How to lose your guns

[growalot]

So to shorten this... long time neighbors...dog gets shot..shooter calls owner to say said dog is injured.... owner gets home to a half dead pet in road ditch......neighbor "ya, I shot it..pooping in my yard"...vet treatment of dog,it dies..vet says no use to call cops it was on guys property and they have live stock...NO!!!

So cop says that no longer flies...dog autopsy was ordered...arrest under animal cruelty..being prosecuted and under safe act guns gone..investigation under way.

So think before seeing those nuisance dogs...shoot pictures, go to court if need be...even if you get them on the no licence. Go after the owner legally....for the SSS...cadaver dogs can be used if claims are made...and why? PETA and the safe act.

Edited April 28, 2015 by growalot

[dbHunterNY]

yea in today's world it goes beyond that.  especially if you've got a pistol permit.  don't even threaten somebody or voice your opinion in an aggressive way to the wrong person.

[Five Seasons]

Sounds like the dog owner wasn't responsible or didn't train his dog well. There's no excuse for that.

 

BUT, if you shoot my dog, the loss of your guns would be the least of your worries.

[Jeremy K]

If my dog craps in someone's yard I would pick it up with my bare hand if I absolutely had to to make the situation right,just tell me he did it. With that being said ,if someone shoots my hound dog ,we will have problems.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

As a side note, if the shooter was dumb enough to make that call to the neighbor he probably is dumb enough that he probably shouldn't be owning a gun.

[NFA-ADK]

The safe act, make us safer one gun owner at a time.  LOL and you thought it was not about getting guns.  Somehow taking some farmers guns away does not make me feel any safer.  But at least they got more guns off the street, I mean out of this guys house?

 

Wonder how many more safe acts will be created so gun grabbing can take place. 

[growalot]

I will note that the owner ..well isn't the best as far as being a responsible one...They have a good heart taking in strays....but... now the shooter knew the dog well and would talk and pet it when owner would walk said animal...so the dog saw shooter as non threat..which really makes this sad...personally I would just guess the JA was thinking to scare the dog with a shot over head and shot it. then guilt had him make the calls to get owner home...but he left it in the ditch slowly bleeding to death as they drove home from work...bad bad bad!!! Had the dog lived it would have never walked again the buckshot in it's hips and back legs was massive.

Edited April 28, 2015 by growalot

[HOUNDS77]

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/ENV/11/5/11-0529

[Five Seasons]

The safe act, make us safer one gun owner at a time.  LOL and you thought it was not about getting guns.  Somehow taking some farmers guns away does not make me feel any safer.  But at least they got more guns off the street, I mean out of this guys house?

 

Wonder how many more safe acts will be created so gun grabbing can take place. 

 

I will second what culver said though... shooting a pet is not being a responsible gun owner and while I hate to see someone have a lapse in judgement and lose their rights... I still see this as self inflicted and perhaps now he doesn't make the same mistake.

 

I will note that the owner ..well isn't the best as far as being a responsible one...They have a good heart taking in strays....but... now the shooter knew the dog well and would talk and pet it when owner would walk said animal...so the dog saw shooter as non threat..which really makes this sad...personally I would just guess the JA was thinking to scare the dog with a shot over head and shot it. then guilt had him make the calls to get owner home...but he left it in the ditch slowly bleeding to death as they drove home from work...bad bad bad!!! Had the dog lived it would have never walked again the buckshot in it's hips and back legs was massive.

 

If it was buckshot, I doubt he was firing a warning shot. A .22 would have been a much better choice for a warning shot... or heck even a good boot to the dog's ass.

[Mr VJP]

I wonder if the man intentionally ran the dog over with his car and killed it, would he lose his driving privileges for life?

If not, this is an example of tyranny against gun ownership.

[growalot]

Just offering a possibility of why they would shoot the dog and then call owner to get help...at one point they offered to take dog to Vet themselves...but owner said no wait...thinking the person was telling the truth and injury wasn't anything bigger than a gash or cut...then when they called back they suggested it could have been a car hit....by that time owner was on the way, still not knowing their dog had been shot...apparently the guy had stood watch over the dying dog the whole time....

So them grabbing a shot gun loaded with buckshot......by the way,many ppl out here have one or more weapons loaded and at the ready,I went into one persons home in South Dansville many years ago...a gun at each window and loaded...and they really seemed to be regular normal ppl the whole time I knew them...lol

Anyways... them possibly using buck shot to scare the dog,  isn't out of the realm of possibles considering the other bizarre actions they took.....The whole thing is just sad....ppl at fault on both sides and the dog payed the price.

