Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. State Right of First Refusal

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. End of the f...: HB 267 would illegally grant the State of Wyoming a right of first refusal that it hasn't paid for, thereby perpetuating an adverse condemnation on entire state, in instances when somebody wants to sell property to the Federal Government.  This bill, which won't ever take effect as its illegal, states:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0267

Conveyances to United States-right of refusal by state.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Knapp

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to property; granting the state of Wyoming the right of first refusal for real property conveyances to the United States and federal agencies; specifying conditions for the purchase of property by exercising the right of first refusal; specifying duties for property owners and the board of land commissioners; providing a continuous appropriation; providing definitions; making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 34‑1‑158 and 36‑2‑111 are created to read:

34‑1‑158.  Conveyances to the United States; right of first refusal to state; landowner notices; requirements.

(a)  As used in this section:

(i)  "Board" means the board of land commissioners;

(ii)  "Director" means the director of the office of state lands and investments;

(iii)  "Property" means all interests in real property and shall include land, mineral rights and water rights;

(iv)  "United States" means the United States, the federal government and any agency or office of the federal government.

(b)  The state of Wyoming shall have the right of first refusal for any sale, grant or award of property to the United States.

(c)  Before entering into an agreement or contract to sell or otherwise grant property to the United States, the owner of the property shall, not less than forty‑five (45) days before entering into the agreement or contract, provide notice in writing to the director and the board that includes notice of the purchase agreement or contract, details of the property to be conveyed in the agreement or contract, the appraised value of the property if known and the agreed‑upon purchase price for the property.

(d)  Not later than thirty (30) days after receiving a notice from a property owner under subsection (c) of this section, the board shall, through the director, respond to the notice by:

(i)  Declining to exercise the right of first refusal granted in subsection (b) of this section; or

(ii)  Declaring that the board intends to exercise the right of first refusal on the property and purchase the property, subject to subsection (e) of this section.

(e)  A purchase of property upon exercising the right of first refusal under this section shall comply with all of the following:

(i)  The purchase price to be paid for the property shall not exceed the amount offered by the United States for the property or, if the property is to be granted or donated to the United States without consideration, the fair market value of the property. The board may negotiate with the property owner to purchase the property at a lower price than the maximum price specified in this paragraph;

(ii)  The purchase shall be made from funds appropriated in subsection (f) of this section or from another legislative appropriation;

(iii)  Not later than ten (10) days after exercising the right of first refusal under this section, the director shall report to the joint appropriations committee on the property to be purchased and the known or estimated purchase price;

(iv)  Upon completing the purchase, the land shall be managed by the board as state lands as defined by W.S. 36‑1‑101. The board may take any action in managing property purchased under this section as authorized by statute, including selling, leasing or exchanging the land in accordance with law.

(f)  There is continuously appropriated to the board from any unexpended, unobligated funds in the legislative stabilization reserve account an amount not to exceed the purchase price of property specified in paragraph (e)(i) of this section. Before expending funds appropriated in this subsection, the board shall report to the joint appropriations committee as required by paragraph (e)(iii) of this section. The board shall not expend funds from the continuous appropriation if other appropriated funds are available for the purchase of the property under this section.

36‑2‑111.  Right of first refusal of conveyances to the United States; duties of board.

The board shall review all notices of property conveyances to the United States that the board receives under W.S. 34‑1‑158 and shall respond to each notice in accordance with W.S. 34‑1‑158.

Section 2.  W.S. 36‑3‑102 by creating a new subsection (e) is amended to read:

36‑3‑102.  Duties generally.

(e)  The director shall receive all notices of property conveyances to the United States under W.S. 34‑1‑158 and immediately forward each notice to the board for the board's consideration of exercising a right of first refusal under W.S. 34‑1‑158. The director shall offer any assistance to the board as necessary to help the board make a determination on exercising the right of first refusal in accordance with W.S. 34‑1‑158.

Section 3.  This act is effective July 1, 2023.

It's telling that this bill has a single sponsor.  It's going nowhere.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. Corner Crossing.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. End of the f...: SF 180 would make decriminalize corner crossing.

SENATE FILE NO. SF0180

Corner crossing-trespass exception.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Rothfuss and Gierau and Representative(s) Chestek, Provenza, Sherwood and Yin

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; providing an exception to the offenses of criminal trespass and game and fish trespass regarding incidental contact associated with crossing two (2) adjacent parcels as specified; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑3‑303 by creating a new subsection (d) and 23‑3‑305(b) are amended to read:

6‑3‑303.  Criminal trespass; penalties.

