Trespass Bill

[BBQBluesMan]

So please tell me how this bill would have stopped the ecoterrorists from trespassing? I understand their stance and frustration, but this bill would not have stopped criminal trespass down there.

 

[pluckem]

So please tell me how this bill would have stopped the ecoterrorists from trespassing? I understand their stance and frustration, but this bill would not have stopped criminal trespass down there.

I agree, I don't think it would have stopped them. Criminals don't follow the law.

However it might have allowed LE to make more arrests and allow the counties/state to actually convict more criminals.

What some are reporting is the terrorists rip down the No Trespass signs and then claim it was never up in the first place. So the LE and Attorneys have to prove they were the specific individual who ripped down the sign. Otherwise they can play dumb and probably get off. Now I understand the law states the landowner can communicate verbally that these people need to leave and according to the law they have to leave immediately. However that might be easier said than done, because I am sure many landowners do not want to be caught in any confrontation with these people. Who knows what sort of retaliation would happen. They have proved they like to light things on fire.

I think this was more of an issue along the pipeline route to the west of the river. Not so much the drill site and ground zero of this mess.

 

[Colt45]

So please tell me how this bill would have stopped the ecoterrorists from trespassing? I understand their stance and frustration, but this bill would not have stopped criminal trespass down there.

The trespass bill would have stopped the terrorist trespassers the same way strict gun laws prevent criminals from getting and using guns.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

I hear what you are saying pluck em, but from what I have heard from some of the LEO that have worked down there, they don't want to make 100s of arrests. The more people arrested in situations like this, the more strain it is on LE officers, local jails, court systems, etc. LE could have made way more arrests than they have, that's for sure.

 

[pluckem]

I hear what you are saying pluck em, but from what I have heard from some of the LEO that have worked down there, they don't want to make 100s of arrests. The more people arrested in situations like this, the more strain it is on LE officers, local jails, court systems, etc. LE could have made way more arrests than they have, that's for sure.

For the record, I agree with you and others. I don't believe having this law in place would have done anything to curb how things transpired down there. I was just stating the angle the proponents of this bill are taking. I wasn't sure if you already knew this or you had more of a sarcastic tone in your question. I didn't read through the first 13 pages of this thread where it probably would have gave me the correct indication.

 

[eyexer]

The Corps land belongs to everyone and we have a right to walk about on it. But not camp, make a mess or set up structures even if they are temporary. The Corps or fed/gov did not enforce the law allowing the encampments to grow. (thanks Obama) In the , "WELL THIS IS GOING TO GET INTERESTING THREAD" not one of us here supported that.

The protesters did not confine themselves only to the Corps land and things spilled over to private land. Not just landowners but all people living in the area felt unsafe........... This is their Bill.

This may be the most hotly contested Bill this session. Going to need the Brynhild Haugland room.

and you think this law would have prevented that;:;rofl

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, I don't think it would have stopped them. Criminals don't follow the law.

However it might have allowed LE to make more arrests and allow the counties/state to actually convict more criminals.

What some are reporting is the terrorists rip down the No Trespass signs and then claim it was never up in the first place. So the LE and Attorneys have to prove they were the specific individual who ripped down the sign. Otherwise they can play dumb and probably get off. Now I understand the law states the landowner can communicate verbally that these people need to leave and according to the law they have to leave immediately. However that might be easier said than done, because I am sure many landowners do not want to be caught in any confrontation with these people. Who knows what sort of retaliation would happen. They have proved they like to light things on fire.

I think this was more of an issue along the pipeline route to the west of the river. Not so much the drill site and ground zero of this mess.

and it would have allowed the court to drop the charges on more people lol. and cost us taxpayers a hell of alot more money

 

[dean nelson]

The court system is already stretched to the breaking point so the second they try to use the protest as an excuse will trigger a question as to why they feel the the arrest of even more people would have helped. Simple fact is all these protesters are breaking multiple laws daily and are not arrested so added a further law would do nothing but screw over the people of the state on the excuse of going after the protesters when in reality they're going after the hunters and hiding behind a fake cause.

 

[PrairieGhost]

It looks like they are willing to forever punish motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers, hunters etc to punish some people in our state for a short time. Punishing 80k innicent citizens to get even with a few thousand transients isn't well thought out.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Eyexer said,

and you think this law would have prevented that;:;rofl

You'll have to go to the legislature during the hearing and listen to what the proponents are/were thinking.

