Shot an injured deer, got charged with a misdemeanor

[nblanton]

I was driving home the other afternoon and a girl in front of me hit a young buck. The deer's back was broken and was running around on its front two legs in and out of traffic. I stopped and killed the deer with my pistol I carry on me when I'm out. Road cleared, I went on home. An hour later I have 3 sheriffs deputies and 2 Raleigh city P.D. at my driveway. They took my pistol for evidence and charged me with a misdemeanor discharging a firearm charge. I asked the officer why wasn't this considered a valid use of a weapon. He said that under Raleigh city ordinance, it is unlawful to discharge a firearm inside the city limits for any reason.

My question is, after the recent Chicago gun ban case ruled that we have a right to carry, and I would assume use a handgun how can Raleigh have a law on its books that prevents the use of a firearm for any reason. I've looked at the statute, and it doesn't include any valid reason for the discharge of a firearm, including self defense. I've thought about writing one of these 2nd amendment groups for some legal advice, but I tend to have a rather different political outlook, i.e. I'm pretty much an Obama loving bleeding heart liberal except for gun issues.

So, instead I'm asking my fellow XJ drivers what they think. My friends and relatives, all of whom grew up in N.C. were surprised by the police. This is pretty common practice in the South to dispatch injured wildlife to prevent further suffering or vehicle damage from a frightened animal.

 

[Gonepostal]

Lucky you were not here in Wyoming the gun charge would not be an issue but the local fur and feather police (game and fish wardens) would have charged you with poaching for putting this deer out of its misery, an even more ridiculous charge considering they generally are no where around when there is an injured animal dragging its ass around, in pain, and bleeding. However, they are always Johnny on the spot when they have the opportunity to write bogus violations. Sorry you like Obama his stance on the second amendment blows.

 

[lilredxj99]

Well, I live on So IL. And unfortunately, there is something in the law about "dispatching" said injured animal. Something about the police have to do it. Anyway, I have "dispatched" several said animal, but I always let the SO know. Basically, as long as it's prop damage/ no personal injury, our local sheriff's office doesn't care.

But I'm not sure if it's a wildlife law or a state law or what.

I'm sure the city ordinance is where it'll get you. I know in my hometown (Bluegrass State) You cannot discharge a rifle, and maybe a pistol in city limits... doesn't include a shotgun.

Surely, you can get this thrown out. If not, you had better spend some money w/ the NRA, and send them a letter. The Chicago gun laws are crap, they have solved nothing. Just look around chi0town and you will see that the gang bangers, street thugs, and the wannabe's still have guns, and they're still bust'n a cap in each other.

The Chicago case didn't say right to carry, it was right to own. It was illegal for the law abiding citizens in the state of Chicago to own any firearm.

 

[nblanton]

My point is that it seems to be an unreasonable restriction on firearms to not allow any use under the law, including self defense which isn't really the case here.

As for the Fish and Wildlife guys, if I would have taken the animal with me then I would have been in felony trouble.

 

[lilredxj99]

They give them away here... 1st come 1st served.

 

[IllianaXJ]

Proper course of action most likely should have been to call local PD/sheriff's department first, advised them of the situation and asked if there was an officer nearby. If nobody was available, I would have told PD I was going to dispatch the animal to clear the roadway unless told otherwise. Your biggest mistake here was leaving the scene without talking to PD. Had you stayed and given your case, I doubt it would have ended the same.

A lot of cities have no discharge ordinances except in the case of self defense, which this was clearly not. This is mainly to keep people from target shooting in their yard and overshooting into a neighbor's house. There is a big difference between right to carry and right to discharge your weapon whenever you see fit. We didn't need the Chicago case to give us right to carry BTW, the 2nd Amendment have given us that for years. The way the law works gives local jurisdictions the authority to tighten laws as they see fit, but they can never be looser than Federal laws. Chicago has every right to write an ordinance to limit the carrying and discharge of weapons within city limits, whether we agree with it or not, that is the way the legal system was set up.

 

[jmaxj]

Lucky you were not here in Wyoming the gun charge would not be an issue but the local fur and feather police (game and fish wardens) would have charged you with poaching for putting this deer out of its misery, an even more ridiculous charge considering they generally are no where around when there is an injured animal dragging its ass around, in pain, and bleeding. However, they are always Johnny on the spot when they have the opportunity to write bogus violations. Sorry you like Obama his stance on the second amendment blows.

