SENATE BILL: Freedom to Roam Act (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[YE]

Nay

[Esteemed Jimmy]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 25:16 by Jimmy:

Aye (3): Jimmy, LT and NC Yankee
Nay (3): Devout Centrist, Tack50 and YE
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

This amendment is tied and thus the VP needs to break the tie.

[Former President tack50]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

Just part of the Liebor plan to abolish private property and seize the means of production of course 

Now seriously, I personally think that is a hyperbolic statement.

If you own, for some reason a bunch of absolutely empty countryside with nothing in it, why should people not be allowed to enter? I do know that sometimes fields need to be left without cultivation so that they can recover the nutrients and what not (not sure to what extent fertilizers have made this obsolete though but I suppose it is still a thing to at least some degree). However I would argue that those kinds of land would be covered by this bill.

It's not even like the property title is being taken away from you, you are still able to fencethat empty field or forest or whatever if you start using it for productive purposes.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

Just part of the Liebor plan to abolish private property and seize the means of production of course 

Now seriously, I personally think that is a hyperbolic statement.

If you own, for some reason a bunch of absolutely empty countryside with nothing in it, why should people not be allowed to enter? I do know that sometimes fields need to be left without cultivation so that they can recover the nutrients and what not (not sure to what extent fertilizers have made this obsolete though but I suppose it is still a thing to at least some degree). However I would argue that those kinds of land would be covered by this bill.

It's not even like the property title is being taken away from you, you are still able to fencethat empty field or forest or whatever if you start using it for productive purposes.

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "products purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

[Sestak]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any further amendments?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "productive purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

I know I won't get an answer to this, but bumping it.

[Former President tack50]

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "productive purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

I know I won't get an answer to this, but bumping it.

Like I say, if you are doing nothing with the land, you should at the very least allow people to walk through it, assuming they aren't doing any harm. The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

If need be, I suppose I can add a provision to clarify that no buildings can be trespassed on, only the

Ironically I am relatively harsh on evicting people from buildings and houses and think evictions should be quick and easy (at least those owned by private individuals, for those owned by banks or large corporations I am less worried about). However, I do not think that said principle applies to rural pieces of empty countryside used for literally nothing.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Like I say, if you are doing nothing with the land, you should at the very least allow people to walk through it, assuming they aren't doing any harm. The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

That's not an answer though. Why should they be allowed to walk through it; isn't the purpose of private property to give owners the ability to control how it's used? It's a lot easier to just make trespassing illegal in the first place than to put it on the landowner to prove damage was caused and by who, so this law will easily be abused and lead to tons of littering, dumping, and damage. How do you know a landowner isn't doing something with the land? How does this effect premises liability in the event someone is injured on a landowners land, now that they are allowed to be on it? A lot of landowners use vacant land as a private hunting area during hunting seasons, so having people able to just walk through it especially during these times will negatively impact the landowner's purpose and use of the land. A big appeal of moving to a rural area is privacy, and a lot of houses are built on large parcels with forested land included, so why should the homeowner have to let people be on the land around their house and negate this.

The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

If you can't determine who can be on your own land or prevent trespassers from going on it, is that section really your land anymore?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So is there going to be more amendments here?

[Former President tack50]

Motion for a final vote

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So does the sponsor wish to motion for cloture?

[Former President tack50]

Yes, I motion for cloture

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A vote is now open on the cloture motion to end debate and proceed to a final vote. Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Cloture on the Freedom to Roam Act:

Aye (1): Tack50
Nay (2): Jimmy and LT
Abstain (1): NC Yankee

Didn't Vote (2): Devout Centrist and YE

This motion has failed.

[Former President tack50]

Ok so what are we waiting for here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jimmy do you have another amendment?