Rochester resident arrested for firing a gun in his yard

[atr]

It seems pretty clear to me that this would not qualify as the initiation of force.

I'm not talking about the noise, I'm talking about his backstop.

Did you look at the map, and note how his backyard is surrounded by neighbors on every side?  If the Google satellite map is accurate, there may not be any single direction he could shoulder and aim a rifle without pointing it at a building.

From the article, we have no idea in what direction he aimed or fired his rifle--it could have been straight into the ground.

That's the problem with this law--even if pointing a rifle at your neighbor's house (or firing it at your neighbor's house) is an act of aggression, that's not what this guy was punished for.

[Crocuta]

If I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off other drivers and being generally unsafe, but I haven't actually harmed anyone, is it still wrong?  I would say that it is still recklessly endangering others on the road.

Discharging an object that propels a hunk of lead at velocities in excess of 1000 fps in a residential area is a potentially reckless act regardless of where the barrel is pointed.

I'm not saying that the end result was the best option, but I expect the police to investigate the discharge of a firearm in an urban area.  It generally doesn't bode well.

[atr]

If I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off other drivers and being generally unsafe, but I haven't actually harmed anyone, is it still wrong?  I would say that it is still recklessly endangering others on the road.

Property owners (of roads and other property) have the right to enforce rules of conduct on their property.

The state governs the roads. Whether its control is legitimate, or what rules it may appropriately enforce, are large questions. I will say, however, that if the state is a legitimate owner of its roads, or an authorized agent of the rightful owners, it is clear that it has broad authority to enforce rules, including those against weaving, speeding, etc.

(Rules of the road, since they are set by the state, are treated as questions of policy, not rights. For example, you may think you have "the right" to talk on a cellphone while driving, but you have no more right to do that than to drive 100mph weaving through traffic, inasmuch as neither infringes others' rights. My personal belief is that you should be allowed to do both. Many self-described libertarians, however, believe that laws against "potential" dangers on public property are justified.)

Discharging an object that propels a hunk of lead at velocities in excess of 1000 fps in a residential area is a potentially reckless act regardless of where the barrel is pointed.

To the best of my knowledge, the state is not the rightful owner of that man's property any more than it is the rightful owner of restaurants. He, not the state, has the right to decide whether cigarettes will be smoked or firearms will be discharged on his property.

His neighbors have the right to invade his dominion when necessary to defend their own rights--for example, if starts firing his rifle into his neighbor's swimming pool. They can also deputize others to defend their rights, and the police assumed this role here.

There is no indication that his neighbors' rights were violated, or even threatened.

[Crocuta]

Property owners (of roads and other property) have the right to enforce rules of conduct on their property.

We are in agreement.

The state governs the roads. Whether its control is legitimate, or what rules it may appropriately enforce, are large questions. I will say, however, that if the state is a legitimate owner of its roads, or an authorized agent of the rightful owners, it is clear that it has broad authority to enforce rules, including those against weaving, speeding, etc.

As long as the roads remain public property, and until those roads are returned to private ownership in a way that ensures free travel and access to everyone, the default is public ownership and management of the common roadways.  With that comes the public coming to consensus on what is acceptable and proper behavior on those common roads.  Frankly, I can live with that, but I'd be happy to see a better option replace it.

(Rules of the road, since they are set by the state, are treated as questions of policy, not rights. For example, you may think you have "the right" to talk on a cellphone while driving, but you have no more right to do that than to drive 100mph weaving through traffic, inasmuch as neither infringes others' rights. My personal belief is that you should be allowed to do both. Many self-described libertarians, however, believe that laws against "potential" dangers on public property are justified.)

There are certain behaviors that one can logically deduce will lead to disaster. Smoking meth and drinking a fifth of vodka before getting behind the wheel of a car, for example.  When combined with other drivers on the highway, one can reasonably assume that someone, and not necessarily the stoned driver, is going to be maimed or killed.  Should we wait until someone actually dies before taking action, or should we presume that the other vehicle occupants around him have the rights to life, liberty and property and prevent the loss of life in the first place?  Don't get me wrong - if someone wants to get stoned and drunk and recklessly risk their own life, more power to 'em.  I can't however, say that they should be able to risk the lives of others.

To the best of my knowledge, the state is not the rightful owner of that man's property any more than it is the rightful owner of restaurants. He, not the state, has the right to decide whether cigarettes will be smoked or firearms will be discharged on his property.
His neighbors have the right to invade his dominion when necessary to defend their own rights--for example, if starts firing his rifle into his neighbor's swimming pool. They can also deputize others to defend their rights, and the police assumed this role here.
There is no indication that his neighbors' rights were violated, or even threatened.

Let's say that I'm standing in my yard, firing a rifle at a block of granite.  Every time I hit the rock, the bullet flies off in a random direction, but always stays within my property (some come pretty close to a trajectory that would cross your property, but they always hit a tree or something that stops them.)  Am I violating your rights or your property?  You can always hope that one comes straight back and intersects my cranium before a stray volley perforates your child.  Or, you can stay locked up inside, hunkered down in the cellar until the risk is gone.   You have to suspend your right to full and free use of your property in order to not lose your life.

[atr]

As long as the roads remain public property, and until those roads are returned to private ownership in a way that ensures free travel and access to everyone, the default is public ownership and management of the common roadways.  With that comes the public coming to consensus on what is acceptable and proper behavior on those common roads.  Frankly, I can live with that, but I'd be happy to see a better option replace it.

