New Bill will Increase dwelling distance from 500 to 1000 feet

[Mach]

Massachusetts Bill Sets Unreasonable No Hunting Areas

3/17/11



A bill in Massachusetts could drastically decrease land open for hunting.

House Bill 657, introduced by Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D- Suffolk), would double the size of the state’s no hunting zones near occupied dwellings.

Currently, state law prohibits possessing a loaded firearm or hunting on someone else’s land within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling without the dwelling owner’s permission. This bill would arbitrarily double that distance to 1,000 feet.

If passed, the bill would force sportsmen to get permission to hunt from adjacent land owners even on many of the lands they currently hunt. In effect the bill could shut down vast tracks of land that are currently open to hunting.

“This bill could prohibit sportsmen from hunting on lands they have enjoyed for years simply because the person living next door doesn’t like hunting,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “The current 500 foot no hunting restriction is already excessive, there is no justifiable reason for further limiting the amount of private land available to hunters.”

Take Action! Massachusetts sportsmen should contact their state representative ask them to oppose HB 657. Tell them there is no justification for limiting hunting land access and for infringing on private property rights. To find your state representative’s contact information, please visit www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.

http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2697

http://voteno-on657.com/Home_Page.php

 

[SheepDog_B]

God Damnit! FAIL

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Ridiculous. Another sexual intellectual that knows nothing about hunting trying to make the laws for hunters to follow.

Bob

 

[Admin]

Is that article right, currently right now you can't possess a firearm within 500 ft of your neighbor without their permission? All you city and suburb dwellers turn in your guns.

 

[Jamie]

Is that article right, currently right now you can't possess a firearm within 500 ft of your neighbor without their permission? All you city and suburb dwellers turn in your guns.

No, you can't discharge a firearm within 500 feet without permission. As usualy, the media hasn't done it's research.

 

[lord1234]

Be warned, this bill died last year without a peep, and when i got ready to do some footwork, I was asked to back down. i did speak with the rep, who told me it was filed due to a local resident complaining about hunting near her property(even though it was well outside the 500ft line) for birds with shotguns.

 

[twogunwilly]

I hope a rabid coon bites her tits off.

 

[Tweed]

yes, the same language was filed before. yet so was the one gun a month, micro stamping, etc. Don't give up that inch!

 

[davemata]

I hope a rabid coon bites her tits off.

Time to find her and bait her property for 'yotes.

 

[jdubois]

Is that article right, currently right now you can't possess a firearm within 500 ft of your neighbor without their permission? All you city and suburb dwellers turn in your guns.

The text of MGL C.131 § 58 is ambiguous. You could read the law that you simply cannot possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building without permission, or you could read it as not being able to possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building without permission except on your own property, or you could read it (and I would argue this is the correct way, since it is a Fish and Game law) you cannot possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building while hunting on land that is not your own.

The reason they don't just say, "while hunting" is so that somebody can't mount the defense that they weren't really hunting, they were "just strolling through the woods with a gun."

 

[Mach]

The text of MGL C.131 § 58 is ambiguous. You could read the law that you simply cannot possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building without permission, or you could read it as not being able to possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building without permission except on your own property, or you could read it (and I would argue this is the correct way, since it is a Fish and Game law) you cannot possess a loaded firearm within 500 feet of any building while hunting on land that is not your own.

The reason they don't just say, "while hunting" is so that somebody can't mount the defense that they weren't really hunting, they were "just strolling through the woods with a gun."

Section 58. A person shall not discharge any firearm or release any arrow upon or across any state or hard surfaced highway, or within one hundred and fifty feet, of any such highway, or possess a loaded firearm or hunt by any means on the land of another within five hundred feet of any dwelling in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof.

It can't possibly mean just possess while not hunting, because that would make it illegal to drive down the street with your CCW without everyones permission. So it must mean while hunting.

Also you can release an arrow on your property as long as you are at least 150 feet from the nearest road, according to the way it reads..

 

[davemata]

Also you can release an arrow on your property as long as you are at least 150 feet from the nearest road, according to the way it reads..

Assuming you have the property owner's permission. Wonder how that works out with two names on the deed, and one of the named people takes issue and brings in outsiders that like shooting dogs.

 

[Titan]

Just one more MA law designed to catch law abiding citizens 'committing a crime', thereby disarming them for life.

 

[OfficerObie59]

House Bill 657, introduced by Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D- Suffolk), would double the size of the state’s no hunting zones near occupied dwellings.

As if there was anywhere in Suffolk County you could discharge a firearm without being within 500 feet of a dwelling--like the expansion to 1000 feet would make some sort of difference.

 

[jdubois]

It can't possibly mean just possess while not hunting, because that would make it illegal to drive down the street with your CCW without everyones permission. So it must mean while hunting.

While I agree with you, ambiguous laws have an annoying way of bein interpreted to political whim.