 

[eyexer]

Eyexer said,



You'll have to go to the legislature during the hearing and listen to what the proponents are/were thinking.

I don't think anybody needs to do that to understand the intent of this law

 

[gst]

The court system is already stretched to the breaking point so the second they try to use the protest as an excuse will trigger a question as to why they feel the the arrest of even more people would have helped. Simple fact is all these protesters are breaking multiple laws daily and are not arrested so added a further law would do nothing but screw over the people of the state on the excuse of going after the protesters when in reality they're going after the hunters and hiding behind a fake cause.

Why exactly is it you claim people behind this bill are "going after hunters"?

Do you honestly think people supporting this bill just want to shaft those hunters that follow the laws and have respect for those whos lands they recreate on?

Are you ignoring what this bill is likely about?

 

[eyexer]

Why exactly is it you claim people behind this bill are "going after hunters"?

Do you honestly think people supporting this bill just want to shaft those hunters that follow the laws and have respect for those whos lands they recreate on?

Are you ignoring what this bill is likely about?

they could have excluded hunting in the bill but didn't. that pretty much tells us they don't give a shit and want a blanket approach to solve a problem they aren't going to solve anyway. It's no different than gun control. Take guns away from law abiding people just because criminals use guns to commit crimes lol.

 

[gst]

It looks like they are willing to forever punish motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers, hunters etc to punish some people in our state for a short time. Punishing 80k innicent citizens to get even with a few thousand transients isn't well thought out.

So have the motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers, been "punished" in Montana, SD??

- - - Updated - - -

they could have excluded hunting in the bill but didn't. that pretty much tells us they don't give a shit and want a blanket approach to solve a problem they aren't going to solve anyway. It's no different than gun control. Take guns away from law abiding people just because criminals use guns to commit crimes lol.

I have yet to hear anyone on this site say a large part of this bill is not about what happens during hunting season. But the attitude of claiming this is targeting hunters and punishing them is ignoring the truth that this is meant to target and "punish" those that break the law rather than those that don;t.

Excluding hunting from this bill would have excluded where most of the issues comes from.

People seem to want to over look that.

I would have rather they just upped the penalties regarding hunting violations and changed the other language as they needed.

The reality is if enough of the people on here that are upset with this bill yet are willing to acknowledge and deal with the reality of why this bill comes up share THAT concern with the legislators this bill could in fact be amended to do that.

 

[eyexer]

Like I stated earlier, the way this bill is written, if you accidently wander onto someones property and are prosecuted you loose your second amendment rights. this is gonna be a hell of a shit show before long

 

[PrairieGhost]

So have the motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers, been "punished" in Montana, SD??

Yes, but the impact isn't so great because of all the public land they have. Also it's been so long, and no one has made any effort to quantify it. In winter I coyote hunt in a manner which can not be done with this bill. I don't need another 4X4, or game call, or predator rifle. I don't need to stay in the Americinn in Medora. I don't need to eat at the Cowboy Café in Medora. I don't need to purchase white camo. My wife will like the money I save to spend in Arizona. I can chase Javelina on public land in Arizona. No reason for me to spend winter in North Dakota.

 

[gst]

Like I stated earlier, the way this bill is written, if you accidently wander onto someones property and are prosecuted you loose your second amendment rights. this is gonna be a hell of a shit show before long

You have been harping about the hunting portion of this bill. Can you please explain under the bills language how your emboldened statement would happen when you are hunting?

