Dog Shot in Meridian

imported post

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum33/41197.html

This topic came up earlier today. It was just locked. These conversations tend to get heated, no? For the record, in full support of the shooter; keep your dog on a leash or pay the consequences. 100% legal and justified.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

beigedreams wrote:

Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know thatone better than anyone else.

Click to expand...

The right to self-defense is not legally void within city limits. Even you know this.

Click to expand...

Yep, rules and laws for a reason. For you, since you don't seem to want to search out and read Idaho statutes:

[align=center]TITLE 18 [/align]CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTSCHAPTER 33 FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS18-3302J.Preemption of firearms regulation.(1) The legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the individual citizen’s right to bear arms guaranteed by amendment 2 of the United States Constitution and section 11, article I of the constitution of the state of Idaho. It is the legislature’s intent to wholly occupy the field of firearms regulation within this state.(2)Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city, agency, board or any other political subdivision of this state may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition.(3)A county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within its boundaries. Ordinances adopted under this subsection may not apply to or affecta)A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or persons or property;(b)A person discharging a firearm in the course of lawful hunting;(c)A landowner and guests of the landowner discharging a firearm, when the discharge will not endanger persons or property;(d)A person lawfully discharging a firearm on a sport shooting range as defined in section 55-2604, Idaho Code; or(e)A person discharging a firearm in the course of target shooting on public land if the discharge will not endanger persons or property.(4)A city may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the discharge of firearms within its boundaries. Ordinances adopted under this subsection may not apply to or affect:(a)A person discharging a firearm in the lawful defense of person or persons or property; or(b)A person lawfully discharging a firearm on a sport shooting range as defined in section 55-2604, Idaho Code.(5)This section shall not be construed to affecta)The authority of the department of fish and game to make rules or regulations concerning the management of any wildlife of this state, as set forth in section 36-104, Idaho Code;(b)The authority of counties and cities to regulate the location and construction of sport shooting ranges, subject to the limitations contained in chapter 26, title 55, Idaho Code; and(c)The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.(6)The provisions of this section are hereby declared to be severable. And if any provision is declared invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this section.
I made the section above (4a) bold for you. The law states that a city may regulate the discharge of a firearm (Meridian does), but that law does not apply in self-defense situations.

--Carl

imported post

Thanks for the citation.

As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the U.S. are discharge prohibitions applicable in self-defense scenarios.

imported post

cwp wrote:

marshaul wrote:

beigedreams wrote:

Firing within city limits...anyone? there are rules and laws for everything for a reason. Cop or not...fine. But he should know that one better than anyone else.

Click to expand...

The right to self-defense is not legally void within city limits. Even you know this.

Click to expand...

Yep, rules and laws for a reason.  For you, since you don't seem to want to search out and read Idaho statutes:

Click to expand...

another post full of win!

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Thanks for the citation.

As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the U.S. are discharge prohibitions applicable in self-defense scenarios.

Click to expand...

Sorry Marshaul, meant to quote the other post only, not you. Too many people believe you can't defend yourself without going to jail. We are not the UK yet.

--Carl

imported post

I own a huskey. If you have ever ownwd this breed you know they love freedom and running. My huskey looks like a wolf. And he gets away all the time, leave the front door open for 1 second too long he's gone. Does that make me irresponsible... I don't belive so because I did not intentionaly allow the dog out without restraint. However, the owner in question allowed the dog to freely roam the front yard and adjoining road. Why not the backyard? That would have changed the story all together, it would read somwthing like. Dog shot while protecting home, shooter in custody... blah blah.

Deputy did the same thing I would. As far as the anti gun granny. That's just being closed minded. From what I've seen from you guys on this forum we are all willing to debate our sides... opinions to near death. But if someone comes by and says something to give us some kind of further insight into the other side, well, many of you will take the time to consider it not just dismiss it. Bravo.

imported post

adam m wrote:

I own a huskey. If you have ever ownwd this breed you know they love freedom and running. My huskey looks like a wolf. And he gets away all the time, leave the front door open for 1 second too long he's gone. Does that make me irresponsible... I don't belive so because I did not intentionaly allow the dog out without restraint. However, the owner in question allowed the dog to freely roam the front yard and adjoining road. Why not the backyard? That would have changed the story all together, it would read somwthing like. Dog shot while protecting home, shooter in custody... blah blah.