Edited April 28, 2015 by growalot

[phade]

If the dog was threatening or attacking the livestock or the humans, there's not much recourse if it is one's livelihood. I doubt anyone knows the real particulars of the situation, but if the livestock were being threatened or harmed, not much one can do but shoot the dog or try to stem off an attack. An animal that can be petted and friendly one minute can turn in an instant for whatever reason, just like humans. 

 

 

 

 

[growalot]

It's has already been stated...it was because of pooping in the guys yard...he never attempted the live stock excuse...it was the vet that brought it up. the police stated that doesn't fly unless the livestock was actual productive farm and there was actual damage...no more shooting dogs if you have...say... free range chickens and a dog enters your yard...unless there is a dead chicken and feathers and blood in it's mouth...

 

Someone had best tell the Livingston county dog warden...several times when I have called ...she said just shoot the dog. Never did... I do not want to shoot some kids pet...but putting a hurting on their parents wallets in fines doesn't bother me in the least...not the dogs fault or the kids fault..though mainly little johnny is always the blame for "letting" the dog out.. The only exception is a dog charging or chasing me ..dead dog done deal..I have one too many dog related hospital bills as it were...

 

PS..I know these people and the dog in question...also the dogs off spring...

Edited April 28, 2015 by growalot

[growalot]

This wasn't just about this dog...sad as it is but I do believe I mentioned...maybe it didn't go through...Kindle,happens.... but another incident..guy shot dog in Dansville..had already bitten ppl anyways...stupid, in town and on road...dumb dumb dumb...animal cruelty and guns gone and in jail if I recall right...protecting a kid being chased as I recall...Think public endangerment as well

[ants]

Admitting that you shot a dog (nuisance dog or not) for crapping on your property???? Not going to go well for ya…... But if after the dog did his business he came at you aggressively???

[virgil]

I'm confused by this thread.  Are you guys defending the shooter? 

 

Was a crime committed?  Prior to the SAFE Act, would you not lose your guns if you committed a crime with a gun?

 

The car comparison is always an interesting one.  Are we saying that a person who intentionally runs down a pedestrian would not lose his driver's license?

 

If I've misunderstood this thread, my apologies.

[ants]

I'm confused by this thread.  Are you guys defending the shooter? 

 

Was a crime committed?  Prior to the SAFE Act, would you not lose your guns if you committed a crime with a gun?

 

The car comparison is always an interesting one.  Are we saying that a person who intentionally runs down a pedestrian would not lose his driver's license?

 

If I've misunderstood this thread, my apologies.

Yeah.. Sounds like the guy shot the dog just to shoot it. I think that a lot of people look for excuses to shoot dogs, because they have had real problems with stray dogs in the past. But in this case a phone call and a plastic bag could have done wonders.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I'm confused by this thread.  Are you guys defending the shooter? 

 

Was a crime committed?  Prior to the SAFE Act, would you not lose your guns if you committed a crime with a gun?

 

The car comparison is always an interesting one.  Are we saying that a person who intentionally runs down a pedestrian would not lose his driver's license?

 

If I've misunderstood this thread, my apologies.

I don't think any one is defending the shooter. The Safe Act has many more avenues than the previous laws to take his firearms. Prior, I think it took a felony conviction to remove the long guns. (not sure about non felony domestic threat)       now, if he holds a pistol permit it not only goes but all other guns as well and that doesn't take a conviction.

[mt624]

There's no such thing as a "warning shot." You pull the trigger you better be ready to own the consequences. 

 

If that truly was his intention, he could have shot into the ground.  But he still could get an unlawful discharge depending on where he lives had he done that.  There are laws governing when people can and can't shoot.  Learn them. I don't blame the Safe Act or PETA for him losing his guns.  As far as the other incidents, not enough detail.

 

I'm not directing this post at any single person on here.  But there are laws and if you break them you pay the consequences.  Maybe you don't lose your car if you run over a dog but there are different laws pertaining to that, and it is harder to prove intent in that type of case.  But if someone is running over your pet with their car intentionally, is that a person you want to have guns or cars?

 

It's very difficult to shoot at something and then claim you didn't mean to hit it.  I understand it was a dog and losing his guns may be a severe price to pay but he knew it was someone's pet and other details posted make him sound pretty irresponsible.  I don't feel sorry for him and his actions give responsible gun owners a bad image.