Same in UT, if you shoot it its a felony and poaching,plus they take your guns and no longer can you get a hunting license.

 

[joe_peters]

My point is that it seems to be an unreasonable restriction on firearms to not allow any use under the law, including self defense which isn't really the case here.

As for the Fish and Wildlife guys, if I would have taken the animal with me then I would have been in felony trouble.

If you had been in fear for your life, or the life of a family member, then discharging a firearm in the city limits "probably" wouldn't have got you cited.

However, shooting an injured animal doesn't qualify. Your best hope is to get some professional advice, and representation. You shouldn't talk to the police or DA's office without representation present.

You made an honest and compassionate choice, but a bad one. Good luck.

 

[DrMoab]

Same in UT, if you shoot it its a felony and poaching,plus they take your guns and no longer can you get a hunting license.

Not always...

If you call the police and ask them first they will quite often give you permission however you MUST call first and then they will not always give you permission either.

This also holds true in Wyoming.

This will not get you out of discharging a firearm in a city though.

 

[ECKSJAY]

I was driving home the other afternoon and a girl in front of me hit a young buck. The deer's back was broken and was running around on its front two legs in and out of traffic. I stopped and killed the deer with my pistol I carry on me when I'm out. Road cleared, I went on home. An hour later I have 3 sheriffs deputies and 2 Raleigh city P.D. at my driveway. They took my pistol for evidence and charged me with a misdemeanor discharging a firearm charge. I asked the officer why wasn't this considered a valid use of a weapon. He said that under Raleigh city ordinance, it is unlawful to discharge a firearm inside the city limits for any reason.

My question is, after the recent Chicago gun ban case ruled that we have a right to carry, and I would assume use a handgun how can Raleigh have a law on its books that prevents the use of a firearm for any reason. I've looked at the statute, and it doesn't include any valid reason for the discharge of a firearm, including self defense. I've thought about writing one of these 2nd amendment groups for some legal advice, but I tend to have a rather different political outlook, i.e. I'm pretty much an Obama loving bleeding heart liberal except for gun issues.

So, instead I'm asking my fellow XJ drivers what they think. My friends and relatives, all of whom grew up in N.C. were surprised by the police. This is pretty common practice in the South to dispatch injured wildlife to prevent further suffering or vehicle damage from a frightened animal.

Friends, THIS is why you educate yourself BEFORE carrying a firearm. PERIOD. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when handling weapons. Contacting a 2nd Amendment group won't do any good when laws were broken, not because you 'think' and 'assume' it was valid.

Due process of the lol.

 

[Darky]

We didn't need the Chicago case to give us right to carry BTW, the 2nd Amendment have given us that for years.

The way the law works gives local jurisdictions the authority to tighten laws as they see fit, but they can never be looser than Federal laws. Chicago has every right to write an ordinance to limit the carrying and discharge of weapons within city limits,

These two back to back sentences seem to contradict each other. First you say the 2nd Amendment has given us the right to carry all along, then go on to say local jurisdictions have the right to tell us we can't carry. Please explain.

that is the way the legal system was set up.

And not according to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court just said that the Bill of Rights trumps local law, ie, Chicago and DC can't take away our right to bear arms and no one can take away our right to free speech, etc.

 

[IllianaXJ]

These two back to back sentences seem to contradict each other. First you say the 2nd Amendment has given us the right to carry all along, then go on to say local jurisdictions have the right to tell us we can't carry. Please explain.

Yeah, they do contradict each other. It may not pertain directly to this issue, noted by your other quote below. Basically the Federal law lays legal framework and allows local jurisdictions; state, county, city, township etc, to tighten up the law as the legislators see fit. This allows for the democratic process to work. Some people may want a law to be tighter than the Federal regs, and they can write it that way and make it law or ordinance. Others in a different area may want the law to stick to the Federal regs. Only caveat here is the local law/ordinance cannot be looser or more leninient than the Federal law. I'm not a law professor by any means, this is just what I remember from college local government classes.

And not according to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court just said that the Bill of Rights trumps local law, ie, Chicago and DC can't take away our right to bear arms and no one can take away our right to free speech, etc.

Good to know, I hadn't dug deep enough into the Chicago case to pick this up, thanks.