(d)  For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.

23‑3‑305.  Hunting from highway; entering enclosed property without permission; penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.

(b)  No person shall enter upon the private property of any person to hunt, fish, collect antlers or horns, or trap without the permission of the owner or person in charge of the property. Violation of this subsection constitutes a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23‑6‑202(a)(v). For purposes of this subsection, a person does not commit trespass under this subsection if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2023.

As is probably obvious, that's a Democratic bill and will likely go nowhere in this legislature.

Lex Anteinternet: Tuesday, January 16, 1923: Work on cattle ranch, ...

Lex Anteinternet: Tuesday, January 16, 1923: Work on cattle ranch, ...: 

Tuesday, January 16, 1923: Work on cattle ranch, Z/T Ranch, Pitchfork, Wyoming

A truly great photograph.

Lex Anteinternet: Live by the sword. Some legislators propose to take us back to 1889 once again.

Lex Anteinternet: Live by the sword. Some legislators propose to ta...: 

Live by the sword. Some legislators propose to take us back to 1889 once again.

Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew 26:52.

The Invaders.  Back again after 130 years.

It would seem that some old wars which seemingly were behind us are not.  

Once again, the forces of "property" wish to exclude. . . violently.

And once again, they have the legislature behind them.

We recently posted on this item:

 HOUSE BILL NO. HB0126

Trespass-removal of trespasser.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Crago and Washut and Senator(s) Kinskey and Landen

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; providing for the use of physical force against a trespasser as specified; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑3‑303 by creating new subsections (d) and (e) is amended to read:

6‑3‑303.  Criminal trespass; penalties; justification.

(d)  A person who is the owner or legal occupant of land or a premises upon which a criminal trespass is occurring, or their agent, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to terminate what the owner, occupant or agent reasonably believes to be the commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the land or premises.

(e)  Section (d) of this section does not supersede or add to the responsibilities applicable to the defense of self or another as provided by law. 

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2023.

Frankly, as this bill is based on what one “reasonably believes”, basically authorizes murder, or could, and probably will be, read that way.

I know Washut who due to his prior career as a policeman ought to know better.  I don't know the remainder of them.

This bill, if passed, will get somebody killed.

Let's start with this. What is criminal trespass?

Well, under Wyoming's law, it's the following:

TITLE 6 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES

CHAPTER 3 - OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

6-3-303. Criminal trespass; penalties.

(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass. For purposes of this section, notice is given by:

(i) Personal communication to the person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer; or

(ii) Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.

(b) Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.

(c) This section does not supersede W.S. 1-21-1003.

So, under Wyoming's law, if a person comes up to you, and says "you are trespassing", and you remain, and you really are trespassing, you are guilty of criminal trespass. 

And, under the proposed amendment to the law, this would be added to it:

(d)  A person who is the owner or legal occupant of land or a premises upon which a criminal trespass is occurring, or their agent, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to terminate what the owner, occupant or agent reasonably believes to be the commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the land or premises.

(e)  Section (d) of this section does not supersede or add to the responsibilities applicable to the defense of self or another as provided by law. 

So the new law would be such that Landowner or Landowner's agent could come up to you and say, "get off", and if they didn't, they could use "reasonable and appropriate physical force" to remove you when they "reasonably believe" that you are criminally trespassing.

Seriously, "reasonably believed"?

What if their reasonable belief was wrong?

Several years ago I was on public lands when a couple of goons for a large Natrona County landowner approached me and informed me that I had to leave as I was trespassing.  I had a GPS, and I knew I wasn't.

I was also deer hunting and carrying a rifle and a handgun.

Did the goons believe that I was trespassing?  I don't know.  It's hard to penetrate the minds of saps who take jobs as regulators.  Their belief may have been based on what their employer told them.  Mine was based on the United States Geological Survey.  

I didn't want to bother with it, and I cleared off.

I frankly wouldn't now.  Now, I would have told them to pound sand, particularly as they warned me it was a $10,000 fine is I stayed, which was bullshit.

I got my revenge, I guess, by voting against the guy, a long with a lot of other locals, when he stood for reelection for a local office he was also holding.

But back to the scenario.  I'm armed.  If they were too, and they believed I was "criminally trespassing", and had invoked the element by telling me I was, could they then draw down on me?  Would that be reasonable force, as I was armed?

