@Smokin Joe
True. Yeah,most of the pols voting and pushing for it were Dims,but they could have never gotten the law passed without help from the alleged Republicans.
IF this is important to you,you might want to check on that one. It is PROBABLY dependent on where you live and the results of a brand new background check. I have no doubt that is some locations the locals might use this as an excuse to deny you the squirt gun,and then use that as a basis to take away your CCW permit.
Remember,this stuff has NOTHING to do with being fair,and everything to do with "the law". "The Law" is anything the locals want it to be unless you have enough money to fight it in court to the point where the public money they spend to screw up becomes public,and an issue when an election is coming up.
We all KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the law" in this and every other country is dependent on who you are,your political connections,and how much money you have. For example,one of Ted Kennedy's bodyguards got caught carrying a full-auto Uzi under his coat while screwing up and trying to go through the public entrance. Yes,he WAS briefly detained and the Uzi was taken from him,but after one phone call he was released,had the Uzi returned to him,and IIRC,they even apologized for detaining him.
What do you think the odds are of this happening if it had been either thee or me?
To be honest, I use it as an example because it is a good one. If I ever decide I want something full auto, I'll build it, and the means to keep it quiet as well, but having that just isn't high on my list of things to do. I don't like the loss of the ability to exercise the Right, whether I choose to exercise the Right or not. Part of freedom is the ability to choose, so like being told you can't go someplace you might never have any intention to go, being told I can't have something doesn't sit well with me.
That is the first I ever heard of this,and my family were commercial fishermen going back to the 1700's. My very first job was as the only deckhand on my uncle's 38 foot shimp boat the summer I was 13.
The beaches,up to the high water tide mark ARE public property. Deal with it.
Be enlightened.Well, they are now, by decree, but at the time of the land grant (1641, MD), the grantee owned the bottom of the river to the center of the channel the land adjacent, and the beaches, too. (Maryland colony).
When I was a kid, you still had to have a license for commercial fishing (I held one at 14), but non-commercially, for you and yours, none was required, about like any landowner having
gratis permits for hunting the deer on their property.
Even today, some Native tribes exert their Riparian Rights over stretches of River, and there has been conflict with the Army Corps of Engineers over it, but the tribes prevailed where there was tribal land on both sides of the river.
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/reservations.html
What was keeping you from selling for a big profit and buying cheaper land that didn't have river frontage?
Why do Jews and Arabs fight over some crappy patch of desert?
Your people become connected to the land. The land has been in the family for going on 400 years (378, to be exact). I filled hay barns there that were built before the Civil War (the Yankees didn't burn them all). It was ours before any of these various governments existed. We grew up on the river, it was our home, our ancestors are buried there, the roots are deep, and if I have to explain beyond that, you wouldn't understand.
Nor should you have received any compensation. You are just pissed because you weren't allowed to charge the public to use the beachfront near your property. What next,you going to claim you owned the water half-way to the next continent?
There was no claim beyond the property lines projected to the center of the main channel, which was the law then. No one owned the water, just the right to fish in it, or harvest oysters from the beds. THis was an extension of the common law, from colonial times, when the original grant to Cornelius Calvert, Lord Baltimore, included the bottoms of those estuaries and rivers, some 1.6 million acres. This was snatched by a court decision in 1971.
At this point, I'd be satisfied for the family to have the mineral rights (subsurface), not that there will be any drilling there any time soon. There was an exploration well drilled about 20 miles away on the Virginia side (Near Colonial Beach, 1980s), looking for natural gas, but subsequent drilling was shut down by envirowhackos, despite some incredible environmental safeguards taken.
We never charged anyone to use any of the mile or so of riverfront in (extended) family hands, if they asked. No way we'd make some commercialized sh*tshow out of our front yards, either. There are those who have Marinas and such in the area, and that is fine for them. The Potomac estuaries aren't the best place to swim nowadays, anyway (it was far better when I was a kid).
https://wtvr.com/2019/07/27/man-with-simple-cut-says-he-contracted-flesh-eating-bacteria/ No surprise, the 'Swamp' is upriver, and what drains from that has only gotten nastier.
If you want to get all 'beachy', better to go to the coast and play in the ocean.
Keep in mind we've been there for 17, 18 generations. It is ours.
But try pulling your boat up on the Kennedy's beaches and having a hot dog roast.
Why are they any different?
Suppose you took the same attitude toward someone who has a farm.
After all, people should be able to camp anywhere, right?
"
This land is your land, this land is my land", right?
How about in your wheat field? Maybe in the corn crop?
I wouldn't have had that sh*tshow in my front yard for all the tea in China.
I just hated cleaning up used diapers and broken glass, and all the rest of the trash those liberal 'share the land types' left behind.