First, the public does not come to a consensus. Consensus is based on consent. Government's regulation of roads is based on representative majority rules. This is how we end up with cellphone bans and ridiculously low speed limits, for example.

While you may be okay with people getting arrested for driving 90 mph on I-93, I am not. It reminds me of the Billy Goats Gruff. People are driving along, not hurting anyone, then out come the police to steal their money.

There are certain behaviors that one can logically deduce will lead to disaster. Smoking meth and drinking a fifth of vodka before getting behind the wheel of a car, for example.  When combined with other drivers on the highway, one can reasonably assume that someone, and not necessarily the stoned driver, is going to be maimed or killed.

Vast numbers of people drive after consuming liquor and other intoxicants without injuring others.

Should we wait until someone actually dies before taking action, or should we presume that the other vehicle occupants around him have the rights to life, liberty and property and prevent the loss of life in the first place?  Don't get me wrong - if someone wants to get stoned and drunk and recklessly risk their own life, more power to 'em.  I can't however, say that they should be able to risk the lives of others.

People risk others' lives every day--drivers of cars, pilots of planes, etc. People drive drunk, sleepy, hungry, while talking, reading, applying makeup, etc. Fortunately, the vast majority of them do not injure others.

I assume that I have rights of life, liberty, and property, and that until another person violates them, I do not have the right to use force against that person. I don't know precisely at what point the rights violation occurs, but would characterize it differently than risk--more like imminent threat.

Let's say that I'm standing in my yard, firing a rifle at a block of granite.  Every time I hit the rock, the bullet flies off in a random direction, but always stays within my property (some come pretty close to a trajectory that would cross your property, but they always hit a tree or something that stops them.)  Am I violating your rights or your property?  You can always hope that one comes straight back and intersects my cranium before a stray volley perforates your child.  Or, you can stay locked up inside, hunkered down in the cellar until the risk is gone.   You have to suspend your right to full and free use of your property in order to not lose your life.

I don't know the answer to your hypothetical. But my point is that we have no idea in what direction this guy was firing his rifle. We do, however, know what he was punished for--firing it within 300 feet of a residence. And I think we can agree that doing so is not inherently an activity that will lead to disaster (or violation of others' rights). And I hope we can agree that it is not an activity that deserves to be punished.

[mvpel]

The law needs to be objective, not subjective, in order to be fair.  If the speed limit is "reasonable and prudent" then if some thug with a badge wants to pull you over and fine you for driving 60 on the freeway, he can.

What do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?

[MaineShark]

First, the public does not come to a consensus. Consensus is based on consent. Government's regulation of roads is based on representative majority rules. This is how we end up with cellphone bans and ridiculously low speed limits, for example.

...

I don't know the answer to your hypothetical. But my point is that we have no idea in what direction this guy was firing his rifle. We do, however, know what he was punished for--firing it within 300 feet of a residence. And I think we can agree that doing so is not inherently an activity that will lead to disaster (or violation of others' rights). And I hope we can agree that it is not an activity that deserves to be punished.

Ditto.

What do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?

Already covered under:

631:3 Reckless Conduct. ?
I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

Joe

[mvpel]

Violators would then be charged with a Class B felony instead of a violation, if the reckless conduct statute were applied instead of the unauthorized use.

[MaineShark]

Violators would then be charged with a Class B felony instead of a violation, if the reckless conduct statute were applied instead of the unauthorized use.

Indeed.

Actual initiation of force should be punished severely.

Joe

[atr]

The law needs to be objective, not subjective, in order to be fair.  If the speed limit is "reasonable and prudent" then if some thug with a badge wants to pull you over and fine you for driving 60 on the freeway, he can.

I don't support any speed limit on public roads. Objectively, when one's money is taken from him as punishment for driving a certain speed (on a public road), that's stealing.

What do you propose as a replacement for the 100-yard limit for discharge of firearms in compact areas that would both respect individual liberty and protect the interests of neighbors whose homes may be shot towards?

Trespass: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm
or Assault (usu. called battery): http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-2-a.htm

Just to be clear, I do not support state regulation of private property at all, but these regulations are superior/preferable to the 300-foot firearm restriction. As a general rule, the state should not punish persons who have not violated others' rights. Because the 300-foot rule punishes people who have not violated others' rights, it is an unjust law.

[tracysaboe]

Seems to me you don't need regulations. Noise polution, like any other polution, is a tresspass on private property. Seems to me if you can show that the noise distrupted the use of your property, common law, lower courts should be able to start developing standards on their own, with-out any "need" for regulations.

As far as endangerment, I don't think a person should be arrested untill actual damage has occured. We shouldn't be arresting people for crimes they statistically "might" commit.

Tracy

[Mark]

From the article, we have no idea in what direction he aimed or fired his rifle--it could have been straight into the ground.

In the video, his neighbor said he was shooting the gun in the air. It's a pretty tight residential area.

[Mark]

As far as endangerment, I don't think a person should be arrested untill actual damage has occured. We shouldn't be arresting people for crimes they statistically "might" commit.

Tracy

Would this apply to high-speed drunk driving as well?

The "damage" in the gun-firing case could very well be loss of life for some random person carrying in the groceries.

[tracysaboe]

As far as the cops are conserned, yes.

BTW if drunk driving wasn't illegal it's likely most drunks would drive slower.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html

Now, if roads were privately owned, the owners could set their own policies and expell people they felt were a danger to their other customers.

Tracy

[Dreepa]

Now, if roads were privately owned, the owners could set their own policies and expell people they felt were a danger to their other customers.

When will libertarians stop crying about private roads?
It won't happen for a long time.... we need to focus on other things..