Archery discharge distance now 150'

[WNYBuckHunter]

I wasn't conspiring with Doc, and there's no way you would have known it, but it turns out Docs comments were relevant to why I asked about the situation.

 

To me it seems like you're asking for more trouble than it's worth and based on your response you're doing it out of spite because he left a note. Maybe a better way for you to spread good hunter PR is to go to the guys house and explain that the law has changed and that you'd like to consider putting up your practice stand again. Even though you have every legal right to march in and taunt him, I think you'd better serve the situation by starting out with a higher road. Remember, just because somethings "legal" doesn't mean we have to do it or expect it to be the best way to handle it. 

 

Im not doing anything out of spite. The guy didnt leave a just a note, it was a big ass cardboard sign. He was outside WHILE I was putting the stand up. Could he have come over and asked me about it? Yep. Did the other guy next door to him ask me about it? Yep, and he had no issue with it even said it would be a great spot to hunt as he alwas saw deer go through there. If he had come and asked, he would have discovered it was nothing but a practice stand at the time, as I knew it was too close for hunting with the setback rules. Is it in a good spot to hunt? Sure is, but I never considered it previously, and when the guy made a stink, I simply removed the stand so I didnt have to deal with an obviously obstinate neighbor. Now that the setback has changed, I will hunt it because I legally can. No spite there, what so ever.

 

Just a little back story about this guy. I have had to say things to him on multiple occasions when he was in his yard shooting woodchucks in the adjacent field (which he had no permission to do so) while my father was on his tractor mowing the lawn less than 100 feet away from him, in front of his shooting position. Did I yell at the guy or anything like that? Nope, asked him to be mindful of people around him, and reminded him that he did not have permission to shoot onto the adjoining property. But ya know, a practice bow stand, where the arrows would always be shot the opposite direction from his property, was a problem.

[Arrow Flinger]

Im not doing anything out of spite. The guy didnt leave a just a note, it was a big ass cardboard sign. He was outside WHILE I was putting the stand up. Could he have come over and asked me about it? Yep. Did the other guy next door to him ask me about it? Yep, and he had no issue with it even said it would be a great spot to hunt as he alwas saw deer go through there. If he had come and asked, he would have discovered it was nothing but a practice stand at the time, as I knew it was too close for hunting with the setback rules. Is it in a good spot to hunt? Sure is, but I never considered it previously, and when the guy made a stink, I simply removed the stand so I didnt have to deal with an obviously obstinate neighbor. Now that the setback has changed, I will hunt it because I legally can. No spite there, what so ever.

 

Just a little back story about this guy. I have had to say things to him on multiple occasions when he was in his yard shooting woodchucks in the adjacent field (which he had no permission to do so) while my father was on his tractor mowing the lawn less than 100 feet away from him, in front of his shooting position. Did I yell at the guy or anything like that? Nope, asked him to be mindful of people around him, and reminded him that he did not have permission to shoot onto the adjoining property. But ya know, a practice bow stand, where the arrows would always be shot the opposite direction from his property, was a problem.

 

I think you should put the stand back up and stick one of those Hunting Buddy Human Decoys in it so he thinks you're sitting there all the time!

[WNYBuckHunter]

That would be funny

[NFA-ADK]

Recovery can be a issue in residential areas.  Some will grant access, but on LI you would have to get permission from about 20 extra houses or more to ensure recovery depending on area. 

 

I will get permission from the area residents to allow access, if the other people will not allow recovery, let them deal with a dead deer in the yard.  IF I ever do hunt these residential areas it will be about population control only, I could care less about some jerk who will not let me recover and will let the DEC handle it.  The meat would be donated anyway so if some jerk will not allow recovery then it will be one less deer I will have to pay for. 

 

Love how some people get on their high horse and say NO recovery because I was disrespected.  So much for encouraging a fellow hunter. 

 

Personally if anyone asked for permission to recover a deer on my properly it would not only be granted but I would actually help them.  Pathetic how low tolerance people have for one another especially ones who are involved in the same sport you participate in. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveB]

I'll help them too.

Just ask they contact me prior to hunting - especially if they are setting up 50 yds from my house.

I can't imagine every dropping the string or pulling the trigger without knowing I have permission to recover within a reasonable average distance.

