TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So will the charges be filed against the homeowners just to reinforce the anti gun sentiment in Massachusetts? Apparently it is illegal to scare off game with an air horn, when hunters come on to a nature preserve that was not posted, next door to your house, at five AM in the morning.

She strikes me as another whining lying "nobody wants to take your guns/I'm not against hunting" liberal nut job. Who sends their kids out to confront supposedly scary men with guns? That's a big clue that they weren't at all afraid and are just anti-gun. I think the police did the right thing and I agree with them being prosecuted.

And btw, they didn't just sound an air horn, they made threats against the hunters. I don't know what the law is in MA, but in Texas 10 acres is generally considered enough land to shoot a shotgun. I highly doubt pellets were raining down on them.

I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

If I am getting hit with shot though, the best thing that happens is I call the cops.

How many interpretations of the same story can we get?
It was not her property the hunters were on.
The hunters were on "no hunting" land but it hadn't been posted so they were not illegal ( I guess).
I wouldn't be happy with bird shot coming down on me.
My dogs, at the sound of a gun, would probably never leave the house again. I no longer have hunting dogs that loved the sound of gunshots.
I really can't fault the lady for being angry but lots of people get charged with offenses that they didn't think were illegal such as using the horn to chase game away.
I don't see how we can conclude that this lady is anti-gun and I think the hunters could have been better representatives of hunters in general. Just shooting to make noise is not very appropriate.
I would bet the hunters knew they were on "no hunting" land and now that it is posted they can no longer hunt there.
So, not enough info to really draw a conclusion as to who is the bad guy.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.

Charles, you haven't seen my dogs. I have one sissy dog that hides under a bed at certain loud noises but is otherwise a good watch dog. Takes hours to calm him down. Otherwise a great pet. All of my dogs are shelter dogs and you never know what they have been traumatized by.

Wow. I cannot imagine letting my son go out of the house, unarmed, to go confront someone on someone else's property... even less if the other folks are armed! What was she thinking?

CedarParkDad... the Tarrant County College operates a peace-officer training program and outdoor gun range on their Northwest Campus, oh about 3 miles as the crow flies from my house. I can hear them easily when they're shooting outdoors. Does that mean they're "trespassing by noise" on my property? How silly a concept.

They should be prosecuted!

Frankly, it sounds like one group of inconsiderate people clashed with another set of inconsiderate people and unpleasantness predictably resulted. If either or both parties had made any real effort to be diplomatic, I don't think this would be a story.

As far as the noise goes, my neighbors "trespass by noise" all the time. I'll bet I do too. Their dogs bark. My kids yell and play in the backyard. Their music is loud. We mow our lawn. If it's not in violation of a noise ordinance, you've got nothing.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.

What he said.....on both counts!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.

Now I am just going by her story so lets stick with that.

-Noise can and in the past has constituted tresspass.

-Agreed on the shot from previous-I was denoting that as the act. Sorry that could be confusing.

-One our dogs freaks with fireworks and we have to give it interesting pills to keep it from having a heart attack, so yea it can happen.

“Now they’re going to go after homeowners for threatening people who have guns right next to their property? That seems ridiculous."

So says the author of the article.

So, the justification for homeowners threatening people is: The other party had guns - next to their property, thus making it reasonable for the homeowners to threaten the folks with guns.

Do I have that right?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.

Now I am just going by her story so lets stick with that.

Do what you will, but Im not when it's highly unlikely and inconsistent.

The noise levels that on very rare occasion support a trespass claim are much louder and of much greater duration than gunfire. It's very hard to make such claims; so much so that no one tries any longer. They seek to get noise ordinances passed.

It's unclear whether they are in the unincorporated part of the county, but that would be my guess. If so, then she has absolutely nothing to complain about. People typically choose to live in the county rather than a city to avoid higher taxes and greater regulation. If one wants to live where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Chas.

It's unclear whether they are in the unincorporated part of the county, but that would be my guess. If so, then she has absolutely nothing to complain about. People typically choose to live in the county rather than a city to avoid higher taxes and greater regulation. If one wants to live where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Chas.

She can still complain about the noise and shot falling on her. If this is a small pond and they are right on that pond then they can further complain the moment that shot crosses her boundary. Further using that logic the hunters cannot complain interference. After all if they want to be where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

It's unclear whether they are in the unincorporated part of the county, but that would be my guess. If so, then she has absolutely nothing to complain about. People typically choose to live in the county rather than a city to avoid higher taxes and greater regulation. If one wants to live where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Chas.

She can still complain about the noise and shot falling on her. If this is a small pond and they are right on that pond then they can further complain the moment that shot crosses her boundary. Further using that logic the hunters cannot complain interference. After all if they want to be where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

The noise levels that on very rare occasions support a trespass claim are much louder and of much greater duration than gunfire. It's very hard to make such claims; so much so that no one tries any longer. They seek to get noise ordinances passed.

I thought you were going to stick to the printed story. If so, then show me the evidence of shot falling on her property this season. As for harassing hunters, there's a criminal statute that prohibits such conduct. That too was in the article, or did you forget it also?

Chas.

The noise levels that on very rare occasion support a trespass claim are much louder and of much greater duration than gunfire. It's very hard to make such claims; so much so that no one tries any longer. They seek to get noise ordinances passed.

Per the story its right next to their house. Thats pretty loud. Also this is Massachusetts. I would not be so quick to make that argument there.

I thought you were going to stick to the printed story.

Don't be persnickety now. We're just chewing the fat. I said the moment it does she has a claim.

As for harassing hunters, there's a criminal statute that prohibits such conduct. That too was in the article, or did you forget it also?

Chas.

[/quote]
I saw that.
1. Its stupid.
2. She's just providing a little noise relief. I guess she could fire off guns too.

Note also from the article hunting is NOT permitted there.

Hunting is not permitted on the land, but it had not been posted with “no hunting” signs.