Comments on: A loss for property rights

By: Jimmy Carroll

Jimmy Carroll — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:18:44 +0000

Galen Morris does not own any land anywhere and this was not established during the trial, the one acre was bought from Albert & lavena BELL by Galen’s mother & step-father 20+ years ago and was part of their Estate, which is owned by Peggy Carroll ETAL. He has hunted the property himself and was never charged. His step-father, who died 3 years ago & is buried behind their house & who built the deer stands himself. The easement to the hunting property is less than 100 feet from Galen’s mothers house, so he knew every time a hunter went to the field except when he was at work or gone somewhere. When Ms. Carroll spoke with him about the noise polution he said she had made him lose his home and she didn’t refund his money for water meter & she was going to pay and that he wasn’t going to have his kids walk on eggshells just for her. There are laws protecting others from noise polution I don’t care where a person lives and when a person repeatedly, in spite of warnings from game warden. does the same thing over and over and even admitted doing it to one of the hunters and was going to continue to make the noise, he didn’t care who it bothered. What if he was your neighbor?????????? His lawyer Mr. Griffith needs to get all the facts. Thank you.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:21:47 +0000

Thanks for the info, Lora.

By: Lora

Lora — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:13:56 +0000

Evidently, no one here knew the evidence that was brought before the judge and jury. One hunter testified that Mr. Morris told him personally that he was going to blow his airhorn and be disruptive until the owner of the land lost her property. He was evicted from the owners property prior to this harassment beginning. Besides he doesn’t own any property, look in the tax rolls, pull court records, then give your opinion. It is all open records. This case has affected me and my family personally.

By: Fox

Fox — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:41:53 +0000

Without reading the court brief, I find it humorous to agree with markm, the article says that he will keep his children from creating noise… doesn’t say anything about Morris himself.

Hell, if I were him, I’d buy some of those huge speakers they use at expo centers and play porno music from 8am to 8pm… if they’re gonna complain, give them a real reason to.

By: markm

markm — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:33:52 +0000

Note that for children (and most adults with jobs, but this order applied to children), a ban on doing something before noon or after 4 pm = only on weekends, and then only from noon to 4.

By: Steve Ramsey

Steve Ramsey — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:20:34 +0000

Generally speaking yes, but those activities can also rise to the level of a nuisance. The determining factor might be if the hunters were on thier own land as well. Still, I have a hard time seeing how hunting equates to “peaceful use and enjoyment”.
I doubt there is such a precident in nuisance law.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:58:37 +0000

I think it’s reasonable to assume that you can ride 4 wheelers, play music, mow your lawn, and other noisy things during reasonable hours.

By: Masked Menace�

Masked Menace� — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:51:47 +0000

I�m as pro-gun as they get but a man�s property is a man�s property and he�s free to enjoy it in a manner he sees fit, so long as it does not interfere with another�s enjoyment of their property. Hunt somewhere else.

But doesn’t the loud music interfere with another’s enjoyment of their property? Or is the property public land? Or is hunting not “enjoyment of their property”?

I’m not being snarky, I honestly don’t know.

By: Stormare Mackee

Stormare Mackee — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:10:21 +0000

There are lots of laws and ordinances everywhere that restrict man’s right to enjoy his property as he sees fit, however:
From the article: “The Sportsman’s Rights Act makes it illegal to intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m convinced this would be overturned on appeal. For one, I don’t see how the judge could interpret kids playing loud music or driving fourwheelers as having the _intention_ of interfering with hunting. Secondly, there is no way for a person in the adjoining property to know when a hunter is _in the process of hunting_, so the judge’s decision is way overbroad. A deer getting scared away is just a side-effect of kids intending to play and have a good time. Hunt somewhere else.