And if I did, would I have been justified in blowing them away in self defense?  I wasn't trespassing, and now I'm in danger of my life.

I probably wouldn't. . . but if I were with my son, wife, or daughter and felt they actually might use the weapons?  A scared person resorts to violence quickly, and men protecting their families do as well.  

And if that happened, would I be found to have acted in self-defense?

This scenario, if this bill passes, will play out just this way.

Now it'll be incumbent upon anyone going afield to pack heat, least some hired moron tries to drive them off land they believe they have a right to be on.  And sooner or later some asshole, probably a landowner on public land, or some out of state landowner's hired flunky, will challenge a fisherman, hunter, or hiker and get gunned down, dying for a moronic belief in the absolute nature of property rights that are, in fact, not absolute, never have been, and never will be.

What about the corner crossing case?  Even the Game Warden couldn't tell if it was a trespass or not.  The landowner's hired traitor to the state believed it was.  Would he have drawn down on them?

Those guys were gentlemen in the whole affair.  Most people are.  I've known of at least one friend of mine who was confronted in such a fashion and kept a rifle on the jerk confronting him, as he was armed.  The armed jerk didn't realize that he was about to meet the business end of a .30-30 if he went too far.

Life preserved by a clam reactant.

Not everyone is calm, and not everyone cares either.   Some asshat is going to tell somebody to get off some land, and that person is going to stand their ground. Somebody will probably get killed, and it'll probably be the person yelling "get off my land".

Lots of people now days imagine themselves to be Matt Quigly in the final scene of Quigly Down Under, gunning down the baddy. Some have even taken up carrying all the time so that they can affect the visage of Pistol Pete or maybe Yoesimite Sam.  Take our recent wholly unqualified interim Secretary of State, Karl Allred, who packed heat on to the UW campus as he wanted to make a point.

Direct link to WyoFile, "Uinta County committeeman Karl Allred reviews documents at a Wyoming Republican Party Central Committee meeting in Riverton in September 2022. Gov. Mark Gordon appointed Allred as secretary of state. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)"

Mr. Allred, seen packing here complete with a handgun that has an extra magazine, may imagine himself freedom's brave sentinel. but if he had to draw that, let's be honest, he'd be lucky to get it around his gut.

Being fat is no crime, but frankly not one person in fifty knows how to use a handgun in combat, and a lot of those are people who would have the high side of the fight if confronted by a good.  Pistol Packing Regulators may imagine that they can draw down on a whole passel of criminal trespasser, but the result is far from certain, particularly if they aren't trespassing.

Think that guy can outdraw and gun down a 20-year-old carrying a .357?  I don't think it bloody likely.

And FWIW, there's a whole lot of people now who are packing for self-defense, including a lot of young, agile, men, and women, who actually don't have enormous waste lines to clear, and who the goons aren't going to know are packing.

What the crap has gotten into people?

Wyoming was built on go where you want, when you want.  The last time somebody tried to change this, it went badly.

But we're right back at that point once again. Property rights, real or imagined, enforced at the barrel of a gun.  Indeed, when we fought that battle before, the legislature was on the wrong side of it then as well.

Moreover, any property, including your very own house, that you own, you are merely renting for, at most, the extraordinary short period of your life.  You don't really have a moral right to go around bullying trespassers on the open range or fishing stream. Yes, you can call law enforcement, but do that.  That's their job in a civil society.

And let's be honest, if we're returning to that day, equitably, turnabout can be argued to be fair play.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Legislat...

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. The Legislat...: A proposed joint resolution regarding wild horses and burros has been introduced, reading:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. HJ0003

Wild horses and burros-best management practices.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Winter, Banks, Davis, Neiman and Sommers and Senator(s) Driskill and Laursen, D

A JOINT RESOLUTION

for

A JOINT RESOLUTION requesting the United States Congress to enact legislation and make other necessary policy changes to allow federal land management agencies and agency partners to implement best management practices for wild horses and burros by allowing for equine slaughter and processing for shipment to accommodating markets inside or outside the United States.

