Massachusetts was holding a provincial congress.
King Carlos III of Spain issued a royal order forbidding hunting and fishing in the forest of Balsain, which was reserved for royal amusement.
Sounds familiar.
Wyoming Joins Idaho, Alaska in Support of Utah’s Federal Public Lands Claim
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon has announced that the State of Wyoming has filed an amicus brief in support of Utah on their federal public lands claims pending before the US Supreme Court. Wyoming joined with the states of Idaho and Alaska, as well as the Arizona Legislature in the Amicus.
The Governor issued the following statement:
“Federal ownership of unappropriated land negatively impacts Western states’ ability to regulate local land uses. I consistently preach that the best land management policies are developed by those who live close to the lands. As we have seen with the Rock Springs and Buffalo Resource Management Plans, the whims of the current Administration can have immense impacts on the states where those lands are located.
The well-established legal principle of multiple-use of public lands is sacred to Wyoming citizens, and that concept is something we have lost in this era of Washington, DC constantly curtailing their uses. Wyoming believes it is essential for the states to be recognized as the primary authority when it comes to unappropriated lands within our borders. The Federal government’s indefinite retention of millions of acres of land is a critical question that impacts all Western states, which is why Wyoming has filed this amicus.”
The brief may be found here.
Utah is going to lose, and deserves to. There's no excuse whatsoever for Wyoming joining with Utah in this effort.
Cont:
Wyoming politicians signing on to this land grabbing effort:
Governor Mark Gordon.
Congressman Harriet Hageman.
Senators
Bo Biteman (R-Ranchester), Brian Boner (R-Douglas),
Tim French (R-Powell), Larry Hicks (R-Baggs), Bob Ide (R-Casper), John Kolb (R-Rock Springs), Dan Laursen (R-Powell), Troy McKeown (R-Gillette), Tim Salazar (R-Riverton), Cheri Steinmetz (R-Lingle).
Representatives
Bill Allemand (R-Midwest), John Bear (R-Gillette), Jeremy Haroldson (R-Wheatland), Scott Heiner (R-Green River), Ben Hornok (R-Cheyenne), Christopher Knapp (R-Gillette), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Pepper Ottman (R-Riverton), Sarah Penn (R-Lander), Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody), Daniel Singh (R-Cheyenne), Allen Slagle (R-Newcastle), Scott Smith (R-Lingle), Tomi Strock (R-Douglas), Jeanette Ward (R-Casper), John Winter (R-Thermopolis)
Wyoming Joins Idaho, Alaska in Support of Utah’s Federal Public Lands Claim
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon has announced that the State of Wyoming has filed an amicus brief in support of Utah on their federal public lands claims pending before the US Supreme Court. Wyoming joined with the states of Idaho and Alaska, as well as the Arizona Legislature in the Amicus.
The Governor issued the following statement:
“Federal ownership of unappropriated land negatively impacts Western states’ ability to regulate local land uses. I consistently preach that the best land management policies are developed by those who live close to the lands. As we have seen with the Rock Springs and Buffalo Resource Management Plans, the whims of the current Administration can have immense impacts on the states where those lands are located.
The well-established legal principle of multiple-use of public lands is sacred to Wyoming citizens, and that concept is something we have lost in this era of Washington, DC constantly curtailing their uses. Wyoming believes it is essential for the states to be recognized as the primary authority when it comes to unappropriated lands within our borders. The Federal government’s indefinite retention of millions of acres of land is a critical question that impacts all Western states, which is why Wyoming has filed this amicus.”
The brief may be found here.
Utah is going to lose, and deserves to. There's no excuse whatsoever for Wyoming joining with Utah in this effort.
Much more in the article.
The author, Eric Movar, is a Western Watersheds Project’s Executive Director and frankly, I'm not a big fan of the Western Watershed Project, which I think tends to be anti agriculture. Here, however, I think they're right on the mark.
Governor Gordon Appreciates Commitment from BLM to Better
Incorporate Wyoming’s Perspective into Rock Springs RMP
CHEYENNE, Wyo. –Governor Mark Gordon appreciates that the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) has extended the current comment period on the Rock
Springs Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
an additional 60 days, ending on January 17, 2024. Even more so, he welcomes
the news – following lengthy and frank discussions – that the BLM is committing
to roll up its sleeves to work with Wyoming people.
That said, the current preferred alternative is unacceptable,
and the Governor is disappointed that a unified request for a withdrawal
of the proposed EIS made by the Governor, Wyoming’s Congressional Delegation,
Wyoming County Commissioners and Wyoming industries was not granted. However,
it is important to remember that the extension comes with a commitment from BLM
to work closely with Wyoming people and truly hear their concerns during this
additional comment period. The additional time gives stakeholders who
work, recreate, enjoy the natural resources, and help conserve wildlife within
the Rock Springs BLM management area to provide substantive comments to shape
an acceptable, well-reasoned final proposal.
“This extension will allow Wyoming citizens additional
opportunities for engagement in this important process,” Governor Gordon said.
“When the preferred alternative was announced, it came as a surprise to many of
those who had worked for years on the draft document. That’s because there was
a gap of two years during which the cooperating agencies' meetings on the draft
Rock Springs Management Plan did not take place.”