It's called being prepared and respecting my neighbors - concept possibly foreign to some here.

[Vince1]

I'll help them too.

Just ask they contact me prior to hunting - especially if they are setting up 50 yds from my house.

I can't imagine every dropping the string or pulling the trigger without knowing I have permission to recover within a reasonable average distance.

It's called being prepared and respecting my neighbors - concept possibly foreign to some here.

This seprember i plan on taking advantage of early bow with my last seaon tags. Lookin at a weekend in the fingerlakes area ( bah meant 6g area).

I will prolly have one scouting trip to do it which will be me spending some qt with family camping and trying to scout.

I have no idea whos lland is what let alone how to get in contact with anyone. I plan to send letters and call to adjecent land owners. But if i find a spot thats close to someones property i will do my due dilignce but i am goin to hunt it. I live 5 hours away and cant knock on doors so easy.

Maybe it will be easy. I doubt it. But im not not gonna hunt it

Edited April 3, 2014 by Vince1

[A Sportsman]

As I mentioned earlier, I will figure 100 yds as my personal setback (provided there are no other variables). As for recovery, I will be doing the same as I've aleways done. Track the deer and if it goes on private property, ask the owner for permission to track.

In some of the back and forth in this thread, it looks like some of us are falling into that same "trap" of not realizing that different areas of the state require different approaches for interpreting the law in a manner that won't piss off the people around you.

Ill be honest, as a long island hunter I dig this change. But if I lived upstate (north of nyc haha) in a rural area I would not like it at all. Similarly, on long island, if its not posted its fair game. I would dare try that upstate though. Different situation.

[Doc]

If you honestly think my response was me flying off the handle, then you need to seriously rethink how you interpret things. Im am rarely in any type of a "pissed off position", especially on here. Doesnt surprise me too much, as you tend to take every little thing to the extreme. But ya know, think what you like....

Yes, I definitely did think that was a strange and aggressive response even for you. A lot of crap over some manufactured issue in your mind that I still don't even understand.

[jrm]

I am relatively new to all this, so hope you all cut me a little slack for some "newbie" questions and observations.

I understand some of the points being made about potential problems with a 150' foot setback, but I also wonder if this doesn't reduce some potential problems.

With a 150, I am thinking this give people more opportunity to set up facing away from that neighbor's property. With 500', for example, there would be more likelihood of setting up where your shooting lanes are towards another property. With 150' there is more opportunity to set up near the property border and thus shoot towards the inside of your own property. Every situation is different, but does this make any sense?

 

Let's pretend that you look out your window and find that your neighbor has set up a couple of hay bales the legal 50 yards from your house, or your yard where your kids are playing. Maybe even lined up with the sandbox and swingset. This new setback law as currently understood, would leave you no legal recourse to put a stop to that (until something real ugly happens).

I have to disagree with this conclusion. If someone is firing a gun/bow/whatever and your children/dog/house/whatever is their backstop, you certainly do have legal recourse. The setback rules are not the only thing governing discharge. If you are standing on your property and someone intentionally points a gun or bow at you (no less discharges it), I would bet my last $ there is something you can legally do to stop that, regardless of any "setback" rules they may or may not be observing.

Edited April 3, 2014 by jrm

[Doc]

I have to disagree with this conclusion. If someone is firing a gun/bow/whatever and your children/dog/house/whatever is their backstop, you certainly do have legal recourse. The setback rules are not the only thing governing discharge. If you are standing on your property and someone intentionally points a gun or bow at you (no less discharges it), I would bet my last $ there is something you can legally do to stop that, regardless of any "setback" rules they may or may not be observing.

 

See reply #47 on this page

[SteveB]

This seprember i plan on taking advantage of early bow with my last seaon tags. Lookin at a weekend in the fingerlakes area ( bah meant 6g area).

I will prolly have one scouting trip to do it which will be me spending some qt with family camping and trying to scout.

I have no idea whos lland is what let alone how to get in contact with anyone. I plan to send letters and call to adjecent land owners. But if i find a spot thats close to someones property i will do my due dilignce but i am goin to hunt it. I live 5 hours away and cant knock on doors so easy.

Maybe it will be easy. I doubt it. But im not not gonna hunt it

 

My post wasn't directed toward you.