 

[FordGuy]

Yeah, they do contradict each other. It may not pertain directly to this issue, noted by your other quote below. Basically the Federal law lays legal framework and allows local jurisdictions; state, county, city, township etc, to tighten up the law as the legislators see fit. This allows for the democratic process to work. Some people may want a law to be tighter than the Federal regs, and they can write it that way and make it law or ordinance. Others in a different area may want the law to stick to the Federal regs. Only caveat here is the local law/ordinance cannot be looser or more leninient than the Federal law. I'm not a law professor by any means, this is just what I remember from college local government classes.


Then why is AZ getting sued for there immigration law? It's not even tighter than Fed law.

 

[iwannadie]

Friends, THIS is why you educate yourself BEFORE carrying a firearm. PERIOD. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when handling weapons. Contacting a 2nd Amendment group won't do any good when laws were broken, not because you 'think' and 'assume' it was valid.

Due process of the lol.

I have to agree. It sucks the deer was wounded but is it worth the hassle and loosing your pistol to put it out of its misery? The city doesn't want this to become a common practice I'm sure. People going around seeing wounded animals on the side walk and shooting them. You are not a LEO or a city/state working on duty to be worried about the flow of traffic. What if your shot missed? What if the bullet passed through the deer and had a bizarre ricochet hitting someone?

I would also imagine if you used your gun in a valid self defense situation the last thing you would care about is a misdemeanor technicality charge. Not that I would condone having such a law saying it's ok to carry a gun just don't use it lol. Just saying it seems like something that would be a non-issue in a serious self defense case.

 

[IllianaXJ]

Then why is AZ getting sued for there immigration law? It's not even tighter than Fed law.

Because Oh Noes the ILLEGAL immigrants' feelings are being hurt by the new law.

 

[Ben_Dyer]

I would gladly offer up a pistol to put a wounded WILD animal out of its pain. I have done so on two differant occasions once when a new recruit here in Sterling could not cause it was TOO CUTE. All the while it was laying there gasping blowing blood bubbles with both front legs broken, and major internal trama from being hit by a tractor. Recieved an award for my actions and the recruit got a write up.

In this case i would say that while i waited for police to arrive i saw multiple vehicles almost strike the deer a second time and was in fear of a larger accident. So I proceeded to clear the area and shot the animal. Give good detail on how you made the scene AS SAFE AS YOU COULD and be scencere. No excuse for leaving the scene however.

 

[ECKSJAY]

I would gladly offer up a pistol to put a wounded WILD animal out of its pain. I have done so on two differant occasions once when a new recruit here in Sterling could not cause it was TOO CUTE. All the while it was laying there gasping blowing blood bubbles with both front legs broken, and major internal trama from being hit by a tractor. Recieved an award for my actions and the recruit got a write up.

In this case i would say that while i waited for police to arrive i saw multiple vehicles almost strike the deer a second time and was in fear of a larger accident. So I proceeded to clear the area and shot the animal. Give good detail on how you made the scene AS SAFE AS YOU COULD and be scencere. No excuse for leaving the scene however.

 

[iBarsky]

....My question is, after the recent Chicago gun ban case ruled that we have a right to carry, and I would assume use a handgun how can Raleigh have a law on its books that prevents the use of a firearm for any reason. I've looked at the statute, and it doesn't include any valid reason for the discharge of a firearm, including self defense.....

You have to understand that the recent ruling doesn't mean that all gun laws are null and void. What McDonald did was open the door for lawsuits and challenges to remove restrictive gun bans and or laws. The true fruits of this case will be realized slowly, probably over the next decade or so.


And asking Pro2A groups for advice is not the answer. You should be asking these questions of your attorney. If you don't have a good defense attorney, one that is knowledgeable about firearm and self defense law, that you are on first name basis with then I suggest you seek one out.

 

[DrexelSpivey]

That's why I never live in the same state that my XJ is licensed in. Cut's down the snitch factor..

 

[XJEEPER]

A call to the police and a chat with them would have saved you a lot of grief before you pulled the trigger.......so would supporting someone who doesn't use the 2nd Amendment for toilet paper.

Really? A Gun rights loving Socialist lover? These two are unable to co-exist.

Pick one. God-given Rights and Freedoms, or Socialism.

Good luck with getting your weapon back.