WHEREAS, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (the Act), as amended, protects wild horses and burros from harassment or death and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; and

WHEREAS, under the Act, wild horses and burros are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) in their respective jurisdictions and within the areas where these animals were found roaming in 1971; and

WHEREAS, the BLM manages public lands for multiple use and a sustained yield, as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); and

WHEREAS, when considering the Act and the FLPMA together, the BLM is required to protect wild horses and burros in balance with other public resources and uses, including other wildlife and fish, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and

WHEREAS, responsible management of wild horse and burro populations is critical to protect scarce and fragile resources in the arid West and ensure healthy wildlife and livestock; and

WHEREAS, without responsible management, the resources in the arid West cannot be managed for multiple use because wild horses unduly infringe upon other uses by damaging riverbeds and overgrazing on limited forage, while using and often damaging the infrastructure of other public land users; and

WHEREAS, with virtually no natural predators, wild horse and burro populations can double every four (4) to five (5) years if left unchecked; and

WHEREAS, due to their protected status, if a wild horse or burro strays onto privately owned lands, the private landowners have no recourse for the infringement of their private property rights other than to inform their local BLM or USFS field office to seek removal of the animal; and

WHEREAS, under the Act, the BLM and USFS must inventory wild horse and burro populations periodically to determine appropriate management levels (AMLs) to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and preserve the multiple-use relationship on public lands; and

WHEREAS, under the Act, the BLM and USFS are authorized to remove wild horses and burros to achieve AMLs upon the respective agency's determination that an overpopulation exists; and

WHEREAS, upon that determination, the Act requires the agency first to order old, sick, or lame animals to be destroyed in the most humane manner possible, second to cause excess wild horses and burros to be humanely captured for private adoption and third, to cause excess animals to be destroyed in the most humane and cost-efficient manner possible; and

WHEREAS, the BLM and USFS are increasingly unable to adequately manage wild horse and burro populations due to exponential increases in the number of wild horses and burros on the range, difficulties in adopting or selling wild horses and burros, lack of effective fertility control measures, lawsuits prohibiting or stalling gathers and removals, insufficient availability of holding facilities and increasing management costs; and

WHEREAS, of the one hundred seventy-seven (177) herd management areas across ten (10) western states under the jurisdiction of the BLM, comprising almost twenty-seven million (27,000,000) acres, only approximately twenty percent (20%) fall within their attendant AML; and

WHEREAS, the BLM recognizes the need for decisive action to reverse the harm to western landscapes and the wild horses and burros occupying them, as demonstrated by the agency's "2020 Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Wild Horse and Burro Program;" and

WHEREAS, off-range holding of gathered animals accomplishes neither free-ranging of the animals nor population control and amounts to great expense, as demonstrated by the BLM fiscal year 2021 off-range holding expenditures of seventy-seven million seven hundred thousand dollars ($77,700,000.00); and

WHEREAS, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, United States Department of Agriculture inspection is mandatory to sell meat in interstate or foreign commerce; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has effectively banned horse slaughter in the United States for human consumption since 2007 by denying funding for the inspection of equine slaughter facilities throughout the food production process. Federal appropriations laws since 1988 have contained similar prohibitions; and

WHEREAS, the fiscal year 2022 Department of Interior appropriations law prohibited the use of funds for destruction of healthy animals or for sales of animals that result in processing into commercial products; and

WHEREAS, the Act, combined with the effect of the United States Congress' effective ban on equine slaughter facilities, has created an unsustainable issue where wild horse and burro populations continue to expand exponentially; and

WHEREAS, the United States has benefitted from the ability of neighboring countries to provide equine slaughter services.  The capacity of those neighboring countries to provide these services is limited, however, and has been degraded by the closure of facilities as well as the challenges associated with transporting animals long distances.  Effective and humane management of wild horses and burros can be best accomplished by facilitating the United States' own capacity to transport and process wild horses and burros; and

WHEREAS, the wild horse and burro population's continued exponential growth and the federal agencies' continued inability to adequately manage these populations to attain AMLs presents an urgent concern for management policy and practice; and

WHEREAS, a pragmatic shift in United States' wild horse and burro management policy is prudent and necessary to help address this crisis and achieve protection of wild horses and burros in manageable numbers; and

WHEREAS, policy tools must be implemented to authorize equine domestic slaughter, to allow horse and burro meat inspection and sale and to facilitate the humane transport of wild horses and burros both domestically and to other countries or sovereigns for slaughter.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING:

Section 1.  That the Legislature of the State of Wyoming requests the United States Congress to enact legislation and make other necessary policy changes to allow federal land management agencies and agency partners to implement best management practices for wild horses and burros by allowing for equine slaughter and processing for shipment to accommodating markets within or outside the United States.

