Can't I shoot on my own property?

[JanetLoeffler]

QUESTION: I am new here. I own 5.5 acres in rural (farmland) central Vir. I fired my Glock at a neighbors dog on my property, coming at me and barking wildly. I purposefully shot to scare the dog and put bullet in soft dirt embankment. My neighbor is upset and threatening some kind of protection order for their kids. Don't I have the right to fire on my property if I fear for my life?

[lagmonkey]

I have seen similar questions to yours posted on this forum in the past (although they generally involve "plinking" and not firing to protect yourself from a neighbor's dog). Recommend running a search of forum topics/text to see if any useful information might already be out there.

Having never been in your situation, I have absolutely no real life experience to draw upon, but I'd have probably contacted law enforcement as soon as I cleared the animal off my property. Seems to be a general consensus that whenever you have to discharge your weapon for personal defense it's always best to be the first one to call it in.

And yes, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit as I wrote that statement (you are on your property defending yourself from what you perceived to be a dangerous animal - that should be the end of it) but as ugly as it is I feel it's true.

Hopefully someone with a better grasp of these situations will have better information to offer. Good luck to you and stay safe!

[TenchCoxe]

Whether you can discharge a firearm on your property mostly is a question of the applicable municipal ordinance. You should be able to find your locality's municipal code here at Municode, or if not, check your locality's web page - they often have a link to the code on-line on their web site.

There is a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to "discharge any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering."

So the question there is whether you are within a "city" or "town" - be aware that those terms are specifically defined in the Virginia Code.

That state-level prohibition on firing a gun does not apply to any person "whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law."

And that is a question of fact that a court (or jury) would decide - i.e., whether you were justified in firing, in reasonable defense of your life or property.

I am of the mind that as a general rule, a dog running towards you and barking does not, on its own, justify firing a gun. But then again, the police these days are constantly shooting dogs and then claiming they "feared for their safety" or some such nonsense. But of course, the police also get away with all kinds of things we mere "civilians" could not.

Ultimately, it really would depend on all of the facts and circumstances to determine whether firing a gun is justified.

And again, if you're not in a "city" or "town," that state law does not apply - then you have to look at your local ordinances.

Le'ts keep in mind alternatives to firearms in dealing with dogs - and neighbors!

[RugerJoe]

I hate to hear about people shooting at animals, since I tend to prefer animals over people as a general rule...but...if you really did feel threatened by the dog, it is understandable. Even if there is some code related to discharging your firearm wherever you live, I don't believe that code is enforced if you were firing your weapon in self defense. As stated already, you should probably have been the first to call it in to the cops. You want to explain things and make it clear you don't feel like you have anything to hide.
Having you call in and say "My neighbors dog just ran towards me growling on my own property so I fired a bullet in to the ground to scare it off. Can you go over there and talk to them about keeping the dog on their own property and maybe have it tested for rabies or something?"....is much better than the neighbors calling in to say "my crazy ass new neighbor just took a shot at my dog fluffy because he chased a squirrel past our property border. Please send a swat team.".
And since nothing you did was threatening towards the neighbors kids, unless they were near the dog or something, I don't see how they have a chance at slapping you with a restraining order. I would either try to make nice with the family to squash things immediately, or I would consult a local lawyer to figure out the best solution to this situation.

[rromeo]

Whether you can discharge a firearm on your property mostly is a question of the applicable municipal ordinance. You should be able to find your locality's municipal code here at Municode, or if not, check your locality's web page - they often have a link to the code on-line on their web site.

There is a state law that makes it a misdemeanor to "discharge any firearm in any street in a city or town, or in any place of public business or place of public gathering."

So the question there is whether you are within a "city" or "town" - be aware that those terms are specifically defined in the Virginia Code.

That state-level prohibition on firing a gun does not apply to any person "whose said willful act is otherwise justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of his life or property, or is otherwise specifically authorized by law."

And that is a question of fact that a court (or jury) would decide - i.e., whether you were justified in firing, in reasonable defense of your life or property.

I am of the mind that as a general rule, a dog running towards you and barking does not, on its own, justify firing a gun. But then again, the police these days are constantly shooting dogs and then claiming they "feared for their safety" or some such nonsense. But of course, the police also get away with all kinds of things we mere "civilians" could not.

Ultimately, it really would depend on all of the facts and circumstances to determine whether firing a gun is justified.

And again, if you're not in a "city" or "town," that state law does not apply - then you have to look at your local ordinances.

Le'ts keep in mind alternatives to firearms in dealing with dogs - and neighbors!

Another thing to add here, "warning shots" can get you in trouble more than actually shooting at an attacker, whether it 4 legged or 2 legged. If you didn't feel the need to shoot the dog, then you didn't really fear for your life.

[OakRidgeStars]

You need to be proactive in this situation. If you are unable to resolve this quickly and amiably with your neighbor (the best course of action), then you should consult an attorney with experience in firearms-related law.