 

[jdubois]

There are a whole bunch of these ambiguous hunting laws. No pistols larger than .38 cal outdoors after nightfall, no walking your dog in the woods at certain times of year, etc. The reason they aren't interpreted outside of hunting is mostly a matter of enforcement. The C.131 laws are generally enforced by the Mass Environmental Police. I wouldn't be surprised if many non-EPOs don't even know these laws. And an EPO 1) has better things to do with their time than harass obvious non-hunters, and 2) know it'd be a hell of a case to attempt to convict on.

 

[WanMan99]

Massachusetts Bill Sets Unreasonable No Hunting Areas

3/17/11



A bill in Massachusetts could drastically decrease land open for hunting.

House Bill 657, introduced by Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D- ouchebag), would double the size of the state’s no hunting zones near occupied dwellings.

Currently, state law prohibits possessing a loaded firearm or hunting on someone else’s land within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling without the dwelling owner’s permission. This bill would arbitrarily double that distance to 1,000 feet.

If passed, the bill would force sportsmen to get permission to hunt from adjacent land owners even on many of the lands they currently hunt. In effect the bill could shut down vast tracks of land that are currently open to hunting.

“This bill could prohibit sportsmen from hunting on lands they have enjoyed for years simply because the person living next door doesn’t like hunting,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “The current 500 foot no hunting restriction is already excessive, there is no justifiable reason for further limiting the amount of private land available to hunters.”

Take Action! Massachusetts sportsmen should contact their state representative ask them to oppose HB 657. Tell them there is no justification for limiting hunting land access and for infringing on private property rights. To find your state representative’s contact information, please visit www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.

http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2697

FIFY

 

[glockshooter]

Here's the next step to getting this squashed. This is going to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security (http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J22), where the bill can be stopped dead. Here are some links to learn more about the process and where we stand. We are at step 2:

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Ma ... rocess.pdf

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H00657

Here is a list of all the emails for the committee members:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[glockshooter]

Bump

 

[economist]

Be warned, this bill died last year without a peep, and when i got ready to do some footwork, I was asked to back down. i did speak with the rep, who told me it was filed due to a local resident complaining about hunting near her property(even though it was well outside the 500ft line) for birds with shotguns.

The rep should tell this POS that they can control all the land they want if they buy it. Controlling what happens on land they don't own is what we call "stealing".

 

[StevieP]

I emailed my rep, my state senator, and every member of the Committee to register my opposition. Similar bill was submitted to the town of Upton last year. Hundreds turned out for a hearing, where it was struck down. The state legislature needs to KNOW that arbitrary and capricious (look it up) laws like this will not be accepted by freedom-loving people of the Commonwealth.

 

[GML]

Here's the next step to getting this squashed. This is going to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security (http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J22), where the bill can be stopped dead. Here are some links to learn more about the process and where we stand. We are at step 2:

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Ma ... rocess.pdf

http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H00657

Here is a list of all the emails for the committee members:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

e-mailed.

 

[MisterHappy]

very poorly written article - the increase from 500 to 1000 feet quadruples the area around each dwelling.

As for hunting in Suffolk county, yeah, that's pretty built up, but there are some salt marshes where people hunt. A couple of years ago, there was a bit of a kerflufle over people shooting at planes going inot and out of Logan - it was duck hunters, out after Daffy....

Apparently, the access goes back to colonial times, so the common folk could hunt for their dinner (Sundays excluded, of course.)

The Reps have a duty to file bills for their constituents, so while the Rep in question may be Anti, even if not, it's their job.

Again, it's a reasonalble restriction that is a no-lose situation for the Anti side....

 

[BerkshireHunter]

[sad2]

Why God?

 

[Alchemist17]

The state legislature needs to KNOW that arbitrary and capricious (look it up) laws like this will not be accepted by freedom-loving people of the Commonwealth.

Both of them?

 

[davemata]

Yeah both? Without arbitrary laws we couldn't get our handy dandy LTC-As!

 

[glockshooter]

House bill 657!

Hello Fellow MA Sportsmen,

Here is a link to a web page that was put together by some of my hunting buddies to oppose bill 657. Please take some time to have a look at the page and cast your vote! The site is set up to make it simple to voice your opinion and to educate the public. If possible send this link to others.

http://voteno-on657.com/Home_Page.php

Thanks to all and happy hunting!

 

[kjm1022]

"Hey Guys-

The Sportsmen's Alliance is currently preparing to do ballistics and acoustics testing to further debunk the validity of this proposed bill, and the safety claims made by Rep. Reinstein. Ammunition to be supplied by Federal Premium through the generosity and support of Delta Waterfowl. Check out our website: http://www.VoteNo-On657.com site for news on this, updates and other enhancements we've been adding.

Thanks for all the support. Over 10,000 emails have been sent and periodic check-ins with the Joint Committee have confirmed that we are being heard.

Stay tuned!"

 

[kjm1022]

Here's the latest on this topic.

Today, 5/4/11, TSA representatives confirm that the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security has scheduled a hearing date for Rep. Reinstein HB0657. Click here to for details: http://voteno-on657.com/News_and_Status.html

 

[45collector]

Cast my vote for NO!