Section 2.  That the Legislature of the State of Wyoming requests the United States Congress to enact legislation and make other necessary policy changes to allow federal land management agencies and agency partners to work with states and Indian tribes with respect to the management, gathering and disposition of wild horses and burros.

Section 3.  That the Legislature of the State of Wyoming requests the United States Congress to enact legislation and make other necessary policy changes to remove impediments to the disposition of gathered wild horses and burros, including equine slaughter and processing.

Section 4.  That the Secretary of State of Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, to the Secretary of the Interior and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation.

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Seek the Truth

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Seek the Truth: Truth is when our minds correspond with reality.             https://youtu.be/FleRnoLsMTY         

Lex Anteinternet: The Blizzard

Lex Anteinternet: The Blizzard: 

The Blizzard

We went waterfowl hunting.

By we, I mean my son, his girlfriend, and the dog.  We loaded up in the Dodge D3500, and we went waterfowl hunting

The highways were all closed, so I got there by going through a small farm belt here, hitting a rural road, and taking it to the river, the back way. We were the only vehicles on it.

Yes, this can be argued, and probably correctly driving out in a blizzard was not smart.  But people wanted to go, and it looked like good waterfowl hunting weather, which in fact it was.

Out on the river, in fact, the weather wasn't nearly as bad as it was in town.  It snowed lightly off and on, but it wasn't a blizzard.  At some point, it had been, as the snow was quite deep.

And we had the river all to ourselves.

And has we headed back into town, the snowstorm cranked up again.

And yes, there were some spots on the road that were really bad.  Only the fact that I was driving a very heavy, and powerful, diesel 4x4 allowed us to get there.  Frankly, a 1/2 ton gasser probably wouldn't have.  And yes, you ought to stay off the road in weather like that.

We were going to do this on Sunday, New Year's Day, but the blizzard made that impossible in town.  It was also rendered impossible by the fact that the batteries on the diesel had given out the week prior, and I'd only learned that on Saturday when I was heading out, in advance of the storm, to hunt geese near Torrington.  I changed, the batteries, in the blizzard, on Sunday after Mass, but only after nearly wrecking my very lightweight Jeep going to get the batteries.

The point.

Well, as follows.  

I have a new neighbor across the street that I spoke to, two snowstorms ago.  He's from Maryland and asked about the snow.  I told him that it snowed all the way through April, as it does.

He apparently didn't believe me, as his next door neighbor, who was out while I was snow blowing when I got home yesterday, was stating that the same neighbor had asked him, that day, about the snow.  He got the same information.

My prediction is that the new neighbor will leave.

Late last night, I got a text from a coworker. Should we close the office, today?

In fairness, the county has closed, and the school districts.

This is of interest as it's become, all of a sudden, a really common event.  A couple of snowstorms ago, all of a sudden a coworker was asking if we should send people home early.  It caught me completely off guard.  It was very cold, and slightly snowy, but why would we do that?  I vetoed it as I had stuff I had to go out, but this came after another similar event.  Light snow, and we're sending people home.  And we're not the only ones.

This is just an observation, really.  Maybe it's a good thing that these events are taken more into consideration than they used to be.  Or maybe we're really unprepared for them.  Probably both.  I'm glad they close the highways more than they used to, as they used to leave them open in horrible conditions.  But I don't quite know what to make of the situation where people choose to move outside of town on a windblown flat, and then can't make it to work.  It makes sense to me to close when weather is genuinely bad, but for regular in town operations, closing everything as a few folks might have trouble getting there, who should be given consideration for that, seems odd.

Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: January 1, 1863

Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: January 1, 1863: 

Today In Wyoming's History: January 1, 1863

Today In Wyoming's History: January 1. New Years Day: Today is New Years Day. 45 BC  January 1 celebrated as the beginning of the year for the first time under the Julian Calendar.  Recogni...

One I missed on its anniversary:

1863  Daniel Freeman files the first homestead under the newly passed Homestead Act.  The homestead was filed in Nebraska.

While the original Homestead Act provided an unsuitably small portion of land for those wishing to homestead in Wyoming, it was used here, and homesteading can be argued to be responsible for defining the modern character of the State.

Canada's two year foreign home owner ban.

Canada has banned foreigners from buying homes in the country for a two-year period, in order to ease a housing crunch.

Good for them.

For too long, the countries of the Northern Hemisphere have pretended as thought they live on an ever expanding continent.

They do not.