D8S wrote:Yadda, yadda, yadda

Dave

Like I said the law isn't that clear. We obviously read it differently. That just goes to show that the law isn't that clear.

If you want a judge to decide it; go to court over it. But while you are at it, get rid of the NIMBY attitude and attack it at all trailheads in all National Forests (including the Trout Pond Recreation Area in George Washington National Forest), not just in Wyoming.

By the way, if "Guns in National Parks" belongs in the off-route forum, why doesn't this?

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

mconnell wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

mconnell wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:The Fed OWNS the land. You have to understand this. You, me, and Woodie Guthrie's descendants... it ain't OUR LAND.

You act as though the federal government is an independent group that can do what they want.

They can.

Which means that the Constitution is completely meaningless since the government doesn't have to follow it. Citizens are just here to serve the ruling branch? I think you are missing the point of a representative government.

No you are. You elect a representative... you input is finished. That is your representation. If you don't like the manner in which you are represented, you elect someone else next time, or try to. THAT'S IT.

Sorry dude. That's the way it works.

DMT

Point was that the government cannot do whatever they want. That's the point of the Constitution and of having elected officials.

Like I said the law isn't that clear. We obviously read it differently. That just goes to show that the law isn't that clear.

If you want a judge to decide it; go to court over it. But while you are at it, get rid of the NIMBY attitude and attack it at all trailheads in all National Forests (including the Trout Pond Recreation Area in George Washington National Forest), not just in Wyoming.

FYI this question is in the courts in Arizona and Colorado. Both suits were filed in May 2008 and most of the intervening time has been spent dealing with the Justice Department's efforts to get the cases dismissed without a hearing on the actual issues.

The legal efforts have not been limited to just two places out of any NIMBY attitude, but rather by the limited resources available. When a federal agency appears to be breaking the law it's real hard for ordinary folks to do anything about it. You can't exactly call the Sheriff and have them arrested, you have to sue. And it's not easy to sue the federal government (google "sovereign immunity").

The Forest Service's lawyer is the Justice Department so when you sue them you pay your costs as Plaintiff but you also pay for the Defense through your taxes.

There are hundreds of fees in place at trailheads, and for roads and overlooks, that we think are not in compliance with the law. I wish I could sue them all, but no one is shoveling money at me to cover legal expenses. The two cases we are pursuing have a decent chance of success and would affect many other places.