What is the context behind this one? Anti-poaching bill supported by land owners?

Why does ag land need special trespassing protections than any other type of property?
Does ag land currently have less protections than any other property?
Why not just have one statute against criminal trespass and be done with it?


I do find the expansive definition of "agricultural land" to be interesting:
Agricultural land" means land used for agricultural purposes, including general farming, cane growing, fruit growing, flower growing, grazing, dairying, the production of any form of livestock or poultry, and any other form of agricultural activity, and includes land required for an adequate farm dwelling and other essential farm buildings, roads, and adjacent lands under the control of an owner.

I'd expect it to go by zoning... Instead, if I have flowers or fruit trees on my 5,000 square foot lot in the suburbs, does that mean I have ag land?

I like that you're getting ahead of all these bills. But you might want to wait until they get a hearing so you don't burn out thinking of every anti 2a bill that's proposed. Basically, stressing over nothing.

Agriculture related crimes like theft are elevated one or two degrees higher.  Like stealing over $100 of pineapples is a Class C Felony instead of the normal Petty Misdemeanor.  I dunno the history, but probably large plantation owners having a lot of sway in government and want to stop locals from stealing stuff in the old days.  Poaching is a legit issue tho.  My friend has a small ranch and her locks get cut and fences damaged by poachers.  She had cattle and a horse shot, not sure if accidentally or on purpose.  There's also been conflicts between poachers and ag landowners where someone gets shot.

But removing a constitutional right over a petty misdemeanor for trespassing is easily unconstitutional.  PM are equivelant to disorderly conduct, stealing under $100 of stuff, graffiti, drinking in the park, etc.

Decoite is one of our 2A allies, surprised she introduced this.

It'd be hard to argue against adding "poaching" to their list of "accused crimes that you can't have a gun while being prosecuted of" (if such a list is constitutional in the first place), but putting "petty misdemeanor trespassing without a gun" on that list certainly seems like an overreach.


On Maui at least, poaching culture is akin to fireworks culture. Routine in certain circles. A product of plague herds of deer combined with sketchy legal access for hunters, combined with generations of lax enforcement. Hunting regulations could be much improved but poachers usually know better and know the risks they take, and when the hammer does fall on poachers it's usually pretty severe. 

But trespassing culture is ubiquitous. Many of the trails and "spots" cherished by locals are on or only accessible through some huge privately held tract of land, and most don't realize that the pools they've been going to for decades are illegal to get to. Is it all ag land? Under this definition, probably. I'm a supporter of public access and a right to roam as well as a right to self defense.

I don't see why there needs to be one set of rules for "ag trespass" and one for any other sort of trespass. It's not just a double standard, it's an ambiguous one given such a broad definition of ag land.

I think I conclude that whatever the rules are for somebody stealing a package off of my front porch should be the same as for somebody stealing fruit off of a tree. Trespassing is not the same as theft and should be a lesser crime. And poaching should be yet another separate thing, and hunting regulations are in need of an overhaul.

But trespassing culture is ubiquitous. Many of the trails and "spots" cherished by locals are on or only accessible through some huge privately held tract of land, and most don't realize that the pools they've been going to for decades are illegal to get to. Is it all ag land? Under this definition, probably. I'm a supporter of public access and a right to roam as well as a right to self defense.

The bill is written as a person "knowingly" has to trespass so that means ignoring fences, gates, and noticeable trespassing signs.

But yea you make a good point.  People jumping a fence to go hiking or want legit right of transit beach access would be violating this law and get a 2A ban.