that. How many other ones happen without incident? How many others result in mishaps that we no one will admit to? That's why I am saying that the law should simply be finished off with "rest of the story". Why not. There are still a lot of people who regard bows as mere "toys" and will often use them accordingly.

[Arrow Flinger]

Doc....as I'm beginning to find out from being on this forum, you just cant fix stupid!

[G-Man]

I think laws that exist should be enforced period. As for a law being all encompassing.. I don't want to live in a society where that is even possible...might as well become communist and live where you are told do exactly what your told or go to the Gulag... people are people and mistakes are made its human nature. A guideline for distance is fine if your that dumb to shoot in the direction of people or a house there are laws to fine /lock you up. Already.

[jjb4900]

I don't get why it's hard to understand why laws don't need to be all encompassing, it's no different than the vehicle and traffic law telling you that you can only drive 55mph in certain areas, do they also need to tell you that you can't drive 55 through a crowd of people?

[Doc]

I think laws that exist should be enforced period. As for a law being all encompassing.. I don't want to live in a society where that is even possible...might as well become communist and live where you are told do exactly what your told or go to the Gulag... people are people and mistakes are made its human nature. A guideline for distance is fine if your that dumb to shoot in the direction of people or a house there are laws to fine /lock you up. Already.

I guess it all depends on how well you like being blind-sided by a law that was written poorly or incompletely. Do you doubt for one minute that you break laws everyday because you don't understand them, they are buried in the unending text of multiple volumes of law books, or are simply left up to the interpretation of judges and lawyers. Do you really think that is fair to those of us that try to abide by the law?

 

Have you seen the pages of confusion and misunderstanding every time we have a discussion on conservation laws here. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would be in favor of any confusion being purposely added to the laws that we are supposed to live under. Apparently some of you think that confusion and vagueness somehow protects you. I'm afraid that is exactly the opposite case. Remember the saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It kind of sets you up when the laws are written such that you have no choice but to be ignorant of them.

[G-Man]

I work for a company that has over 4000 rules we are suppose to follow. Most conflict with each other..commensence is the name of the game..if they are looking for you they can get you on some rule you go to an investigation and fight the stupidity there. I have doc i have been on here for a while and do value your opinion. all encompassing laws are found in dictatorships (do you want your hair cut only a certain Way. I do not wish to live in a society where I need an all encompassing law ). The reason laws are confusion is that some lawyer play a loop hole, and another law is created. Rather than using common sense and finding the person at fault..jurys feel pity and let them go... if your that dumb to shoot at another person or persons property you should be found guilty .period... i for one still want to think and follow my morals with out being told what to do every thing i try or attempt.

[Doc]

I work for a company that has over 4000 rules we are suppose to follow. Most conflict with each other..commensence is the name of the game..if they are looking for you they can get you on some rule you go to an investigation and fight the stupidity there. I have doc i have been on here for a while and do value your opinion. all encompassing laws are found in dictatorships (do you want your hair cut only a certain Way. I do not wish to live in a society where I need an all encompassing law ). The reason laws are confusion is that some lawyer play a loop hole, and another law is created. Rather than using common sense and finding the person at fault..jurys feel pity and let them go... if your that dumb to shoot at another person or persons property you should be found guilty .period... i for one still want to think and follow my morals with out being told what to do every thing i try or attempt.IMG_39964610137929.jpeg

Yes, if only people would always do what must be done to coexist with each other, rules, regulations and laws would be unnecessary. It would be a great world, and I'm sure we could find some real useful productive work for all those judges and lawyers and cops to actually do. But unhappily, it turns out that we do need a legal system. And if we need laws, they should probably be written in such a way that lawyers can't twist them around to nail us when we don't deserve nailing. It would also be nice if they were written so that those of us that have to live under them actually could find them and understand them. Put everything pertaining to an illegal act in one law. That's all I am saying. I am not advocating writing laws that aren't necessary, but once it has been determined that a law is necessary, consolidate all aspects and descriptions of that criminal act into one law and don't put pieces of it here and other pieces of it there. That is not a recommendation to make it easier to enforce. That is a recommendation to make it easier to abide by making enforcement unnecessary. 

 

If I want to make it illegal to shoot closer than a certain distance to a house and also control what is in the line of fire, the new law should simply say that. I should not put part of that in conservation law books and put the other half in penal code law books. In my muddled up mind, that seems to make some sense to me.

[Five Seasons]

I work for a company that has over 4000 rules we are suppose to follow. Most conflict with each other..

 

i do not doubt that some do. but most? that's just silly.

[G-Man]

its crazy but something happens and just add another rule..never looking at previous rules it vilolates.. its like laws for dmv.. officers have a thin book of geneeral rules but back at thestaion the have the un abbridged...they can charge you with stuff you never knew existed ....

[Doc]

its crazy but something happens and just add another rule..never looking at previous rules it vilolates.. its like laws for dmv.. officers have a thin book of geneeral rules but back at thestaion the have the un abbridged...they can charge you with stuff you never knew existed ....

My point exactly.