 

Had the dog been "charging" him or some other circumstance like others mentioned, I may feel different. But for pooping in his yard which was the reason posted, his response was extremely inappropriate and irresponsible.

 

I've been charged by dogs, one incident that comes to mind was two large german shepards.  I was willing to get bit before risking harm to someone's pets. I stood my ground and held out a hand and they ducked under my hand and let me pet them.  The way they approached running and barking at me, in "their" field several hundred yards from "their" house I was fully expecting to be bit/attacked, but willing to make sure before hurting or killing a couple pets.

 

This guy just sounds dumb and it is a bad situation for all involved now.

[dbHunterNY]

I don't think any one is defending the shooter. The Safe Act has many more avenues than the previous laws to take his firearms. Prior, I think it took a felony conviction to remove the long guns. (not sure about non felony domestic threat)       now, if he holds a pistol permit it not only goes but all other guns as well and that doesn't take a conviction.

 

that is one of the things that is wrong with the SAFE Act.  your pistol permit is issued by a county judge and can be taken away only at their discretion as you said and isn't issued or revoked uniformly from county to county or judge to judge within the same county.  the SAFE Act basically says if that happens whether convicted or arrested or not nothing matters and you get ALL your guns taken away and the right to have guns period.  they get a warrant to search your home and then when they find guns proving long guns are yours versus your spouses is hearsay and they'll probably take them.  unless you can show sale receipt or similar proof.

[dbHunterNY]

dogs in NY are like bear in Alaska... you better be pulling the trigger with it's teeth clamped down around your arm and gun down its throat.  otherwise go to jail.  cats seem to be different but still have to be cautious, justified, and know the law.

[dbHunterNY]

same with black bear here in NY especially during the spring.  messing with your trash or filled bird feeder after it clearly is out of hibernation and looking for food like crazy doesn't warrant anything.

[Five Seasons]

I wonder if the man intentionally ran the dog over with his car and killed it, would he lose his driving privileges for life?

If not, this is an example of tyranny against gun ownership.

 

Running over a dog intentionally is a crime. You will go in front of a judge. Depending on your driving record, you very well may lose your privilege to drive.

 

In fact even hitting a dog on accident and not reporting to the suspected owner is illegal.

 

I would argue though, that taking someones driving privilege away for life is quite a hard sell. Cars are used to get from work, school and to buy groceries. You could take my guns away and I wouldn't lose my livelihood. I'd be very upset, I'd be concerned about my ability to defend my home, but i would not lose my job or be unable to buy groceries to feed my family.

 

I'm confused by this thread.  Are you guys defending the shooter? 

 

Was a crime committed?  Prior to the SAFE Act, would you not lose your guns if you committed a crime with a gun?

 

The car comparison is always an interesting one.  Are we saying that a person who intentionally runs down a pedestrian would not lose his driver's license?

 

If I've misunderstood this thread, my apologies.

 

iirc, in Canada if you're caught drunk driving they crush your car. I'm not sure how I feel about that law, bu it does put the car and gun analogy on a similar level.

 

My opinion is that both gun ownership and driving a car are privileges. Prove you can't follow the rules with either and you lose them.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Belo

[phade]

Admitting that you shot a dog (nuisance dog or not) for crapping on your property???? Not going to go well for ya…... But if after the dog did his business he came at you aggressively???

 

Unless I am mistaken the shooter supposedly said this to the owner and nobody else. I don't find it out of the realm of possibility that the owner could be stating this falsely or extending the truth a fair amount. People get emotional about their pets, and the owner may have downplayed the shooter's call, and when arrived, realized it was more serious, and is now taking it out against the shooter.

 

I'm not defending the shooter, just playing devil's advocate because we're all reading a very one-sided view of this event. Several posters have basically commented on the idea that the shooter did so as a warning shot that went bad, but if we trace that back, that was just the "opinion" of the OP.

 

There has to be more to the story.

Edited April 28, 2015 by phade

[phade]

same with black bear here in NY especially during the spring.  messing with your trash or filled bird feeder after it clearly is out of hibernation and looking for food like crazy doesn't warrant anything.

 

True, but also at the same point and time, there was a post on trespassers yesterday where the ECO recommended arming oneself in the OPs area because of bears. Think about that advice for a second. Arming oneself specifically due to bears. And you live where bears are. And they end up in your driveway or backyard and you happen to be outside, etc. What is reasonable and legal might not be the same in this situation, but if an ECO is telling someone to arm himself in the woods, imagine the advice given if in your yard and a bear is there.