But I have to ask about the part I highlighted in red.

You plant to hunt some property whether you get permission or not?

That's what is sounds like.

Not being posted does is a far cry from permission.

Edited April 3, 2014 by SteveB

[jrm]

See reply #47 on this page

I still disagree with the conclusion, including reply #47.

Setting up a target range at your home, and effectively using your neighbor's property as a backstop can not be legal. You do not have to wait until something bad happens to have something done. Maybe the act of setting up targets isn't enough to trigger a legal response. However, once you point that gun/bow downrange and a person or their property is in the line of fire, you have a problem.

I'm no DA, so can't tell you if it falls under "blandishment" "menacing" "public endangerment" or some other code. There are surely a dozen items they can bust you on for being that stupid without having to wait for a "miss" to puncture another human.

We're not talking about an accident that happens despite someone taking precautions. The original premise was "looking down the barrel of." If you are looking down the barrel/arrow shaft, the person on the other end is threatening your life and engaging in an illegal act whether or not they pull the trigger/release and/or hit you.

Let's say I take my new bow or my new rifle into my back yard. The neighbor kids and dogs are playing in the yard next door. Now let's say I use them to check out my new bow or rifle. No discharge involved - I am just using them to test the sights.

Are you suggesting that the neighbor would be wasting their time calling the police because I have done nothing wrong? On the contrary, I would likely be arrested (rightly so) and have my gun/bow confiscated. This is no different than the original example of a target range pointed at the neighbor's house.

Edited April 4, 2014 by jrm

[Doc]

It is one thing if the deer drops just over the property line and you can see it. Maybe then you can go arm-wrestle the landowner for the deer. But what happens if you simply have to access his property just to find first blood or perhaps continue the blood trail. And then if he crosses another property line and so and so on. Each property owner for however long the deer stays on it's feet has to be contacted and permission begged to follow the blood trail across one property after the other. I would be sitting there hoping no deer came by ..... lol. Maybe under with this urban/suburban hunting you should be practicing spine hits ...... Just kidding!! Sorry but some of the scenarios that I can imagine with this kind of "hunting" can get pretty comical.

 

It does raise some interesting questions that I never had to think about before:

What kind of blind is traditional for suburban hunting? .... an old VW-bus-in-the-weeds pop-up?

How do you keep the neighbor kids from pointing and laughing and throwing things at you?

Do you find yourself taking sides in all the neighbors arguments?

Is it possible to keep up with your normal nightly TV programs through the neighbors window?

Is it customary to wave to the neighbor from your treestand when he comes out to get the morning paper?

When you drag your deer out of your neighbor's kid's sandbox do you carry clean sand to replace the bloody stuff?

What's the best way to get the neighbor's dog to stop barking at you?

Cover scent - essence of motor oil?

Food plot - rhododendrons?

Camo pattern - lilacs or juniper?

 

Sorry, but the whole idea of suburban hunting is pretty new to me. It seems like there is a whole different set of problems.

[A Sportsman]

Doc,  That is funny stuff.  Speaking as a Long Islander, it really can be pretty weird with some of the stuff we have to deal with out there.  But what are we supposed to do?  All I want to do with my life is fish and hunt.  Unfortunately for the hunting part of it, I live on Long Island.  Running upstate all the time is just not going to happen.  So I make the best of it. And yeah, its different hunting experience on the island.  Kids playing in the woods or adjacent backyards happens all the time.  But I've had Anti's scream curses as they drive by as I'm at the truck, a mountain biker coast by as I was up to my elbows cutting the wind pipe.  One time a huge dog prevented me from getting to my truck.  Thought I may have to shoot it.  Caught other hunters posting property that wasnt theirs.  The shenanigans are endless.  In fact, I gave up bow hunting a few years and just fished all fall. But I had to come back to it.  If you are a hunter, I think you just find a way to stay with it.

[Vince1]

My post wasn't directed toward you.

But I have to ask about the part I highlighted in red.

You plant to hunt some property whether you get permission or not?

That's what is sounds like.

Not being posted does is a far cry from permission.