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-18 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-18. Hunting on posted land and trapping on private land without permissionunlawful - Penalty.No personAn individual may not hunt or pursue game, or enter for those purposes, uponlegally posted land belonging to another without first obtaining the permission of the personlegally entitled to grant the same. No personAn individual may not enter upon privately ownedland for the purpose of trapping protected fur-bearing animals without first gaining the writtenpermission of the owner or operator of that land. A personAn individual who violates this sectionis guilty of a class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a class A misdemeanor for asubsequent offense within a two-year period.SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-19 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-19. When postedprivate land may be entered.Any personAn individual may enter upon legally postedprivate land to recover game shot orkilled on land where the personindividual had a lawful right to hunt.SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-20 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-20. Entering postedprivate land with gun or firearm prima facie evidence ofintent to hunt game.Proof that a personan individual having a firearm, or other weapon declared legal bygovernor's proclamation, in the person'sindividual's possession entered upon the legally postedprivate premises of another without permission of the owner or tenant is prima facieevidence the personindividual entered to hunt or pursue game.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but the impact isn't so great because of all the public land they have. Also it's been so long, and no one has made any effort to quantify it. In winter I coyote hunt in a manner which can not be done with this bill. I don't need another 4X4, or game call, or predator rifle. I don't need to stay in the Americinn in Medora. I don't need to eat at the Cowboy Café in Medora. I don't need to purchase white camo. My wife will like the money I save to spend in Arizona. I can chase Javelina on public land in Arizona. No reason for me to spend winter in North Dakota.

So what you are saying is that you as a hunter offer nothing to the "motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers" whether this bill passes or not.

I guess when we travel to a rural community to share in what the area provides to hunt we like to stop at the cafe for lunch, have a beer at the bar and sometimes even donate a little something to a church or school fundraiser. It is just a courteousy for their hospitality.

Guess we are a bit different in our thought process.

Well, as they say don;t let the door...........it seems you and Rosie O'Donnell have something in common...........neither one of you have to stay here.

 

[eyexer]

You have been harping about the hunting portion of this bill. Can you please explain under the bills language how your emboldened statement would happen when you are hunting?

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-18 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-18. Hunting on posted land and trapping on private land without permissionunlawful - Penalty.No personAn individual may not hunt or pursue game, or enter for those purposes, uponlegally posted land belonging to another without first obtaining the permission of the personlegally entitled to grant the same. No personAn individual may not enter upon privately ownedland for the purpose of trapping protected fur-bearing animals without first gaining the writtenpermission of the owner or operator of that land. A personAn individual who violates this sectionis guilty of a class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a class A misdemeanor for asubsequent offense within a two-year period.SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-19 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-19. When postedprivate land may be entered.Any personAn individual may enter upon legally postedprivate land to recover game shot orkilled on land where the personindividual had a lawful right to hunt.SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Section 20.1-01-20 of the North Dakota Century Code isamended and reenacted as follows:20.1-01-20. Entering postedprivate land with gun or firearm prima facie evidence ofintent to hunt game.Proof that a personan individual having a firearm, or other weapon declared legal bygovernor's proclamation, in the person'sindividual's possession entered upon the legally postedprivate premises of another without permission of the owner or tenant is prima facieevidence the personindividual entered to hunt or pursue game.

- - - Updated - - -



So what you are saying is that you as a hunter offer nothing to the "motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers" whether this bill passes or not.

I guess when we travel to a rural community to share in what the area provides to hunt we like to stop at the cafe for lunch, have a beer at the bar and sometimes even donate a little something to a church or school fundraiser. It is just a courteousy for their hospitality.

Guess we are a bit different in our thought process.

Well, as they say don;t let the door...........it seems you and Rosie O'Donnell have something in common...........neither one of you have to stay here.

is this current legislation you are quoting?

 

[PrairieGhost]

So what you are saying is that you as a hunter offer nothing to the "motels, restaurants, vehicle dealers, sporting goods dealers" whether this bill passes or not.

I keep forgetting I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand the English language. Read it over. I am saying coyote hunting makes me like staying in North Dakota. If this bill passes then I will go where I can hunt. If I leave the state the money I did spend will be gone. We accuse liberals of twisting words, but gst you put many of them to shame. Read it again and tell me what it says.

Any personAn individual may enter upon legally postedprivate land to recover game shot orkilled on land where the personindividual had a lawful right to hunt.

What? A person may enter posted land to retrieve game where he had a lawful fight to hunt? No kidding. What genius wrote this. Tell me there is really no one this stupid. Now you can enter posted land to retrieve game where you don't have permission to hunt. Leave your gun behind. Maybe better video. Having a half dozen witnesses would make it safer. Call the warden first.

 

[svnmag]

He's going to call you Whoopie Goldberg now. He seems to forget or overlook the first tactic of of lib when they're getting exposed.

 

[Kurtr]

how many coyotes have you killed this year