Because on Wednesdays I publish stuff that pertains to work.
I don't usually eat lunch, although recently, due to my messed up post surgery colon, and my messed up pre-surgery thyroid, I have been eating very light lunches. Something like this I only have if I'm in a restaurant, and I'm only in a restaurant at noon if I'm doing so in some sort of work capacity. When I do that, I always look for the club sandwich, if we're in a place I expect to have one.
They're great.
Club Sandwiches trace back to New York of the late 19th Century, and seem to have appeared either at the Union Club of New York City or the Saratoga Club. It's not clear which. The first printed reference to them was in the Evening World, and referred to the Union Club. That was in 1889. Amazingly, in this day and age in which social clubs have taken a pounding, the Union Club, which dates to 1836, still exists as a private social club.
It would seem that some old wars which seemingly were behind us are not.
Once again, the forces of "property" wish to exclude. . . violently.
And once again, they have the legislature behind them.
We recently posted on this item:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0126
Trespass-removal of trespasser.
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Crago and Washut and Senator(s) Kinskey and Landen
A BILL
for
AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; providing for the use of physical force against a trespasser as specified; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 6‑3‑303 by creating new subsections (d) and (e) is amended to read:
(d) A person who is the owner or legal occupant of land or a premises upon which a criminal trespass is occurring, or their agent, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to terminate what the owner, occupant or agent reasonably believes to be the commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the land or premises.
(e) Section (d) of this section does not supersede or add to the responsibilities applicable to the defense of self or another as provided by law.
Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 2023.
Frankly, as this bill is based on what one “reasonably believes”, basically authorizes murder, or could, and probably will be, read that way.
I know Washut who due to his prior career as a policeman ought to know better. I don't know the remainder of them.
This bill, if passed, will get somebody killed.
Let's start with this. What is criminal trespass?
Well, under Wyoming's law, it's the following:
TITLE 6 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
6-3-303. Criminal trespass; penalties.
(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass. For purposes of this section, notice is given by:
(i) Personal communication to the person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer; or
(ii) Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
(b) Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both.
(c) This section does not supersede W.S. 1-21-1003.
So, under Wyoming's law, if a person comes up to you, and says "you are trespassing", and you remain, and you really are trespassing, you are guilty of criminal trespass.
And, under the proposed amendment to the law, this would be added to it:
(d) A person who is the owner or legal occupant of land or a premises upon which a criminal trespass is occurring, or their agent, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to terminate what the owner, occupant or agent reasonably believes to be the commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the land or premises.
(e) Section (d) of this section does not supersede or add to the responsibilities applicable to the defense of self or another as provided by law.
So the new law would be such that Landowner or Landowner's agent could come up to you and say, "get off", and if they didn't, they could use "reasonable and appropriate physical force" to remove you when they "reasonably believe" that you are criminally trespassing.
Seriously, "reasonably believed"?
What if their reasonable belief was wrong?
Several years ago I was on public lands when a couple of goons for a large Natrona County landowner approached me and informed me that I had to leave as I was trespassing. I had a GPS, and I knew I wasn't.
I was also deer hunting and carrying a rifle and a handgun.
Did the goons believe that I was trespassing? I don't know. It's hard to penetrate the minds of saps who take jobs as regulators. Their belief may have been based on what their employer told them. Mine was based on the United States Geological Survey.
I didn't want to bother with it, and I cleared off.
I frankly wouldn't now. Now, I would have told them to pound sand, particularly as they warned me it was a $10,000 fine is I stayed, which was bullshit.
I got my revenge, I guess, by voting against the guy, a long with a lot of other locals, when he stood for reelection for a local office he was also holding.
But back to the scenario. I'm armed. If they were too, and they believed I was "criminally trespassing", and had invoked the element by telling me I was, could they then draw down on me? Would that be reasonable force, as I was armed?
And if I did, would I have been justified in blowing them away in self defense? I wasn't trespassing, and now I'm in danger of my life.
I probably wouldn't. . . but if I were with my son, wife, or daughter and felt they actually might use the weapons? A scared person resorts to violence quickly, and men protecting their families do as well.
And if that happened, would I be found to have acted in self-defense?
This scenario, if this bill passes, will play out just this way.
Now it'll be incumbent upon anyone going afield to pack heat, least some hired moron tries to drive them off land they believe they have a right to be on. And sooner or later some asshole, probably a landowner on public land, or some out of state landowner's hired flunky, will challenge a fisherman, hunter, or hiker and get gunned down, dying for a moronic belief in the absolute nature of property rights that are, in fact, not absolute, never have been, and never will be.
What about the corner crossing case? Even the Game Warden couldn't tell if it was a trespass or not. The landowner's hired traitor to the state believed it was. Would he have drawn down on them?
Those guys were gentlemen in the whole affair. Most people are. I've known of at least one friend of mine who was confronted in such a fashion and kept a rifle on the jerk confronting him, as he was armed. The armed jerk didn't realize that he was about to meet the business end of a .30-30 if he went too far.
Life preserved by a clam reactant.
Not everyone is calm, and not everyone cares either. Some asshat is going to tell somebody to get off some land, and that person is going to stand their ground. Somebody will probably get killed, and it'll probably be the person yelling "get off my land".
Lots of people now days imagine themselves to be Matt Quigly in the final scene of Quigly Down Under, gunning down the baddy. Some have even taken up carrying all the time so that they can affect the visage of Pistol Pete or maybe Yoesimite Sam. Take our recent wholly unqualified interim Secretary of State, Karl Allred, who packed heat on to the UW campus as he wanted to make a point.
Direct link to WyoFile, "Uinta County committeeman Karl Allred reviews documents at a Wyoming Republican Party Central Committee meeting in Riverton in September 2022. Gov. Mark Gordon appointed Allred as secretary of state. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)"
Mr. Allred, seen packing here complete with a handgun that has an extra magazine, may imagine himself freedom's brave sentinel. but if he had to draw that, let's be honest, he'd be lucky to get it around his gut.
Being fat is no crime, but frankly not one person in fifty knows how to use a handgun in combat, and a lot of those are people who would have the high side of the fight if confronted by a good. Pistol Packing Regulators may imagine that they can draw down on a whole passel of criminal trespasser, but the result is far from certain, particularly if they aren't trespassing.
Think that guy can outdraw and gun down a 20-year-old carrying a .357? I don't think it bloody likely.
And FWIW, there's a whole lot of people now who are packing for self-defense, including a lot of young, agile, men, and women, who actually don't have enormous waste lines to clear, and who the goons aren't going to know are packing.
What the crap has gotten into people?
Wyoming was built on go where you want, when you want. The last time somebody tried to change this, it went badly.
But we're right back at that point once again. Property rights, real or imagined, enforced at the barrel of a gun. Indeed, when we fought that battle before, the legislature was on the wrong side of it then as well.
Moreover, any property, including your very own house, that you own, you are merely renting for, at most, the extraordinary short period of your life. You don't really have a moral right to go around bullying trespassers on the open range or fishing stream. Yes, you can call law enforcement, but do that. That's their job in a civil society.
And let's be honest, if we're returning to that day, equitably, turnabout can be argued to be fair play.
