4 ms·
With that logic it doesn't seem like the hunters are liable for the damages? The hunters aren't the ones deciding if corner-crossing is allowed. Even the court
by bckygldstn 3y ago
With that logic it doesn't seem like the hunters are liable for the damages? The hunters aren't the ones deciding if corner-crossing is allowed.
Even the court seems faultless here. It's not re-zoning their land, it's clarifying a law that already existed. The owner had an incorrect pre-ruling valuation.
This case is especially crazy cause the landowners sued the hunters: if they hadn't sued there wouldn't have been any damages, maybe they should sue themselves!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lazide 3y agoNear as I can tell, they’re trying to get the court to agree to a specific corrupt interpretation that essentially denies the federal laws power. Which is why it has gotten this far.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoIt's gotten this far because it would render a large amount of public land unreachable, and outdoor-related organizations not surprisingly care quite strongly about that.
- lazide 3y agoI think you may have inverted the meaning of what I was saying.
- hgsgm 3y agoYou mean the landowners are liable for damages.