Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lazide 1121 days ago
Cite? Because that seems like complete BS. The judge even dismissed it in the summary judgement, it wasn’t even a close thing.

And they aren’t allowed to put up fences to deny access to public land, that’s the entire point of the Inclosures act.
1 comments
HDThoreaun 1120 days ago
https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-video-do-they-realize-ho... goes over some of the case law. The local DA cites a few of the cases. Obviously it's a bit up in the air which is why the judge didn't toss this case before it went to trial.
link
lazide 1120 days ago
Yeah no, this is what I called out in another thread. Corner crossing is legal, because making it so they can’t corner cross (or otherwise access the land) is illegal - The Inclosures Act of 1885. But the locals want to pretend the federal law doesn’t exist, because it lets them defacto capture this public federal land.

Still doesn’t make what the hunters did illegal, or what the rancher did legal. But it’s why it got to this point.

link
HDThoreaun 1120 days ago
The Inclosures act had never been taken to court in relation to corner crossing before this case. Wyoming had a long history of corner crossing being illegal. That may have been contrary to the inclosures act, but as I said, we have a common law system. Until a judge says the current interpretation is wrong that's the law. So sure, corner crossing may have been "legal" since 1885, but only if you had the resources and knowledge to bring a case to federal court so you can get the wyoming corner crossing law overturned. Until that happened it was not legal.

I mean this is the same as countless supreme court decisions. Was gay marriage legal prior to Obergefell? No, obviously not. The ruling was based on a law that has been in existence since the civil war, but until the judges interpreted that law it did not matter.

link
lazide 1120 days ago
More BS.

Federal law overrides state law. It’s Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the constitution, if you want to double check.

Where federal law says it is illegal to block access to public lands, it is illegal to block access to public lands. Even more so when we’re talking federally owned public land.

There is no law (or judicial interpretation) that Wyoming can pass that is constitutional to change that.

Here is a cite, which you haven’t provided any supporting you case, clearly stating as such, regarding the Inclosures act and someone playing similar games - around 1893. That instance was in Colorado, but was sustained by the Supreme Court and applied nationally.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/167/518]

If you have an actual cite to an actual applicable case, please do post it. The earlier link literally agrees with me, as the judge cited the Inclosures Act when dismissing the claims that corner crossing was illegal.

Otherwise, stop spamming this propaganda.

link