It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLBS 3.03 - Wyoming Is Off Limits for Photos, Drawings, Images, Data Collection, and More

page: 3
74
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Yet another appalling move! Unbelievable. It makes me truly sick to read about crap like this! (ex; ranchers damage areas and slaughter bison and horses so they can graze cattle (for pennies an acre to rent!)
I guess we shall all be outlaws in the 'New World'.. I hope there is a tidal wave of photographers into the state!! Cripes




posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
After watching the vid and seeing the punishment is a MANDATORY MINIMUM 10 days in jail, I might take a trip and go work on a retirement lawsuit...err plan



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBSwouldn't first amendment right to free speak immediatey kill this law?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I don't understand, it's public land, it's yours. It's not theirs to say if you can or can't collect data. The only reason they can create illegal laws and enforce them is because you believe they can.

Take pictures of your beautiful land Wyoming and post them online so we can enjoy it's splendor. After you're done take a print out and send a copy to your state representatives every single day until they can start to appreciate their state as much as you. Than, once they've come around, kick'em out on their collective asses.

Government has about as much power as we give them. you know there was this really smart fella who was going on about governments not representing the will of the people.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I read the legislation and to me it isn't completely clear if they are talking about public land, or not, although it is implied.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
I read the legislation and to me it isn't completely clear if they are talking about public land, or not, although it is implied.


Definition of Open Land :



" Open land " means land outside the exterior boundaries of any incorporated city, town , subdivision


By the definition open land is not restricted to only private land.




(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he:

(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and

(ii) Does not have:
(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data ; or



I don't believe leaving out private property from the definition was a mistake on their part , but rather done on purpose.

If a farmers land that is contaminated sits right next to a public park then its possible to take samples from the public park and find contaminated samples.

This would lead to opening an investigation on why the public park is contaminated which then would lead to the farmers land which sits right next door. So They purposely defined open land as they did to prevent such an event and to cover public land as well.

Now the good part while he might not be able to take samples you might be able to have her take the samples legally with a good enough lawyer.


Lol, I wonder if the law was specifically written to target a male individual or a group of primarily males that were a pain in their Arse that caused them to overlook that error?



(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he:

edit on 141031America/ChicagoThu, 15 Oct 2015 09:14:08 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I know what was written, my point is that they don't use the term "public land" anywhere, nor do they explain if "open land" when not private, is considered public land.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave




nor do they explain if "open land" when not private, is considered public land.


If it doesn't state it then its not restricted to private land.

In the event that it could be open to interpretation good luck fighting a group of lobbyist that had the power to push this communist legislation in republican territory .

edit on 291031America/ChicagoThu, 15 Oct 2015 09:29:10 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I'm not an American, I am just wondering if they stayed clear from the term "public land" on purpose.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: interupt42

I'm not an American, I am just wondering if they stayed clear from the term "public land" on purpose.


Like I said in my initial post , yes they did leave it vague enough on purpose. Thats how our gov't rolls, they sign laws drafted by the lobbyist in benefit of the lobbyist.

The real intent of the law is to stop people from ratting out illegal activities by a group of people with a very powerful and rich lobbying group. Taking pictures or samples from a public land such as a state park could still be damaging to them hence they made sure to not only restrict themselves to the private land.




I don't believe leaving out private property from the definition was a mistake on their part , but rather done on purpose.

If a farmers land that is contaminated sits right next to a public park then its possible to take samples from the public park and find contaminated samples.

This would lead to opening an investigation on why the public park is contaminated which then would lead to the farmers land which sits right next door. So They purposely defined open land as they did to prevent such an event and to cover public land as well.




edit on 011031America/ChicagoThu, 15 Oct 2015 10:01:30 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
DANG!

Boy...I'm glad I took those pics the last time I went to Casper...otherwise how could I possibly remember what all those rocks and that scrubland looks like???

Whew...dodged a bullet there.


(Wait.......is this, like, retroactive?? Do I have to turn the pictures in somewhere??)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Wow. When things like this happen & the naysayers say it's 'because of privacy' or whatever other illogical reason they can come up with to justify the public being unable to undertake research I just want to shake them...

Where there are secrets, there are lies.

Those same naysayers are the ones clinging to the belief that we are 'free' yet it is laws like this that 100% probe we are not. There are two separate rules in society - those for the common man & those for the people in power.

When people are being prosecuted for testing public land & even for selling whole milk over State lines something is very wrong. Day by day more laws are passed to inhibit our freedoms. At this point the only remnant of freedom in the USA is the facade of it. Sad.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Could this be related to Yellowstone?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I guess I know where I am not going to go and spend my vacation dollars.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42




Like I said in my initial post , yes they did leave it vague enough on purpose.


Right, but you said nothing about the term "public land" being left out.

You said this,




I don't believe leaving out private property from the definition was a mistake on their part , but rather done on purpose.


But we problably meant to say the same thing.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RogueWave

Yes we are saying the same thing.

By leaving out the use of private land or public land from the definition of Open Land it gives them more freedom to prosecute and it can cover both private and public land since it is not specifically defined.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Agenda 21 in full swing.

Skip to 1:14:00
Daivid is spot on again.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CallYourBluff

This is about farmers/ranchers using and grazing on public land and the gov preventing anyone from documenting possible harmful effects of it. So the gov is defending the people to stay and use the land.
How is that spot on to what David is saying?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: CallYourBluff

This is about farmers/ranchers using and grazing on public land and the gov preventing anyone from documenting possible harmful effects of it. So the gov is defending the people to stay and use the land.
How is that spot on to what David is saying?

My bad, I guess I skimmed the context.
edit on 15-10-2015 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Negative impacts? Such as?!



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join