Now that the Montana corner crossing bill was voted down by a straight party-line vote in committee, it is time to think of the next step on this topic. The topic is not going away.
I am copying a couple posts from the other thread, to start this one and give people more background. This bill, if passed in Montana, will lay the roadmap for doing the same thing in other states, as much of the defense that opponents use is based on the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Defenses you will see are not valid, based on the information below.
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.
I am copying a couple posts from the other thread, to start this one and give people more background. This bill, if passed in Montana, will lay the roadmap for doing the same thing in other states, as much of the defense that opponents use is based on the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Defenses you will see are not valid, based on the information below.
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.
