mdunc8
Well-known member
Thanks for the heads up. Didn't notice this one.
ALERT! Corner crossing bill
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
theat
Well-known member
sent some emails and got a couple guys to voice their support as well. Thanks for the heads up.
We met yesterday with the sponsor of HB 235 Rep. Hill-D and co-sponsor, Rep.
Kerns-R. Rep. Kerns is introducing an amendment this morning that will specify "walk-in only access" for some corner crossings. This is probably a good amendment depending on the details. Hope to have a copy of the amendment later this morning and will post it. Rep. Kerns, who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee where this bill is being heard, told us he is going to delay executive action for up to 10 days before the Committee vote is taken.
Stay tuned for how best to support this bill. We will need massive support from individual sportsmen and all the sportsmen organizations in Montana to help pass this bill. This is a real opportunity to do something positive for sportsmen.
Kerns-R. Rep. Kerns is introducing an amendment this morning that will specify "walk-in only access" for some corner crossings. This is probably a good amendment depending on the details. Hope to have a copy of the amendment later this morning and will post it. Rep. Kerns, who is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee where this bill is being heard, told us he is going to delay executive action for up to 10 days before the Committee vote is taken.
Stay tuned for how best to support this bill. We will need massive support from individual sportsmen and all the sportsmen organizations in Montana to help pass this bill. This is a real opportunity to do something positive for sportsmen.
Interesting. I look forward to the specifics. "Walk in only"... Would like to see it as open for horse and walk in - though maybe that is a tad too much to dig for off the bat.(?) Who knows maybe "walk in only" is inclusive of pack animals as well.
This corner crossing has absolutely NO detriment to private property. The only reason to counter this is for the personal and outfitter lease ability to privatize our public land.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
Sytes, I'm for this bill (even though not a Montanan) but the above statement is too simple. As I stated earlier... what about fenced off corners.... just climb someones fences? How wide of a path? Styles is a homeowner on one side of the corner.... is it alright to have people passing through your yard? People, horses, atv's... where will it stop? I believe that some type of details need to be figured out. What about those people without GPS maps... "Well sir, I'm sorry I thought that I was at the corner not 100 yards away from the corner". I can see this broad based bill keepin the county cops very busy.
Is there a "Final draft" out there yet?
Just my thoughts
the dog
Ya, I hear ya PDR. My comment is in support for this bill. Too simple or too indepth, I am in the same boat for specific details with a bit more vested interest, living in Montana.
Not sure if you are seeking personal opinions on how those sharing support would like this to work or ?
Gents, I believe this bill has a chance at some real traction. Who knows where MOGA will be. They mostly work in opposition to anything good for residents. Like legislation blowing the cap off NR licenses. Keep a closer eye on them.
Keep spreading the word. Actually seeing this conversation at this level is worth the price of admission.
Keep spreading the word. Actually seeing this conversation at this level is worth the price of admission.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
There's a petition that was developed to get as many people signed up in support of this bill. Sign it and spread the word. This will carry some weight next week.
http://chn.ge/SDNcOi
http://chn.ge/SDNcOi
spook12
New member
Done..........
track1
Well-known member
Check!
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,693
Gosh, doensn't look like there's anybody that opposes this one. 
Should be a slam dunk. Will be a pleasure to listen to the testimony on it.
Should be a slam dunk. Will be a pleasure to listen to the testimony on it.
Well, the votes are in. Voted straight down party lines, even though the corner crossing bill had one Republican sponsor, Krayton Kerns.
Mr. Kerns, in a flip flop style typical of Tea Baggers, voted AGAINST a bill he was a co-sponsor of. Yeah, he signs on as a co-sponsor and then gets called out back to the tea shed, then votes against his own co-sponsored bill.
How do you work with people that are that fickle?
Anyhow in the last day, a brief was prepared by the premier access law firm in the Rockies, the Goetz Law Firm here in Bozeman. See the attached images below that show their findings.
Their findings are - For the reasons set forth herein, HB 235, if passed into law, will not constitute a taking and is constitutional under the Montana and Federal Constitutions.
Jim Goetz is the attorney who argued the stream access case in 1986 that went all the way to the Montana Supreme Court, giving us our current stream access law. He also successfully defended MT FWP Commission in front of the US Supreme Court in the Baldwin v. Commissioner case, a case that determined that hunting was not commerce and therefore the Interstate Commerce Rules of the US Constitution did not apply when charging different/higher license fees to non-residents.
I have hired Jim to do work in the past. One of the smartest attorneys I know. His firm is filled with the brightest minds on this topic.
In this brief that it is shown that corner crossing not a “takings” issue and does not interfere with the private property rights of the adjacent private landowners, per the Montana and Federal Constitutions.
So, where are these folks going to run and hide now that the most respected law firm on this topic has found there to be nothing unconstitutional about this bill. Talk about hypocrisy. The next time one of these tea baggers try to tell me they are a property rights advocate, I am going to break into hysterical laughter, right in front of them.
Read the brief yourself. Here it is below.
Mr. Kerns, in a flip flop style typical of Tea Baggers, voted AGAINST a bill he was a co-sponsor of. Yeah, he signs on as a co-sponsor and then gets called out back to the tea shed, then votes against his own co-sponsored bill.
How do you work with people that are that fickle?
Anyhow in the last day, a brief was prepared by the premier access law firm in the Rockies, the Goetz Law Firm here in Bozeman. See the attached images below that show their findings.