In addition, Governor Gordon committed state agencies to
continue their diligent work to propose substantive comments supporting the
best use of the remarkable resources within the BLM Rock Springs District and
protect Wyoming’s interests.
The Governor has directed the University of Wyoming’s
Ruckelshaus Institute to convene workshops for stakeholders, including, but not
limited to, local government officials, legislators, conservationists, grazing
interests, hunters, recreationists, trona, oil and gas, and the general public
to discuss the proposed alternatives identified in the plan and EIS. The UW School
of Energy Resources and the College of Agriculture will assist in gathering and
recording information for these workshops. The BLM has assured the Governor
that they will participate in all the workshops to which they are invited.
Additional information on these workshops will be forthcoming.
The BLM is obligated to review and consider all comments before
making a final decision on the final EIS and eventually Record of Decision for
the management plan. The draft RMP and information on how to comment can be
found on the following link: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/13853/510
-END-
Wyoming politician Bob Ide is saying he's going to sponsor a bill to take the Federal domain into state hands, requiring, as if Wyoming can require the Federal Government to do anything, the fulfillment of a promise that the Federal Government never made at the time Wyoming became a state.
In fact, the opposite was true. Wyoming promised not to seek any more Federal land than it was getting.
But a promise was made regarding those lands. . . to the Cheyenne, Arapahoe and Sioux tribes. . . that being that they could keep them for hunting grounds.
And a larger reservation than they currently have was originally given to the Shoshone.
In her campaign to displace Liz Cheney, Harriet Hageman emphasized the hardworking nature of her family and forebearors, and has been a standard-bearer of conservative and populist values in her brief time in Congress. She's from, she related, a fourth generation ranching family.
But most families that have been in agriculture in Wyoming that long, outside the descendants of British remission men, are remote beneficiaries of a gigantic government system which used Federal agents, in the form of the U.S. Army and Federal Indian Agents, to dispossess the occupants of that land, sometimes by force, and remove them to where they did not want to go, so that the land could be transferred free or cheaply to European Americans. Those original European American occupants, we might note, in the case of homesteaders, were not the wealthy and were perfectly willing to take advantage of a government program.
My point?
Well I don't mean to be one of those who are going to engage in hagiography of any one group of American people, Natives nor European Americans, but on this day it might be worth remembering something.
The "pull up by the bootstraps" argument that the middle class, or lower upper class, so frequently states, or imagines about themselves, fails pretty readily upon close examination. Almost every class of American with longstanding roots in the country that have been here for quite some time benefitted from a government program, whether that be homesteading, Indian removal by the Army, the mining law of 1872, the Taylor grazing act (which saved ranching in the West), the GI Bill, and so on.
That is, in fact, the American System. Not the Darwinian laissez-faire economics that libertarians so often proclaim.
I'm not demanding reparations, or that injustices committed to people of the past be retroactively lamented. Indeed, that's pointless. What I’m suggesting instead is that justice be done for those now living, and that as part of that we admit when we are vicariously beneficiaries of some Federal program in the past, as I am.
And as part of that, I'm also suggesting that we don't engage in myths or hagiographies about our own predecessors. Nobody carved a civilization out of an empty wilderness, unless we go back in North America 15,000 years. Nobody promised that Wyoming could have the public domain. None of us are as independent or virtuous as we pretend, if we pretend that we are, and nobody's ancestors were hearty bands of go it alone giants.
Shoot, even Columbus, if you prefer to ponder him on this day, was on a state funded mission.
October 7, 2024.
Senator Bob Ide has an op ed in the paper today, promising to introduce legislation to somehow require the Federal government to turn over the Federal domain to Wyoming. He terms the Federal Government's possession of its public land in Wyoming illegal and contrary to a promise it made at the time of Wyoming's statehood, both of which are absolutely false.
This would be a disaster for the state's sportsmen and the state in general, and would soon result in the land likely going to the wealthy, and wealthy out of staters. It would frankly make it not worth living here and destroy the character of the state.
Ide cites the popular transfer of the Marton ranch to the Federal Government and the recent southwestern Wyoming BLM plan as part of the reason this needs to occur, both of which are reason why it should never occur.
That's how the conservation group Center for Wester Priorities characterized a three-page letter written by Wyoming populist legislator Bob Ide which asserted that the sale of the Marton Ranch in Natrona County to the Federal Government required the state legislature's permission.
A University of Wyoming professor confirmed that state law did not support Ide's position and frankly, it's abundantly clear that the claim is not only extreme, but baseless.
Every lawyer has been asked that question at some point. Usually it's "how can you represent somebody you know is guilty?"
Usually, amongst lawyers, it's regarded as kind of an eye rolling "oh how naive" type of question. For lawyers who have a philosophical or introspective bent, and I'd submit that's a distance minority, they may have an answer that's based on, basically, defending a system that defends us all. Maybe they have something even more sophisticated, such as something along the lines of St. Thomas More's statement in A Man For All Seasons:
William Roper : So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More : Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
That's about the best answer that there may be, and frankly the only one that applies to civil litigation. We can console ourselves that in representing the interests of the potentially liable, we protect the interest of everyone.