 

 

didn't mean it like that, one of the spots I hunted last year a house was posted and it was my first time in the area I had only seen aerials  of it and picked a spot with some really good sign. BUT after getting there I found that someones property line was right up against what was huntable DEC land and Unhuntable DEC land which I can always get access to if needed. I found a sweet spot on a ridge overlooking his property line, the DEC property line and the huntable land.

 

did I get a shot? nope but was still worth a shot.

 

had I gotten a shot and it went to his land I would have just went back to my car took off the camo and went to knock on the door. but some of these places its not like they leave out the welcome mat, they clearly don't want to be bothered as im guessing MANY hunters come their way.

 

but if im on huntable land im hunting it. if your land is marked I wont step foot on it unless in walking or driving up your driveway to ask for permission. cant always get it in advance when you don't live in the area is what I was trying to get across.

 

and the issue with permission was one of the reasons I stuck to big woods for most of last year. but hunting closer to home is sooo much easier for me. always feel guilty after a day of being in the woods without my kids. cut a few trips short because of it.

[Vince1]

 

Sorry, but the whole idea of suburban hunting is pretty new to me. It seems like there is a whole different set of problems.

 

 

imagine you and a hunting buddy taking a quick mid day nap after lunch on a trail just to scare the crap out of a lil ole lady riding her bike not seeing you till she was right up on you.

 

don't know if I was more scared or she was hehe

 

Long Island sucks for that.... buuuut its close

[mike rossi]

Doc,  That is funny stuff.  Speaking as a Long Islander, it really can be pretty weird with some of the stuff we have to deal with out there.  But what are we supposed to do?  All I want to do with my life is fish and hunt.  Unfortunately for the hunting part of it, I live on Long Island.  Running upstate all the time is just not going to happen.  So I make the best of it. And yeah, its different hunting experience on the island.  Kids playing in the woods or adjacent backyards happens all the time.  But I've had Anti's scream curses as they drive by as I'm at the truck, a mountain biker coast by as I was up to my elbows cutting the wind pipe.  One time a huge dog prevented me from getting to my truck.  Thought I may have to shoot it.  Caught other hunters posting property that wasnt theirs.  The shenanigans are endless.  In fact, I gave up bow hunting a few years and just fished all fall. But I had to come back to it.  If you are a hunter, I think you just find a way to stay with it.

 

This happens upstate as well, and I don't mean Orange or Dutchess county. And this problem will grow because as I have said over and over, the FWS and DEC has outreach aimed at encouraging non hunters to recreate on public conservation lands. Also, the sport of bird watching is becoming organized and is growing in leaps and bounds and a percentage of birders do not like hunting.

 

However, this is not the same issue as hunting 150 feet from a house - two different issues. I don't care if it is Long Island or Hamilton County the average person does not want anyone hunting that close to their house or out there setting up a stand at 5 am. I cant believe this is even debated.

Edited April 4, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Doc,  That is funny stuff.  Speaking as a Long Islander, it really can be pretty weird with some of the stuff we have to deal with out there.  But what are we supposed to do?  All I want to do with my life is fish and hunt.  Unfortunately for the hunting part of it, I live on Long Island.  Running upstate all the time is just not going to happen.  So I make the best of it. And yeah, its different hunting experience on the island.  Kids playing in the woods or adjacent backyards happens all the time.  But I've had Anti's scream curses as they drive by as I'm at the truck, a mountain biker coast by as I was up to my elbows cutting the wind pipe.  One time a huge dog prevented me from getting to my truck.  Thought I may have to shoot it.  Caught other hunters posting property that wasnt theirs.  The shenanigans are endless.  In fact, I gave up bow hunting a few years and just fished all fall. But I had to come back to it.  If you are a hunter, I think you just find a way to stay with it.

Yeah I know that I am making fun of some things that are real serious issues for a whole lot of people and I apologize for that.

 

I watched that TV series, "Chasing Tail", and all I could do was shake my head as I watched those guys trying to make a hunting experience out of urban/suburban hunting. That program was supposed to be funny (I think) but it really did point up the futility and frustration of that kind of hunt. It's not something I was ever forced to do, so I kind of let my imagination get carried away a bit .... lol.

[Mustang51js]

Let's say I take my new bow or my new rifle into my back yard. The neighbor kids and dogs are playing in the yard next door. Now let's say I use them to check out my new bow or rifle. No discharge involved - I am just using them to test the sights.

