[beaeglebeachh]

In my case, I live near the border and such use 'just roaming lmao' would become perfect cover for drug traffickers, gangs, sex trafficking and all kind of bad stuff I don't want to be liable for when people coming stomping on my property. In US your property can even be seized if such persons are using it.

It would also be very expensive for me if someone hurt themselves and then sued me since they are on my property.

[CogitoCogito]

So if the law were changed to remove said liability, you would support a freedom to roam in the US?

[beaeglebeachh]

I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.

[vidarh]

So you want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Doesn't sound like a compromise to me. In Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone taking advantage of the ability to roam would be rightly subject to a massive manhunt.

[beaeglebeachh]

Your asking for me to relinquish some of my private property rights. Obviously I want something in trade, it's not gonna be unilateral charity so traffickers can be judge jury and executioner against my children who roam my property.

>Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone

In Arizona you can shoot these people with ak47, thankfully and get charges dropped after a deadlocked jury. As recently happened.

I'm pretty happy with Norway doing their Norway thing and Arizona doing how we handle it here. Not interested in making the US Norway.

[CogitoCogito]

I’m confused why you think this would put you at increased risk. You are allowed to defend yourself against threats today. Why do you think that would change?

Though you are also speaking as if people camping on your land away from your dwelling are necessarily threatening. If that is something you believe, you might want to reflect and ask yourself why.

[beaeglebeachh]

If you don't understand why, I'm going to guess you haven't spent much time in remote US/Mexico border regions far from ports of entry.

[vidarh]

I'm asking you to stop denying the public freedoms in return for getting the same freedom yourself.

Nobody is asking you to allow others to do violence against you. But that you want to be free to deprive others of life and liberty on the basis of guesses strikes as a brutally authoritarian attitude.

[beaeglebeachh]

I'm fine with keeping private property rights so there's no guessing and trespassing is hardline crossing that fence. It was merely an offer as a potential trade since you wanted something for free that involved guessing who is a roamer. Obviously property owners aren't trading away interests unless you're ponying up something sweeten the deal.

[CogitoCogito]

We’re talking people walking across or camping on your land and in both cases staying away from any residences where people actually live. How would you even know someone is trafficking?

[beaeglebeachh]

Hmm might want to reword it as reasonably believe, then let the jury figure it as they did with the rancher with an AK who recently walked.

[vidarh]

Only if they can shoot at you too if they reasonably believe you're a threat to their safety. Which it sounds like you'd be likely to be.

[beaeglebeachh]

Deal. Not like they cared about law anyway, so it'll change nothing. They're already looking at life for the kind of armed trafficking they're already doing.