Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/5048.pdf

    (6) "Posting in a conspicuous manner" includes posting a sign or signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is restricted or the placement of identifying fluorescent orange paint marks on trees or posts on property. Identifying fluorescent orange marks must bea) Vertical lines not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; (b) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between three and five feet from the ground; and (c) Placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than one hundred feet apart on forest land, as defined in RCW 76.09.020, or one thousand feet apart on land other than forest land.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/5048.pdf

    (6) "Posting in a conspicuous manner" includes posting a sign or signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is restricted or the placement of identifying fluorescent orange paint marks on trees or posts on property. Identifying fluorescent orange marks must bea) Vertical lines not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width; (b) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is between three and five feet from the ground; and (c) Placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than one hundred feet apart on forest land, as defined in RCW 76.09.020, or one thousand feet apart on land other than forest land.
    And your opinion is?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    I see this as an introduction to signs holding weight of law in Washington.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Yea I see that too. This needs to be defeated or it will be used to entrap people.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    I see this as an introduction to signs holding weight of law in Washington.
    Who are you trying to keep out? Girl Scouts?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    I, as an optimist, read this as an all or nothing sort of trespassing notice. Everyone or no-one kind of thing.

    The part about marking trees is relevant for those who have land up against public lands and don't want to have to run a fence everywhere.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    A boogie man under every sheet of paper . . . .

  8. #8
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    A boogie man under every sheet of paper . . . .
    - It's the government, so ya - there is. The government is about control, and
    restrictions, and incarcerations as a method of levying your freedom. Anything
    they can do to turn a commoner in to a criminal in order to effect an amount of
    control over that persons life is acceptable to them. So boogie man might even
    be an understatement since I actually beat the hell out of the boogie man when
    I was like 8 years old (long story -lol).
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    - It's the government, so ya - there is. The government is about control, and
    restrictions, and incarcerations as a method of levying your freedom. Anything
    they can do to turn a commoner in to a criminal in order to effect an amount of
    control over that persons life is acceptable to them. So boogie man might even
    be an understatement since I actually beat the hell out of the boogie man when
    I was like 8 years old (long story -lol).
    +1 Some don't realize we are figuratively dying here by a thousand paper cuts.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yea I see that too. This needs to be defeated or it will be used to entrap people.
    How do you see this being used to entrap people?

    You own some property. You want to give notice to people that it is not open to the public.

    Right now, you go around putting up signs that say "No trespassing, no hunting, closed to public, etc." How many signs must you put up? Unknown. How far apart may they be? Also unclear. So you come home, and some bozo is roaming around on your property in an ATV, trashing things badly. You call the sheriff, and the deputy comes out, and the guy claims "I didn't know, I thought it was public land." Now, you've got signs every 50 feet on the property line, there's no way he didn't know. But now there's an argument about it, because the law is unclear.

    Under the proposed law, we know the required spacing. And, to my delight, like most other states, you can post your property with paint marks instead of (relatively) expensive signs. So I'd be able to go down my property line with a can of orange paint, and paint a stripe on a tree every 100 feet, and now no one can claim they didn't know. When the deputy shows up, perhaps there will be a better (from my point of view) outcome than the deputy telling the bozo "Now you know. Don't come back." for the sixth time.

    If it were up to me, they'd make tearing down a no trespassing sign or removing the blaze a criminal offense, too. I'm damn sick of replacing signs that bozos tear down.

    This law appears to be closely modeled after posting requirements in other states, where it seems to be working and I've never heard anything about it being used to entrap people.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Purple is the color in MO, wish it were orange.

    Paint closer together where folks usually cross over the property line.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MrGray View Post
    How do you see this being used to entrap people?

    You own some property. You want to give notice to people that it is not open to the public.

    Right now, you go around putting up signs that say "No trespassing, no hunting, closed to public, etc." How many signs must you put up? Unknown. How far apart may they be? Also unclear. So you come home, and some bozo is roaming around on your property in an ATV, trashing things badly. You call the sheriff, and the deputy comes out, and the guy claims "I didn't know, I thought it was public land." Now, you've got signs every 50 feet on the property line, there's no way he didn't know. But now there's an argument about it, because the law is unclear.

    Under the proposed law, we know the required spacing. And, to my delight, like most other states, you can post your property with paint marks instead of (relatively) expensive signs. So I'd be able to go down my property line with a can of orange paint, and paint a stripe on a tree every 100 feet, and now no one can claim they didn't know. When the deputy shows up, perhaps there will be a better (from my point of view) outcome than the deputy telling the bozo "Now you know. Don't come back." for the sixth time.

    If it were up to me, they'd make tearing down a no trespassing sign or removing the blaze a criminal offense, too. I'm damn sick of replacing signs that bozos tear down.

    This law appears to be closely modeled after posting requirements in other states, where it seems to be working and I've never heard anything about it being used to entrap people.
    I understand what you are saying and fully agree with your private property rights.

    The way I see it is they should be protecting your rights as a property owner.

    We have cases that open driveways and easements into property are an implied invitation.

    So an gun owner doesn't notice a sign (because lets face it in our world of signs and advertisements everywhere people ignore them) banning guns, instead of a pleasant "I don't allow guns here may you leave" and a reply of "sure sorry I didn't realize that", you may have a situation were there is a long legal ride and battle that could not end well for an honest mistake.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Prosocution Purple

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Purple is the color in MO, wish it were orange.

