Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20172018/SB/159

Saw this tweet and thought it was a hoax. What in the world??!!??

It passed subcommittee.

Guilty of CRIMINAL trespass if
(4) Enters upon the land or premises of another person that has been marked by the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that such marks are:
(A) Vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(B) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(C) Placed at locations that are readily and clearly visible to any person approaching the property and no more than 100 feet apart on forested land or 1,000 feet apart on land that is not forested.
Anyone know what this could be about?
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,156 Posts
Gotta make Ga not a red or blue state. It has to go purple.

Nemo
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Yeah, there are a lot of trespassers out there and land owners want an easier way to deal with them I guess.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
Splash of paint is cheaper than purchasing a bunch of signs.

Search for "Purple Paint Law" on the Giggle

Appears to mirror the Texas law almost word for word...
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land;  or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land;  or​
(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-30-05.html#sthash.YllWyA3w.dpuf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Just replaces signs with purple paint. It would make property line marking much easier, flagging is ambiguous and signs weather out pretty quickly unless you invest in metal ones, and placing metal signs every 50 feet in compliance with the legal signage requirements is expensive.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Just replaces signs with purple paint. It would make property line marking much easier, flagging is ambiguous and signs weather out pretty quickly unless you invest in metal ones, and placing metal signs every 50 feet in compliance with the legal signage requirements is expensive.
But it doesn't replace signs. Signs were not in the law.

The law currently provides for the offense of criminal trespass if a person:
a) damages property or maliciously interferes with use of property
b1) enters the land/premises for unlawful purpose
b2) enters the land/premises after receiving notice from owner
b3) remains on the land/premises after being told to leave

Those are no provisions that signs/markings constitute legal notice.

So, a bit of purple paint from up to 500 feet away should be good for a year in jail?

There are only two locations in the law I could find that put legal consequences on a sign.

§ 20-2-1180 Loitering upon school premises
§ 51-1-43 regarding signs in a roller skating center

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2327146&highlight=trespass#post2327146

A year in jail should take more effort than a bit of pigment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,909 Posts
A year in jail should take more effort than a bit of pigment.
I don't necessarily disagree but as someone who deals with trespassers on a regular basis there has to be a better way.

Over the years I have spent well in excess of $15,000 on fencing to keep people (and animals) off my property yet at least once a month I have people on my property. I am only talking 5.5 acres and it is all maintained and cut.

Just last Friday I had some kids open up the front gate so their dog (pit) could "play" with my German Shepherd. When my male hit their dog and pinned it to the ground by the neck they started hitting my dog to break up the fight.

They were given notice to not return and sent on their way.

Why in the world should they not be charged for trespassing immediately? Even without the dog, gate is closed, sign is posted do not open, what gives them the right? Why should they get a second chance? How about those that climb my fence to just cross the lot? One person climbing the fence really doesn't do damage but after so many, I have to repair the fence.

How do I keep people off my property? I don't care to lock them up, I just want them to leave me and my place the hell alone. Respect my fence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,953 Posts
I'm colorblind...
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,531 Posts
I suppose a law is "technically" legal, because the law presumes that every citizen reads every law, and thus can be held accountable for knowing (or negligently not knowing) that purple paint is a substitute for a "no tresspassing" sign.
But in the real world, just about NOBODY will know this, and many people will not get any "notice" from rings of paint around the trunks of trees in the woods.
For that reason alone, I'd oppose this law.

Plastic "No Trespassing" signs are cheap. You can buy them in bulk for something like 25 cents each. Staple them to trees with an Arrow T50 staple gun and 3/8" or 11mm staples.
Problem solved. Effective warning given. (Even Messicans who don't speak Engleesh will know a "NO TRESPASSING" sign when they see it).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
I suppose a law is "technically" legal, because the law presumes that every citizen reads every law, and thus can be held accountable for knowing (or negligently not knowing) that purple paint is a substitute for a "no tresspassing" sign.
But in the real world, just about NOBODY will know this, and many people will not get any "notice" from rings of paint around the trunks of trees in the woods.
For that reason alone, I'd oppose this law.

Plastic "No Trespassing" signs are cheap. You can buy them in bulk for something like 25 cents each. Staple them to trees with an Arrow T50 staple gun and 3/8" or 11mm staples.
Problem solved. Effective warning given. (Even Messicans who don't speak Engleesh will know a "NO TRESPASSING" sign when they see it).
Are you off the opinion that plastic no trespassing signs are of the same effect that this bill gives purple lines? I'm not.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
An eight inch by one inch purple line, in some cases 1000 feet apart (almost a quarter mile).

Is this sufficient notice to land someone in jail? Are you ok with this?
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,531 Posts
RUGERER, this is an excellent observation:

"Those are no[t] provisions that signs/markings constitute legal notice.

So, a bit of purple paint from up to 500 feet away should be good for a year in jail?

A year in jail should take more effort than a bit of pigment
."

Yeah, this bill would leave the effect of a posted sign undecided, and currently most of us believe that signs are not valid "notice" to leave, delivered by a property owner or lawful occupant with authority, and communicated to the person who would be charged criminally for disregarding such notice.

But, this law would suddenly elevate purple paint lines to a status HIGHER than traditional signs, thus that the crime of trespassing is complete without any further warning or notice??
That would be f'ing retarded.
But, retarded laws go with the Georgia General Assembly like peanut butter and jelly.

LEGAL QUESTION: Would a judge, reviewing this newly-changed Code section 16-7-21 in the future, decide as a matter of "statutory construction" that the legislature must have intended traditional no trespassing signs to carry the force of law and serve as the one and only "notice" the statute required all along, because otherwise it would be absurd to let purple chalk lines have that effect?
If that were the judge's thinking, this would be a major revision of the trespass law in Georgia, but people wouldn't even notice it if the property in question were marked with the normal types of signs as "notice."
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,531 Posts
MP, good question. I was typing my long post above while you posted your short one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
The purple paint thing is gaining in popularity. i believe that is the law in NC, because I trout fish in NC a lot and I know the purple marking law is spelled out in their fishing regulations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I've known about the purple paint on trees means no trespassing for about 30 years. It's been used in Arkansas for as long as I can remember. I believe the state parks were the first ones to use it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,953 Posts
Well, go to Wyoming. There are magical lines that once crossed, can leave you very much open to a trespassing charge, with no sign whatsoever. You are expected to know upon what property you are hunting. That's why applications such as our gps property line chip are really important. Also. local ranchers try to tell you that you are trespassing on federal land or state lands too. Had a couple of run ins with the locals up there, which resulted in the ranchers going to speak to the judge.... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
I've known about the purple paint on trees means no trespassing for about 30 years. It's been used in Arkansas for as long as I can remember. I believe the state parks were the first ones to use it.
This. It is *fairly* common knowledge to those that have run around in the country woods for much of their life, but I certainly don't think that it should be used as an indicator for criminal trespass. And I do agree that the law should be modified; as illustrated above, trespassers can be a very big problem for folks that have a decent spread or own property that they can't monitor 24/7. We recently purchased a large tract of land out in "flyover country" and know that it has been used as a dump for some folks. I anticipate having issues, but thankfully it's not in Georgia, so I will be able to use the law to my advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
what would be logical is if trespassing were the default case. don't mess around on someone else's property without permission. it's like the fn do not call list. you have to be put on it for folks not to bug you. the logical default should be that no one should bug you unless you're on a DO CALL and bug me list. but, government has to justify its existence somehow.

it's amazing that anyone should need be told this crap, but folks have become comfortable living in an upside down and backwards world.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top