“Possessions” Do Not Include Private Land

Quote of the Day

How much power does the government claim on private land?

“Unfettered,” according to a Commonwealth Court decision in a case pitting the Pennsylvania Game Commission against two private gun clubs.

On Sept. 29, a court ruled against two hunting clubs in their lawsuit accusing the Game Commission of private property rights violations.

In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted the government’s absolute power to “roam private land without consent, warrants or probable cause.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said “possessions” do not include private land.

Chris Bennett
January 25, 2023
Pennsylvania court rules against gun clubs in private property case

Interesting. Perhaps I should see if I can find those old bear traps, abandoned wells, and explosives testing grounds so as to make sure no government agents get hurt when they venture beyond the no trespassing signs.

Prepare appropriately.


10 thoughts on ““Possessions” Do Not Include Private Land

  1. And just like with any child. If they’re not taught the discipline to color only inside the lines?
    One gets a communist who does nothing but scribble.
    Our forefathers had this argument already. That if everything were not wrote down in the constitution then government would think anything outside it as fair game.
    Or that the government would be constrained by the lack of power being granted to it, in the constitution.
    The reality? Absolutism is where government always goes. Doesn’t matter of words wrote down, or high minded ideals. The corrosiveness of power is linear.
    And the big problem is it will not be given up without force being applied. Manly force I believe it was described.
    And on the other hand 90% of government is already committing treason, why should this poor fellow feel left out?

    It’s my property, and I wouldn’t be coming on it if I were you. Why? BFYTW. Don’t know nothing about no stink’ing judges!

    Whitey is just going to start running in packs like the rest of the tribes. Or they ain’t going to make it.

  2. Minefield signs are triangular. This unofficial one has a rather dry wit. https://imgs.search.brave.com/_RfQYAP3ENb7KDcRYbrAG6eW17mFG0kOALIReNVc0Io/rs:fit:500:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRp/YS5pc3RvY2twaG90/by5jb20vaWQvMTg2/MTg1MDk1L3Bob3Rv/L2xhbmQtbWluZS13/YXJuaW5nLXNpZ24u/anBnP3M9NjEyeDYx/MiZ3PTAmaz0yMCZj/PUVCQTBjbFgwbkJ4/aHNwS19yQkdvSmF6/V0tSODM3dWhFQmpE/OWVNemN4TUk9

    In all seriousness, though, that’s messed up, though historically in line with “typical government” powers.

    • Funny one. Or my all time favorite sign;
      Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be violated.
      And you could hear the banjo music from the fence line.

  3. Fences obscure the view of the landscape.

    A ha-ha does not. Plus, you can fill them with venomous snakes, or water, or both.

    A very deep ha-ha is a ho-ho.

  4. The court system has always ruled game wardens have the right to trespass in search of violations.

    The hunting clubs just gave their lawyers money for a case that could not be won.

    Agree or disagree that law. Change it.

    • Many years ago, I was informed that Game Wardens had a much higher death rate than other badge toters. I wonder if there might be a connection to this mentality of the courts?

      • There was a thing in my state of TN recently where TWRA officials had game camera’s on private property, and argued in court they can go wherever whenever, and won! Kinda surprised, I thought judges were smarter here.
        Commie’s gonna commie…. Prepare accordingly.
        I think they’d get the hint if there were a few reminders about who serves whom delivered at 3200 fps.

  5. When I took an Administrative law class, I met the professor in the hall one day, and he asked me what I thought of the class. I told him that it was disheartening. I would read through the case at the beginning of each chapter, and say to myself, “They can’t do that!” and a few pages later, “Sonofagun, they can!”
    He agreed with me and said that even the states were pretty much superfluous except as a district of the National government.
    Once, in the class, he said that the Police could form its own Article II courts, since it was an agency under the executive branch (and only after you have exhausted the Administrative Remedies can you appeal to the Article III courts we are familiar with).
    The issue is, of course, if everything can be redefined as a public health or safety issue, the Administrative agency that was tasked with that particular health or safety issue has a free rein to make what regulations it pleases, and act upon them, without regard for the Bill of Rights, or any other Constitutional limitation on the government.

    • , “Sonofagun, they can!”
      I would venture your first instincts were right, and that should read. “Sonofabitch, they do.”
      In all the judiciary no one stops to say; Hey, you can’t have a court system outside the court system? That would violate the law. Which if we don’t live by. We don’t have a reason to live?
      And I was always under the impression that one of the first principals of our system was 3 separate branches of government?
      So the forest circus writing, enforcing, and deciding your guilt for violating their own regulations. Doesn’t violate the founding document that allows the forest circus to exist in the first place?
      Then I would posit hypocrisy would exclude you from any place of authority. As the founding document calls you/it, “notwithstanding”.
      And having themselves laid bare by the truth. You get the system we have today. Naked aggression, hiding behind a shiny badge of authority.

  6. “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.” – Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810
    If anyone would know, it would be him.
    As for the present American government? Yaaaa, were done here. They’re notwithstanding anymore.
    P.S. Quote was shamelessly stolen from Survivalblog.

Comments are closed.