Are you suggesting that the neighbor would be wasting their time calling the police because I have done nothing wrong? On the contrary, I would likely be arrested (rightly so) and have my gun/bow confiscated. This is no different than the original example of a target range pointed at the neighbor's house.

If some one is stupid enough to shoot in their yard knowing there's people behind the backstop or they point a weapon at people they don't deserve to have there hunting rights and their weapons. It's the same respect for guns and pointing them at things you only intend to shoot goes for bows also. I target shoot in my back yard and don't even shoot where people would be walking behind my target but I still stop shooting if I hear people walking down the road just so there's no issues. If someone can't control themselves to make an ethical shot on a deer then they shouldn't be hunting.

[SteveB]

Vince - I understand now. Good luck and have a great season.

[Doc]

If some one is stupid enough to shoot in their yard knowing there's people behind the backstop or they point a weapon at people they don't deserve to have there hunting rights and their weapons. It's the same respect for guns and pointing them at things you only intend to shoot goes for bows also. I target shoot in my back yard and don't even shoot where people would be walking behind my target but I still stop shooting if I hear people walking down the road just so there's no issues. If someone can't control themselves to make an ethical shot on a deer then they shouldn't be hunting.

One thing we all know for sure is that people do stupid things. That is the reason we write laws in the first place. So why we would write "half of a law", I can't really imagine. But that is exactly what our shooting set-back laws are.

[CuseHunter]

Looks like I need to do some reading on these new changes.

[Doc]

I still disagree with the conclusion, including reply #47.

Setting up a target range at your home, and effectively using your neighbor's property as a backstop can not be legal. You do not have to wait until something bad happens to have something done. Maybe the act of setting up targets isn't enough to trigger a legal response. However, once you point that gun/bow downrange and a person or their property is in the line of fire, you have a problem.

I'm no DA, so can't tell you if it falls under "blandishment" "menacing" "public endangerment" or some other code. There are surely a dozen items they can bust you on for being that stupid without having to wait for a "miss" to puncture another human.

We're not talking about an accident that happens despite someone taking precautions. The original premise was "looking down the barrel of." If you are looking down the barrel/arrow shaft, the person on the other end is threatening your life and engaging in an illegal act whether or not they pull the trigger/release and/or hit you.

Let's say I take my new bow or my new rifle into my back yard. The neighbor kids and dogs are playing in the yard next door. Now let's say I use them to check out my new bow or rifle. No discharge involved - I am just using them to test the sights.

Are you suggesting that the neighbor would be wasting their time calling the police because I have done nothing wrong? On the contrary, I would likely be arrested (rightly so) and have my gun/bow confiscated. This is no different than the original example of a target range pointed at the neighbor's house.

There are those that would consider the couple bales of hay that I mentioned to be the backstop and not the neighbors house, or kids, or dogs, etc., etc. You see .... again opinion, subjectivity, and why? And why should I have to glue together two or three laws to get at what is trying to be prohibited. Why not write it into the setback law as to exactly what is to be prohibited in the direction of aim? At least say something about it.

 

I'm not suggesting anything about time wasting and law enforcement. I'm talking about legal language that might help prevent the situation in the first place. We currently have a thread about exactly what I am talking about. A house was hit by an archer target practicing so we know it happens. I am sure he thought he was adequately backstopped, but obviously he wasn't. I am simply suggesting that language finally be included that spells out the infraction as exactly as possible, rather than requiring a lawyer to interpret it all from a book full of other laws. Seems kind of reasonable to me.

[jrm]

There are those that would consider the couple bales of hay that I mentioned to be the backstop and not the neighbors house, or kids, or dogs, etc., etc. You see .... again opinion, subjectivity, and why? And why should I have to glue together two or three laws to get at what is trying to be prohibited. Why not write it into the setback law as to exactly what is to be prohibited in the direction of aim? At least say something about it.

 

I'm not suggesting anything about time wasting and law enforcement. I'm talking about legal language that might help prevent the situation in the first place. We currently have a thread about exactly what I am talking about. A house was hit by an archer target practicing so we know it happens. I am sure he thought he was adequately backstopped, but obviously he wasn't. I am simply suggesting that language finally be included that spells out the infraction as exactly as possible, rather than requiring a lawyer to interpret it all from a book full of other laws. Seems kind of reasonable to me.