Their findings are - For the reasons set forth herein, HB 235, if passed into law, will not constitute a taking and is constitutional under the Montana and Federal Constitutions.
Jim Goetz is the attorney who argued the stream access case in 1986 that went all the way to the Montana Supreme Court, giving us our current stream access law. He also successfully defended MT FWP Commission in front of the US Supreme Court in the Baldwin v. Commissioner case, a case that determined that hunting was not commerce and therefore the Interstate Commerce Rules of the US Constitution did not apply when charging different/higher license fees to non-residents.
I have hired Jim to do work in the past. One of the smartest attorneys I know. His firm is filled with the brightest minds on this topic.
In this brief that it is shown that corner crossing not a “takings” issue and does not interfere with the private property rights of the adjacent private landowners, per the Montana and Federal Constitutions.
So, where are these folks going to run and hide now that the most respected law firm on this topic has found there to be nothing unconstitutional about this bill. Talk about hypocrisy. The next time one of these tea baggers try to tell me they are a property rights advocate, I am going to break into hysterical laughter, right in front of them.
Read the brief yourself. Here it is below.
This is not the end of this topic. Not even close. Just in Montana, 1,000,000 acres of land would come available for hunting under this change. Land that is mostly elk ground, and ground that is too expensive for Block Management dollars to compete with outfitter leases. Nothing would do more the benefit the public land elk hunter than to have this bill pass.
Now knowing the legality of a bill that would allow corner crossing, I think a public land hunting TV show ought to hire the Goetz firm to advise that TV show about an episode that illustrates this topic in Montana and can be used as a roadmap for the same issue in other states.
An episode whereby the TV host picks a very high profile area where great hunting can be had via corner crossing without setting foot on any adjacent private land. That host should call the adjacent landowner(s), the county sheriff, and the local county attorney prior to the hunt, so no one feels blindsided. In the episode, the host should go find the corner pins and cross from corner to corner and let the law come issue a citation for trespassing. Hopefully in the process, the host shoots a really big buck or bull and packs it out on his back, crossing corner to corner, never setting foot on a square inch of private land.
Let it all be televised. Let it go through the court system, and we will find out just where the constiutionality of corner crossing stands.
The legislative playinig field is too out of balance for this issue to get any attention based on the merits of private and public property rights. Too many in the legislature are hypocrites on the topic of property rights. They like to create private property rights for their friends, when no private property right exits, rather what exists is a public property right.
The Montana Stream Access law was finally sorted out by the courts after the legislature continued to defend the hypocrisy of that topic. We now have the best stream access law in the nation, thanks to a court case.
I wonder if the tea baggers want this topic to be decided in the same manner? If they continue down this path of hypocrisy, they are going to get their chance to have it decided in the same manner.
Talked to the Goetz law firm this morning, in anticipation of a vote such as this. Now, if I just knew of a guy with a public land hunting TV show.
Now knowing the legality of a bill that would allow corner crossing, I think a public land hunting TV show ought to hire the Goetz firm to advise that TV show about an episode that illustrates this topic in Montana and can be used as a roadmap for the same issue in other states.
An episode whereby the TV host picks a very high profile area where great hunting can be had via corner crossing without setting foot on any adjacent private land. That host should call the adjacent landowner(s), the county sheriff, and the local county attorney prior to the hunt, so no one feels blindsided. In the episode, the host should go find the corner pins and cross from corner to corner and let the law come issue a citation for trespassing. Hopefully in the process, the host shoots a really big buck or bull and packs it out on his back, crossing corner to corner, never setting foot on a square inch of private land.
Let it all be televised. Let it go through the court system, and we will find out just where the constiutionality of corner crossing stands.
The legislative playinig field is too out of balance for this issue to get any attention based on the merits of private and public property rights. Too many in the legislature are hypocrites on the topic of property rights. They like to create private property rights for their friends, when no private property right exits, rather what exists is a public property right.
The Montana Stream Access law was finally sorted out by the courts after the legislature continued to defend the hypocrisy of that topic. We now have the best stream access law in the nation, thanks to a court case.
I wonder if the tea baggers want this topic to be decided in the same manner? If they continue down this path of hypocrisy, they are going to get their chance to have it decided in the same manner.
Talked to the Goetz law firm this morning, in anticipation of a vote such as this. Now, if I just knew of a guy with a public land hunting TV show.
theat
Well-known member
Damn, I had high hopes for this one. I guess it was a little naive of me to think that the tea party types were actually for more rights and freedom.
Randy...go for it, I and I am sure many others would contribute to a legal fund to help the cause if it became necessary. Thanks again for all that you do.
Randy...go for it, I and I am sure many others would contribute to a legal fund to help the cause if it became necessary. Thanks again for all that you do.
Toadslayer
Member
Be careful not to catch your giant balls on the fence when you cross.
A blast motion is being planned for 2 weeks. If they can get 60 Representatives to vote in favor of the motion, the bill would be moved out of committee and sent to the house floor.
Send your comments now to your representative.
Send your comments now to your representative.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
has not even begun to defile himself!
So we look forward to the episode that elevates this issue via television and the judicial system. You can be sure this "defilement" will have the support of multitudes of "huckleberries" from far and wide.
Depending on the outcome of this legislation, it may be time to really ramp up the financial support from PLWA with a fund specifically aimed at legal fees for Goetz, etal regarding this issue.