If your neighbor is successful in securing a protection or restraining order against you, it will be illegal for you to possess any firearms whatsoever.

http://www.hkshooter.net/lawyers/

[thekinetic]

If they want to push the matter and you want revenge say their dog was attacking you or going to attack and the cops with take it from them. But I would try to smooth things over with them, unless they're being the tipical bullheaded jackwagon then not only would I have the animal destroyed but also bring up the fact that it is illegal to have a dog off it's leash thus earning them a fine as well.

[TenchCoxe]

Another thing to add here, "warning shots" can get you in trouble more than actually shooting at an attacker, whether it 4 legged or 2 legged. If you didn't feel the need to shoot the dog, then you didn't really fear for your life.

This is an excellent point. It could be construed as showing that it is questionable whether you truly were justified in firing at all, if you determined it wasn't necessary to actually shoot the "threat".

[dorminWS]

Another thing to add here, "warning shots" can get you in trouble more than actually shooting at an attacker, whether it 4 legged or 2 legged. If you didn't feel the need to shoot the dog, then you didn't really fear for your life.

This is an excellent point. It could be construed as showing that it is questionable whether you truly were justified in firing at all, if you determined it wasn't necessary to actually shoot the "threat".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your argument would be that you did fear for your life/safety, but thought that a warning shot might scare the dog away and thus sought to use less than deadly force to avoid injury or death. Law is, best I remember, that you may use only such force as is necessary. This actually shows you were attempting to not use an unnecessary degree of force and shows commendable restraint. You could always have pulled the trigger again while aimed between rover's eyes instead of into a bank if the dog had kept coming.

[TenchCoxe]

Yup. Of course, the counter-argument (there always is one...) is that any time you point and fire a gun, you are using deadly force. Whether or not you hit the target, shooting a gun towards it *CAN* result in death; hence it is deadly force. The other side could argue that you actually were pointing at the dog and trying to shoot it, but simply missed.

And remember, the question is whether you were justified in firing a gun, which is determined by whether it was reasonable for you to believe you faced a threat of imminent serious physical injury or death.

If the barking, charging dog were a dachshund or chihuahua, I'm thinking it would be less likely to be justified to shoot at it than if it were a full-grown male presa canario.

It all comes down to a consideration of "the totality of the circumstances." We're mostly dealing with hypothetical here.

[Jakeiscrazy]

Another thing to add here, "warning shots" can get you in trouble more than actually shooting at an attacker, whether it 4 legged or 2 legged. If you didn't feel the need to shoot the dog, then you didn't really fear for your life.

This is an excellent point. It could be construed as showing that it is questionable whether you truly were justified in firing at all, if you determined it wasn't necessary to actually shoot the "threat".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your argument would be that you did fear for your life/safety, but thought that a warning shot might scare the dog away and thus sought to use less than deadly force to avoid injury or death. Law is, best I remember, that you may use only such force as is necessary. This actually shows you were attempting to not use an unnecessary degree of force and shows commendable restraint. You could always have pulled the trigger again while aimed between rover's eyes instead of into a bank if the dog had kept coming.

True , I think warning shot with animals is a lot different than with people. A person knows exactly what a gun is and what's going to happen if they continue the action you want them to stop . A dog doesn't know your gun from any other piece of plastic in the world. So IMO a warning shot if preferred if it every comes up say that you really don't like killing things even if they are a threat to you. I would call animal control and file a report. If it happens again then you have that report to back up your case. It always looks good to be the first to contact the authorizes.

[VBshooter]

Warning shots leave prejudiced witnesses, If you are gonna draw it ,intend to use it!! Just my .02

[Jakeiscrazy]

Warning shots leave prejudiced witnesses, If you are gonna draw it ,intend to use it!! Just my .02

The dog as a witness? If it was up to PETA...............

[zombiekiller57]

Warning shots leave prejudiced witnesses, If you are gonna draw it ,intend to use it!! Just my .02

The dog as a witness? If it was up to PETA...............

The dog would actually be the victim and if PETA had their way then the dog would be able to sue JanetLoeffler take her gun and car and live in her house while Janet had to fend for herself due to inflicting traumatic physiological damage to the dog. It's just, fair and dog gone it, it's just the right thing to do...it's social justice

[mk4]

is this a SSS situation?

[JanetLoeffler]

Thank you all so much. You give me perspective. Thankfully, there has not been a problem since.

[SHMIV]

We've got all kinds of perspective, around here, lol. Stick around. I've found this site to be very educational.

[JanetLoeffler]

I will stick around, that's for sure. And I plan to renew my membership in the NRA and in the VCDL (if it's not too radical to the right).

[Palladin]

[chuckjordan2]

So, what action have you taken? Have you consulted a lawyer?

My .02 is to carry a camcoder (or other recording device) with you into the woods until you have this matter resolved. If you see the dog, turn it on. This will be your evidence, you don't need the glock. There are some cheap, lighweight recording devices that are easy to use/carry. They create your evidence.

You can also use them elsewhere, like in your car as you drive.... But, that's off topic...