Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire City of Grants Pass Vs Supreme Court

GP has an In&Out Burger

Facts of the case
The city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon has a population of approximately 38,000, and of that population, somewhere between 50 and 600 persons are unhoused. Whatever the exact number of unhoused persons, however, it exceeds the number of available shelter beds, requiring that at least some of them sleep on the streets or in parks. However, several provisions of the Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibit them from doing so, including an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance.

In September 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Martin v. City of Boise, holding that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” While the Grants Pass Municipal Code provisions impose only civil penalties, they still can mature into criminal penalties.

A district court certified a class of plaintiffs of involuntarily unhoused persons living in Grants Pass and concluded that, based on the unavailability of shelter beds, the City’s enforcement of its anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc.

Question
Does a city’s enforcement of public camping against involuntarily homeless people violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

WELL we definitely agree on that. Some of the Supreme Court judges ( the liberal ones ) were asking then where should these people go? Towns in southern Oregon, are islands in a sea of pine forests, that include millions of acres of National and State & County forests.. Both BLM and Forest Service. but then the drug addicts would be away from all the free stuff. and they seem to be worried about O.D.ing, with no immediate medical attention. Plus there is no one out there to Rob for their personal needs.

The answer is pretty simple.. the leftists don't want to embrace it tho, as it gives them one major less thing that they can manipulate, to get more power and more money from the working public.

We get people who overdose pretty much every day, somewhere in the county.. My wife and son work at the local hospital,
where they haul the body into.

The homeless have another problem on BLM and FS land................there's a 14 day limit on camping. Our local one just published their rules for this summer in the local newspaper. 14 day limit in a NF Ranger District.Not sure what divisions the BLM is using. If enforced, the homeless would have to drive to the other side of the county to get into another Ranger District. Good rules in my opinion, to keep permanent camps from being set up. Kinda tough though if, in certain cases, one draws a tag for a long season hunt.

Relative in Flagstaff AZ says there's a big problem there as the NF starts right on the outskirts of town, RVers pull in and set up camp, take the small vehicle, e-bikes, and such into town for supplies and to do stuff. Problem is not just the permanent RV folks, those who sold their homes and just travel, a lot of them are homeless who scrounged together enough $$$ to get a scheidtbox RV/trailer and they park it and stay.

Don't know where and how the judicial system ever got the idea that moving along some vagrants was cruel and unusual.

Clown World for sure.

The supremes better think this through. Telling a governmental entity that they can’t stipulate how people access and use the entities property can have far reaching effects.

This ruling could open up a lot of public land to free range camping. Gotta look at the positive side of things.

This ruling could open up a lot of public land to free range camping. Gotta look at the positive side of things.

From the day the Forest Service and BLM were created, it's been open to camping..later, rules were made to prevent long term squatting...two weeks at one location, then you have to move. There are exceptions for camps associated with grazing and mining, which are permitted to operate seasonally.

From the day the Forest Service and BLM were created, it's been open to camping..later, rules were made to prevent long term squatting...two weeks at one location, then you have to move. There are exceptions for camps associated with grazing and mining, which are permitted to operate seasonally.

Ah but the point is if enforcement of no camping or the time limits for camping are cruel and unusual punishment, then they have a constitutional right (which is BS) to stay as long as they want with no repercussions. BLM and the FS couldn’t enforce it legally anymore than Grants Pass could.
Just another constitutional right conveyed by a judge that isnt in the constitution.

I have read some SCOTUS deliberations in the past, and they do think beyond the matter at hand to include future or unintended consequences.

This ruling could open up a lot of public land to free range camping. Gotta look at the positive side of things.

. There are plenty of public lands where camping is completely restricted.

Nope, don’t believe that at all, if they did it that way Chevron Deference decision would have never happened. I mean who couldnt see what would happen if bureaucrats were allowed to interpret law.

Certain National Park properties Paul?

Cabrillo National Monument?

Some of the National Seashores?

It will be good to open those closed areas to camping????

Much of the Gulf Island National Seashore is no camping. Much of the Gunnison National Forest near Crested Butte CO is no camping or restricted camping. Arches and Bryce National Parks do not allow dispersed camping as far as I know.

Was eating lunch with a customer today and she said other states are shipping the homeless here if they first fail rehabilitation where they were because Oregon has drugs.

Well isn't that special.

\

And would it ruin the experiences in those places were unregulated "camping" to be allowed?

I agree, it would be nice for me, and those like me, who keep a clean camp and bury our scheidt, but I'd not likely visit if the homeless were allowed to "camp" as they tend to do.