Awhile ago you were trying to claim the law referenced was referring to private land which it does not.
Read it again.
Quote
This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith. be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.
let's simplify it to its core.
Quote
This section shall not...affect the right or title of persons,....,claiming title....to... lands under the land laws of the United State
Simply put, you may not infringe upon privately held lands to reach public land behind.
First it will be "corner crossings" which has been settled law for over 100 years. Next the communists will want to seize tracts of private land to build roads into public lands where no "corner crossing" exists.
I seem to remember some such lawsuits have already happened.
No law is truly "settled" as is evidenced by the Bruen case. The SCOTUS decision just "unsettled" over a century of NY law.
Shall we go back to the old way or stick with the Bruen decision.
A federal judge has just ruled that corner crossing does not constitute trespass upon private land. And it would seem, he has decided that what the ranch owner was doing violated a federal rule about blocking access to public lands.
This case is NOT about crossing private land to get to an enclosed parcel of public land..........as I'm sure your truly understand having lived and recreated in ID for more than a few years. And, in the most likely scenario, it will not affect gaining access to fully surrounded public parcels without a bonafide right of way or permission to trespass.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