Deputy did the same thing I would. As far as the anti gun granny. That's just being closed minded. From what I've seen from you guys on this forum we are all willing to debate our sides... opinions to near death. But if someone comes by and says something to give us some kind of further insight into the other side, well, many of you will take the time to consider it not just dismiss it. Bravo.

Click to expand...

Adam, yeah- I have owned Huskies. I have owned two Siberian pure Huskies, guy and girl. I know that they run like crazy. I owned these two while living in metro Detroit- we have to call a Special husky catching crew because the regular animal control isn't willing to catch huskies. They run to crazy. They do look just like wolves, specially pure with blue eyes and black and white fur.

So I know where you're coming from-

And DUH! I would NOT mind if any stranger had to shoot my huskies if they were unleashed and were at large. That's the point of catching them- get 'em home; and safe. I would 110% understand anybody opening fire on my huskies- they look like dangerous wolves and are in fact very dangerous canines that are not to be underestimated. I've owned Labs, Huskies, and boxers- for reference.

Nobody can use the "well I am a dog owner and you are not so you don't understand" trick because that won't fly here.

An unleashed canine is to be put down when approaching strangers, for better or worse; and the law justifies such action.

Like I said before; justified- solid kill.

imported post

adam m wrote:

... Does that make me irresponsible... I don't belive so because I did not intentionaly allow the dog out without restraint. ...

Click to expand...

Yep, that makes you irresponsible. You have responsibility for your dog, and knowing this about your dog, you still let it get out. We once had a lab like this. Except it would do anything to get out, including finding ways out of a 6' fenced backyard (we fully fenced the yard when we got the dog, and realized it's tenancies). Anyway, when it was clear this would not deter the animal from finding a way out, we found a family that had 5 acres dog fenced and adopted the dog to them. This gave the animal the room to run, and kept it happy. If we couldn't find a family, I was going to destroy the dog (he liked to play bite, and I wouldn't let an animal that did that roam free).

Anyway, point is if your dog is running at large past the first time or two, that shows owner irresponsibility (I can grant a first time didn't know).

--Carl

imported post

I concurr, I would be upet if my dog were shot, but circumstances being what they were, I would not raise such a fuss. it would have been justified.

imported post

It was released today that there will be no charges filed against the deputy for the shooting. I will post a link when I get home from work.

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

And DUH!  I would NOT mind if any stranger had to shoot my huskies if they were unleashed and were at large.  That's the point of catching them- get 'em home; and safe.  I would 110% understand anybody opening fire on my huskies- they look like dangerous wolves and are in fact very dangerous canines that are not to be underestimated.  I've owned Labs, Huskies, and boxers- for reference. 

Nobody can use the "well I am a dog owner and you are not so you don't understand" trick because that won't fly here.

An unleashed canine is to be put down when approaching strangers, for better or worse; and the law justifies such action.

Like I said before; justified- solid kill.

Click to expand...

Coming from a dog owner, too. Bravo!

You're right on the money. It may be a harmless dog and an innocent mistake, but the person your dog runs up to cannot know that. This is why there is an obligation to prevent this scenario from arising in the first place, and to prevent putting random strangers in the position of having to make that call.

I can think of a dog which used to roam my neighborhood unleashed, and chased me up a tree a couple times walking home from the bus stop (when I was still too young to know how to deal with a dog. Not that anyone should have to know merely because someone else can't be responsible. Actually, I knew enough not to run, and the fact that I ran anyway should show you exactly how serious this dog made himself seem to me.). That dog really ought to have been shot. I'd do it myself if it were still alive and chasing small children, treeing them for an hour or more.

Of course, I'm sure the owner thought it was just harmless exercise. :quirky