GA, I just had a bad experience in Upper NY. I hear you.

The stealth part of it for me never connected up with the kid part. I don't want any part of that. Except that, I maintain that not all stealth camping is about stealing or violating individual property rights. There are plenty of reasons to take only photographs, leave only footprints, and reveal no visual clues that can be readily seen. In backpacking terms this has been written about extensively where some of the mountain trails have well spaced campgrounds that one is supposed to use, but one does not have to use them they are optional for good citizens. The stealth part comes in when you choose other campgrounds that have superior characteristics, and you don't want to tip your presence either to draw more wear to them or for normal security or privacy reasons.

There are also many areas where there is a difference between the law and custom. Many people adjacent to beaches will proclaim ownership they don't have just to bums rush you off. I know several beach areas where there are low water ownerships and high water ones, and people who think they have low water ones. In one case you are on public land in the other you are not, only searching local deeds will tell you, and even then it takes a lawyer by property. I know of some special status areas where people have put up signs saying you can't enter the area (though served by normal public Hwy) for any reason. These are not lawful signs and some of these areas have crown lands on them. I would certainly avoid the latter areas! But still the point is that there may be areas you are allowed to camp but will face local opposition, so why court it. There are also countries that have perfectly legal local camping rules, but again perfect camouflage can make the world a lot easier for someone who is lost; has an earnest desire to be in accordance with local laws and customs, but may merely have goofed. Asking the landowners is not always a possible since in some cases they are in denial about changes that took place in the '20s.

Let me start by saying that I unconditionally, sincerely, accept SR's expertise in maters relating to local self-defense laws, property rights, and issues that may govern disposition to them. I had a friend in Ovando Montana, whose neighbours were murdered by a transient. This stuff happens. The double barreled shotgun thing does come up a lot though, and here are some thoughts:

1) Gunfighting wisdom:

a) Don't make use of an empty weapon;

b) Don't make use of/blandish a loaded weapon (presentation of deadly force), that you would not actually use (use of deadly force);

c) If you kill someone you are probably going to be broke by the time your legal defense is exhausted, and you are also fairly likely to end up in jail. Better to be judged by 12... But only if you had good reason.

2) Gunfighting law (as badly mixed up by me a non-authority).

a) Actions in a self-defense environment should not be escalated, and they should be proportional. There are various scales that describe the escalating sign posts, verbal, physical. These allow the police and other skilled practitioners to respond appropriately. This does not mean you can't go immediately to deadly force, but there normally needs to be a reason. I'm not offering this as legal advice, I'm incapable of that. All I take from it is that there is some structure to these relationships that should be understood by those involved. Actions on both sides may be misinterpreted by those involved who all may respond tragically. The management of force may immediately put one's own actions under higher scrutiny than the camper's.

3) Gun Safety Rules;

These are incredibly widespread and international, three of the more relevant are:

- All guns are loaded

- Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to see destroyed

- Keep your trigger off the finger until the sights are on the target.

OK. If you work backwards, anyone in the regions these safety rules are in force or where first voiced, should assume that, an apparently responsible gun owner pointing a gun at them, with the finger on the trigger, is in the act of killing them. There would probably have to be a vibe present also. This is not a neutral signal. The US has by far the most sophisticated gun culture. Sure not all gun owners are sophisticated. However, the correct tactical response to deadly force is...

At the very least this picture presents the threat of deadly force. The person presenting the weapon will not necessarily be immediately identifiable as in the "right" The claim by some person to be a landowner is a lot harder to verify than the immediate reality that one is in the likely process of being killed.

4) Bad things that happen around good people

I know of cases where landowners summarily shot trespassers and also got away with it, were freed by local courts. One famous U.S. case involved a CBC photographer who was invited to film on the property by a tenant, and was shot by the land owner. At the time he was shot, he was a few feet from the edge of the property, with a heavy camera, backpedaling visibly. Also heard of a case where two guys who were enemies met, and one summarily shot the other, because he knew him to be armed. This wasn't an escalating event, the one merely took advantage of the fact their enmity was know, they were know to be CCP holders and one shot the other with the defense "he was about to shoot me" and got away with it. This stuff cuts in many directions.

Throughout human history the overwhelming response to travelers has been a duty to provide hospitality, no mater the cost. This holds across many cultures. The principle that one can summarily shoot or threaten with deadly force a, trespasser, particularly one who shows no signs of being a threat, is a standout. If there is any moral justification for that kind of behaviour. Such actions surely must be founded on a reasonable presumption that any person trespassing, certainly any person entering one's home unannounced, is up to no good, and one may be too pressed to sort it out, under the circumstances. There is no moral justification for treating someone this way that one's very own sporting interests prepares one for, who's objectives are readable as a fellow cyclist. Sure, an anti-city folk neighbour might be scared. But could anyone on this site really claim the same. Not to say a landowner needs to put up with a trespasser.