But what about plaintiff's lawyers?
Frankly, the excuse is wearing thin.
I.e., I don't believe it for a second. It's all about cash.
And this is a real problem.
The question is what to do about it.
Well, frankly, the average person can't do much. But you don't really have to accept it, either.
Shunning has a bad name in our culture. Indeed, one English language European source states:
More specifically, shunning or ostracising is a form of abuse. It is discrimination and silent bullying. Unfortunately, often people who have been shunned also face other forms of abuse, ranging from death threats and physical assaults to murder.
And there's a lot of truth to that.
At the same time, it was and is something that is often practiced to varying degrees in religious communities. Indeed, up until the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, Catholic excommunications were of two types, vitandus and toleratus, with vitandus requiring the Faithful to cease all normal connections with the excommunicated. It was very rare, but it could happen. Since 1983 that distinction does not exist. Some Amish, however, still have such a practice, and they are not alone.
Realizing this is extreme, I also realize, as I've seen pointed out twice, that land locking rich magnates cannot do it without local help. They always hire somebody, I've heard them referred to as "goons" to be their enforcer, and when they need legal help, they hire a Wyoming licensed attorney. Indeed, in this instance, remarkably, the plaintiff did not use a Denver attorney, which I thought they likely would have.
And this has always been the case. Wyoming Stock Growers Association stock detectives were sometimes enforcers back in the late 19th Century, and they were hired men. In the trial of the Invaders, a local Cheyenne attorney was used, but then again, that was a criminal case, which I do feel differently about.
Elk Mountain is basically mid-way, and out of the way, between Laramie, Rawlins and Saratoga. People working for Iron Bar Holdings have to go to one of those places for goods and services. There's really no reason the excluded locals need to sell them anything. Keep people off. . .drive to Colorado for services.
And on legal services? I don't know the lawyers involved, so I'm unlikely to every run into them. But I'm not buying them lunch as we often do as a courtesy while on the road, and if I were a local rancher, and keep in mind that outfits like Iron Bar Holdings don't help local ranchers keep on keeping on, I'd tell that person, if they stopped in to ask to go fishing or hunting, to pound sand.
If this sounds extreme, and it actually is, this is what happened with some of the law firms representing Donald Trump in his effort to steal the election. They backed out after partners in their firms basically, it seems, told Trump's lawyers to chose Trump or the firm.
And there are many other examples. Lawyers bear no social costs at all for whom they represent in civil suits. People who regard abortion as murder will sit right down with lawyers representing abortionists, people seeking a radical social change will hire lawyers to advance the change, and the lawyers fellows feel no pressure as a result of that at all.
Maybe they should.
Or is that view fundamentally wrong?
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
ORIGINAL SENATEFILE NO. SF0056ENROLLED ACT NO. 60, SENATESIXTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING2023 GENERAL SESSIONAN ACT relating to game and fish; expanding the prohibition for entering private property without permission for hunting purposes to also prohibit traveling through the private property; and providing for an effective date.Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:Section 1. W.S. 23‑3‑305(b) is amended to read:23‑3‑305. Hunting from highway; entering or traveling through private property without permission; penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.(b) No person shall enter upon, travel through or return across the private property of any person to take wildlife, 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 "travel through or return across" requires physically touching or driving on the surface of the private property.Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2023.
Governor Gordon Takes Action on 8 Bills on Saturday, February 18CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon took action on eight bills on Saturday, February 18. The Governor signed the following bills into law today:Enrolled Act # Bill # Bill TitleHEA0015 HB0035 Day-care certification requirement amendmentsHEA0016 HB0082 Defendant mental illness examinations-amendmentsHEA0017 HB0160 Drivers license veterans designation replacing DD form 214HEA0018 HB0147 Unlawful trespass signage-taking of wildlifeHEA0019 HB0019 State Indian Child Welfare Act task forceSEA0023 SF0078 Apprenticeship and job training promotion in schoolsSEA0024 SF0176 Solid waste disposal districts-consolidationSEA0025 SF0041 Skill based amusement games-authorized locations.
ENROLLED ACT NO. 18, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSIXTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING2023 GENERAL SESSIONAN ACT relating to game and fish; amending the crime of interference with lawful taking of wildlife; prohibiting acts that restrict access to or use of state or federal land as specified; providing an exception; specifying applicability; and providing for effective dates.Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:Section 1. W.S. 23‑3‑405(a) by creating a new paragraph (iii) and (g) by creating a new paragraph (iii) is amended to read:23‑3‑405. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife prohibited; penalties; damages; injunction.(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife:(iii) Knowingly and without authorization post or maintain in place signs that restrict access to or use of state or federal land on which the lawful taking of or the process of lawfully taking any wildlife is permitted. For purposes of this subsection, "knowingly" means the person has received prior notice from a peace officer that the sign is located on state or federal land.(g) This section shall:(iii) Not interfere with any landowner's right to prevent trespass on the landowner's private property.Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2023.
This is a good bill, and I'm glad it passed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Same day, same paper. One ad celebrating agriculture, and one celebrating its destruction.