    Paint closer together where folks usually cross over the property line.
    My parents sold the farm several years ago and bought some property on a mountain in Arkansas. Purple paint marks the boundries and they claim it holds the weight of law. It is affectionately reffered to as prosocution purple as it has been upheld in a court of law regarding trespass.
    YMMV

    ~Whitney
    Last edited by Whitney; 01-31-2014 at 01:17 AM.
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Anyone supporting this law is... supporting MORE laws.

    How many new laws are enough?

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Anyone supporting this law is... supporting MORE laws.

    How many new laws are enough?
    +1 For much of our history there were few laws, everything was pretty much a civil matter, we need to get back to that history.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    AS for trespass, it used to be people would own vast stretches of land and you could not get anywhere without crossing someone's land.

    So, I agree and disagree with some of the no-trespass laws. I can see both sides and would have to take everything on a case by case basis.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    When you get trees to grow exactly 50' from each other then you let me know. Otherwise the law is not needed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    AS for trespass, it used to be people would own vast stretches of land and you could not get anywhere without crossing someone's land.

    So, I agree and disagree with some of the no-trespass laws. I can see both sides and would have to take everything on a case by case basis.

    The word is escaping me right now, but there is one that was used to allow that.


    Those who want more laws and more coercive force from the government are part of the problem of the growing police state and overbearing government.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post


    Those who want more laws and more coercive force from the government are part of the problem of the growing police state and overbearing government.
    You do understand that all this does is add paint marking as a way to post property, right? That the existing trespassing provisions remain unaltered? That there are ALREADY trespassing provisions in the law?

    This isn't some rosicrucian/masonic conspiracy to establish one world government and grind the face of the common man in the mud under the bootheel of oppressive government, for pity's sake. It's about inexpensively and clearly notifying people that the person who owns some piece of land doesn't want people coming onto it without permission.

    You want to worry about the growing police state? Work to get the existing handgun registry abolished. That's a much bigger threat to your freedom than some rural property owner walking down his property line with a can of orange paint making foot long stripes on tree trunks.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by MrGray View Post
    there are ALREADY trespassing provisions in the law?
    So, there's already a law about it and we need more --rusrs? Gun grabbers use that logic too.

    Not a fan of small government apparently.

    Liberal=loves big gov

    Conservative=claims to hate big gov until they want it to do something they approve of
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  21. #21
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    So, there's already a law about it and we need more --rusrs? Gun grabbers use that logic too.

    Not a fan of small government apparently.

    Liberal=loves big gov

    Conservative=claims to hate big gov until they want it to do something they approve of
    They aren't adding a new law... Read the thread title. It says "Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010"

    RCW 9A.52.010
    Definitions.


    All they are doing is adding a definition, that's it. RCW 9A.52.010 isn't even a law in and of itself, it's just definitions for clarification purposes.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    They aren't adding a new law... Read the thread title. It says "Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010"

    RCW 9A.52.010
    Definitions.


    All they are doing is adding a definition, that's it. RCW 9A.52.010 isn't even a law in and of itself, it's just definitions for clarification purposes.
    Definitions are not "for clarification"...they hold for the section that they are produced for -- they control was is and was isn't covered under the law.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    They aren't adding a new law... Read the thread title. It says "Relating to notice against trespass; amending RCW 9A.52.010"

    RCW 9A.52.010
    Definitions.


    All they are doing is adding a definition, that's it. RCW 9A.52.010 isn't even a law in and of itself, it's just definitions for clarification purposes.
    Ahhh, so if the powers that be 'expand' Lautenberg to include misdemeanors, that would be A-OK. Because it's not a 'new' law, just 'adjusting' a definition.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 02-01-2014 at 11:30 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MrGray View Post
    You do understand that all this does is add paint marking as a way to post property, right? That the existing trespassing provisions remain unaltered? That there are ALREADY trespassing provisions in the law?

    This isn't some rosicrucian/masonic conspiracy to establish one world government and grind the face of the common man in the mud under the bootheel of oppressive government, for pity's sake. It's about inexpensively and clearly notifying people that the person who owns some piece of land doesn't want people coming onto it without permission.

    You want to worry about the growing police state? Work to get the existing handgun registry abolished. That's a much bigger threat to your freedom than some rural property owner walking down his property line with a can of orange paint making foot long stripes on tree trunks.
    Why don't you just paint your trees anyway? Why ask for a law?

    Nice Red Herring though.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 02-02-2014 at 09:15 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why don't you just paint your trees anyway? Why ask for a law?

    Nice Red Herring though.
    Why, because if there is no provision in the law for posting property with paint marks being equivalent to posting with signs, when the deputy shows up, he'd say "Now, Mr. Gray, those are very nicely done paint marks with no legal meaning, you *should* have posted signs," instead of "Now, you young bozo, this property is clearly properly posted, so you and I are going to take a little ride together." Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

    Look, go ahead and oppose this on whatever grounds you please, it's no skin off my nose. I just thought that some people might want to understand that there is an actual need for this, that it's used without trouble in nine other states, and that it's not some hidden conspiracy.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •