Quote:
Originally Posted by tam474
discharge a firearm from or cause a projectile from a firearm to pass along or across:
a) a provincial highway (this designation applies to all former primary and secondary highways),
b) a road that is paved, oiled, graded or regularly maintained, unless
- the road is held under any active disposition under the Public Lands Act or under an order under the Surface Rights Act, or - the person is hunting game birds with a shotgun under the authority of a licence.
Note: if there is no identifiable ditch or fence to mark the outside edge of the roadway, then the roadway extends 20 feet from the edge of the traveled portion.
It says nothing about traffic but does state primary or secondary highway. Which this highway is. It also states paved, oiled, graded or regularly maintained. Which this highway is.
I agree. All the fellow had to do was jump over the fence and he would have been legal. But that is apparently too much effort
|
The officer would have to
A) Physically see the perp discharge the firearm illegaly
B) Have the perp admit that they had infact discharged the firearm illegally
C) Have eye witness testimony willing to testify in a court of law
If the officer followed up with you, saying they are being charged under the wildlife act, i find it odd they are not telling you what exactly they are being charged with or asking for a written statement.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying things aren't adding up.
For the record, I do not shoot off of busy highways for the sole reason I don't see the need to ruffle granola munchin tree huggers feathers.