I understand and appreciate your position, but don't necessarily agree.

First, I am not sure if such language could be part of the setback rule change. As I understand it, the setback change was part of the budget document. If so, that would limit what it could accomplish.

To your point then, why couldn't all this be neatly wrapped up in the penal code as law? My answer is I don't think it is that simple. I also don't think I, or most people, would want things so black and white.

One size does not fit all. There is no way to write a law like this which would cover every situation. If it did, it would be very long, complicated and overreaching. Most of us would complain.

You can't legislate stupid. Make a law restrictive enough where you think all bases are covered, and someone will still find a way around it. In other words, make something "idiot proof" and they simply invent a better idiot.

It isn't always so easy to change a rule or law. No matter how "common sense" something may seem to you or I, there is usually more than one side to the discussion. When making a law/rule, the two sides generally have to compromise on the wording to where they can both live with it. Sometimes that makes for screwed up rule. Most times, however, it is the beauty of our system. The writing/ratification of the Constitution went through the same process.

I am aware of the other thread where an arrow hit a neighbors house. According the OP, the police let him off with a warning of sorts (although the neighbor is pretty upset. The OP seems to have learned a valuable lesson. That's the result of our current 'mishmash' of laws. If we look at the other extreme, a strictly defined law would also have a strictly defined penalty... that OP would be arrested, probably lose his bow, possibly lose his ability to own firearms for life and maybe get some mandatory jail time. I guess you could argue for either outcome. I agree the OP did a VERY bad thing and is lucky no one got hurt. Not sure if I would agree his life should be ruined over it.

I think the law recognizes there are different circumstances and that the facts are not always so easy to ascertain. The police, DA, judge and jury need some flexibility to determine what the facts are, what the circumstances are and how to apply the rules to the situation.

We may not agree, but I appreciate the exchange. I still maintain that if someone is firing a gun or bow in my direction that the police WILL do something about it and the person will be in a heap of trouble. Regardless of how many "hay bales" he is using. In any event, I hope you, I and the other fine folk on this forum never have to find out which of us is correct about this.

[Doc]

I understand and appreciate your position, but don't necessarily agree.

First, I am not sure if such language could be part of the setback rule change. As I understand it, the setback change was part of the budget document. If so, that would limit what it could accomplish.

To your point then, why couldn't all this be neatly wrapped up in the penal code as law? My answer is I don't think it is that simple. I also don't think I, or most people, would want things so black and white.

One size does not fit all. There is no way to write a law like this which would cover every situation. If it did, it would be very long, complicated and overreaching. Most of us would complain.

You can't legislate stupid. Make a law restrictive enough where you think all bases are covered, and someone will still find a way around it. In other words, make something "idiot proof" and they simply invent a better idiot.

It isn't always so easy to change a rule or law. No matter how "common sense" something may seem to you or I, there is usually more than one side to the discussion. When making a law/rule, the two sides generally have to compromise on the wording to where they can both live with it. Sometimes that makes for screwed up rule. Most times, however, it is the beauty of our system. The writing/ratification of the Constitution went through the same process.

I am aware of the other thread where an arrow hit a neighbors house. According the OP, the police let him off with a warning of sorts (although the neighbor is pretty upset. The OP seems to have learned a valuable lesson. That's the result of our current 'mishmash' of laws. If we look at the other extreme, a strictly defined law would also have a strictly defined penalty... that OP would be arrested, probably lose his bow, possibly lose his ability to own firearms for life and maybe get some mandatory jail time. I guess you could argue for either outcome. I agree the OP did a VERY bad thing and is lucky no one got hurt. Not sure if I would agree his life should be ruined over it.

I think the law recognizes there are different circumstances and that the facts are not always so easy to ascertain. The police, DA, judge and jury need some flexibility to determine what the facts are, what the circumstances are and how to apply the rules to the situation.

We may not agree, but I appreciate the exchange. I still maintain that if someone is firing a gun or bow in my direction that the police WILL do something about it and the person will be in a heap of trouble. Regardless of how many "hay bales" he is using. In any event, I hope you, I and the other fine folk on this forum never have to find out which of us is correct about this.

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.