Tough question: would you get mauled by a bear or by your government?

Talk about the government taking away our right to bear arms or, uh, arm ourselves against bears in this case.

A guy saw a bear in his yard earlier that day. When he went out to fill his bird feeder, he took his trusty shotgun along just in case. The bear saw him and charged and he got off a lucky shot and killed the bear.

Seems like a pretty cut and dried case of self defense right? Not if you're a gubment agent though. They charged him with illegally killing and baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failure to secure a firearm.

Auburn Man Facing Charges After Killing Bear In His Backyard

Richard Ahlstrand told WBZ-TV he was stocking his bird feeder Friday night when a bear about seven feet tall and 300-to-400 pounds started chasing him.

That’s when he turned his shotgun on the bear.

“I didn’t have time to aim through the sights, but I aimed in the direction of the head on this thing and I pulled the trigger before it got to me. It just dropped,” he said.

Ahlstrand said he was carrying the shotgun Friday night because he thought he saw the bear in his yard Thursday.

“If that ever jumped on me, I wouldn’t even be here right know, I don’t think. I know it was going to seriously maul me,” he said.

CBS Boston

Here he is telling his side of the story:


I guess the gubment thinks we would all be better off if we just laid down and let the bear snack on us a little bit. They say he should have stayed trapped inside his home and let the bear take over his property rather than put his life at risk by going outside and protecting himself when it attacked him.

They said he should have called for some gubment goons to come out and take care of the bear (probably would have only taken them a few hours, if not days to respond). If there's one thing you can always count on when you call animal control its that whatever you called them for will be long gone before they show up.

So what would you rather face: getting mauled by the bear or by your government?

reply to post by FortAnthem
I'd rather be mauled by a bear than by my government. At least the bear is just doing what comes naturally but the government mauls us intentionally and methodically. Besides, there isn't much chance of a bear bending me over and raping me- but the government? That's a completely different story!

reply to post by FortAnthem


Trick Question... I don't want to get mauled by anything.

The bear - it's only going to maul you once - and it's all going to be "just" physical.
The government on the other hand will continuously maul you throughout your existence - your mind, your body, your psyche are all available for constant attack by the government.

ganjoa

SO let me get this striaght:

Guy baits a bear kills it illegal
Government baits(someone) kills it legal.

Would I get mauled by a bear or by my government?

Hmmm first I'd call the government to come save me let the bear and the government go at it sit back and eat some popcorn, and drink beer.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Where he went wrong, and will get nailed on is he had that shotgun (and other firearms in his home) illegally. He had no FID or CCW license for weapons. In Massachusetts, you need a minimum of an FID (Firearms Identification Card) to possess a shotgun (or any long rifle) for any purpose. Without that, it is irrelevant whether he baited or not here unfortunately.

Had he gone through the application process, it would be a harder case for the prosecution, as the burden would be upon them to prove active baiting was what brought the bear in so close. Especially, when Auburn is a "green" town with regard to gun owner rights.

Massachusetts Firearms Town Map

reply to post by Krakatoa


Thanks for the info. I was wondering what the whole "illegal possession" charge was all about. Make me wonder why anyone would want to live in a state like that.

Then, to add insult to injury, the cops tacked a bunch of other BS charges. Probably in the hopes that he's cop to a plea bargain to get most of the charges dismissed.

Its a shame that, in an area where people are still threatened by wildlife, the gubment forces them to get special permits and such just to have the weapons to defend themselves.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Thanks for the info. I was wondering what the whole "illegal possession" charge was all about. Make me wonder why anyone would want to live in a state like that.

Then, to add insult to injury, the cops tacked a bunch of other BS charges. Probably in the hopes that he's cop to a plea bargain to get most of the charges dismissed.

Its a shame that, in an area where people are still threatened by wildlife, the gubment forces them to get special permits and such just to have the weapons to defend themselves.

Not to be pedantic here, but I never said "permit", purposefully. It is called a license, since you can not officially grant a "permit" (which provides permission) for a right guaranteed in the United States Constitution. This is one of the legal loopholes the Govt uses to make it legally OK for them to put those hoops in place and make you jump through them in order to be "licensed" to exercise a Constitutional right.

Ok what type of absolute idiot is this guy?

First of all he sees what may be a bear lurking around his yard then decides its a good idea to put food out in the bird feeder?

I'm sorry but this man is the definition of stupid. He deserves to have these charges filed against him.

Everyone knows you absolutely put any type of food away, in sealed containers when bears are around.