Billings Man Arrested Under GFSZ Act

[Aguila Blanca]

In most places the state, city, or county owns everything from the center of the road for so many feet in each direction. The exact distance varies, but it is usually a pretty fair distance.

That may be true in some places, but I'm pretty certain it is not true in "most" places. It very definitely is not true around here. Discounting private roads and roads over private land that are open to the public by agreement or easement, roads around this neck o' the woods where the municipality or the state owns the right-of-way very often are not located on or along the centerline of the right-of-way. The road width may vary, and the right-of-way width may vary -- not necessarily at the same places.

The only way to know where the property line is is to have a survey made -- or find an existing survey that's on the land records of the jurisdiction.

 

[44 AMP]

In most places the state, city, or county owns everything from the center of the road for so many feet in each direction. The exact distance varies, but it is usually a pretty fair distance.

Whether it is "most places" or not, by the numbers there ARE places where things are a little different and you need to know if one of those places is where you live, and, if in this case, the location the incident took place is, or not.

What I'm talking about is technical "ownership" of property, and whether or not it is a legal fiction, or an actuality where it matters.

While many people assume the city/county/state "owns" the road and X number of feet to either side, they may, or may not actually "own it". Certainly they have the practical control of it, and the right of easement (or what ever the proper term is), but they may have only that and the actual ownership is private.

To be certain, find out what is in the county tax records for the property in question, and then, find out if what is in the records is what is correct, or not. It may not be.

A few years ago, due to a dispute with a family member/neighbor I had to get my property surveyed. Paid the professionals to do it, got the result and then found I had to pay more to get the correct survey recorded in the tax books, but it was done. Among other things the survey determined was that my property runs to the middle of the county road. I OWN that land, legally, and it IS counted as part of my property for tax purposes.

However (and really, rightly so) the county "owns" the road, and a certain distance from the edge of the road to do with as they please. They don't own the land the road is on, technically but for practical purpposes, they do.

SO, it is possible to be on what is regarded as public property, but is actually private property at the same time. Which one of those will have precedence in a legal proceeding such as the one under discussion here, I do not know and I expect there will have to be a court ruling on the matter, if there is some kind of case where I am violating the law if it is public but not if its private and I own it.

I do not have any idea if it applies to this case of the GFSZ law, or not. I am only pointing out that there might be a place and circumstance where legal ownership of the property might be a deciding factor.

 

[JohnKSa]

... for political reasons didn't have the courage to make the arrest themselves.

He was not violating any state law. They called in the feds for that reason.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

A few years ago, due to a dispute with a family member/neighbor I had to get my property surveyed. Paid the professionals to do it, got the result and then found I had to pay more to get the correct survey recorded in the tax books, but it was done. Among other things the survey determined was that my property runs to the middle of the county road. I OWN that land, legally, and it IS counted as part of my property for tax purposes.

However (and really, rightly so) the county "owns" the road, and a certain distance from the edge of the road to do with as they please. They don't own the land the road is on, technically but for practical purpposes, they do.

SO, it is possible to be on what is regarded as public property, but is actually private property at the same time.

Yes, it is exactly this type of situation I had in mind when I wrote

Discounting private roads and roads over private land that are open to the public by agreement or easement,

I think you are correct in that a court would probably have to decide, but the general principal is that you own the land and the municipality or county has an easement allowing them to use your land for a road that is open to the public. It's not a common situation, but it's also not unheard of (obviously, since I have heard of it).

In the town where I live, people who live on several of the old town roads that have existed since colonial times have the unusual burden of being subject to TWO front yard setback requirements: They can't build anything closer than 75 feet from the front right-of-way line OR 125 feet from the centerline of the paved road -- whichever is greater. Modern subdivisions are simple, because the roads and the street lines are all laid out, declared, approved by a zoning board or commission, and recorded with the land record office before anyone can put a shovel into the ground. When dealing with roads and streets and properties that have existed for a hundred or two hundred years, all bets are off.

And even surveyors get it wrong. Maybe 30 years ago my uncle had the property around his house surveyed. He showed me the initial survey map, and he was surprised when I immediately said, "It's wrong."

My uncle lived in a colonial-era house that had been my great-grandmother's. When I was young, there was a porch along the street front of the house, and an 8-foot high wrought iron fence with concrete pillars about ten feet off the house that defined the limits of the road right-of-way. My uncle had removed the porch, the fence, and the pillars, but he left the stone foundation of the porch intact. The surveyor had assumed the stone foundation was an old stone wall that had delineated the r.o.w. line.

oops.

 

[Nathan]

Anybody know his status? In jail? Out? Charges dismissed?

 

[JohnKSa]

No updates for awhile.

The last update I saw was that the judge had denied bail. Unless something significant changes, Mr. Metcalf will stay in jail until his trial.

 

[44 AMP]

When a judge denies bail for a non violent offence (even when a gun is involved) there are two general reasons.

one is that someone is "making a statement" and the other is that there is more than what we know from the press, involved in the case.

One might be that this guy was "flagrantly and intentionally violating federal law with a gun in a gun free school zone, and therefore deserves to stay in jail until trial", and the other might be that there is something about the guy, his history, his attitude, or something that makes the judge consider him a risk to public safety, and we haven't been told what that is.

I think either one could be possible. Both together is not impossible, either.

 

[JohnKSa]

This is supposedly the explanation of why bail was denied. I can't find it from an official source.

Defendant lives on a busy street in Billings, Montana, across the street from an elementary school. He has been charged with possession of a firearm within a school zone. According to testimony at the detention hearing, Defendant believes possession of the firearm and patrolling the area around his property within the school zone is necessary to protect he and his mother from a perceived threat posed by a former neighbor. Testimony established that he has possessed the firearm on public property within the school zone, and has chased automobiles he believes may be associated with his former neighbor. He has previously been advised that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm within the school zone, but he has stated his belief that the law is unconstitutional and has asserted his right to do so. Given the Defendant’s belief that he has a right to possess a firearm within a school zone, and his belief that possession of a gun is necessary for his protection and safety, the Court finds it is unlikely that he would abide by any condition prohibiting him from possessing a firearm while on pretrial release. Therefore, there are no conditions or combinations of conditions which can be imposed to reasonable assure the safety of any other person or the community if released.

 

[44 AMP]

Ok, if true (and likely is even if not "officially" released, that does put things in a much different light. This is not a political protest but someone who believes he is under a threat, and has/likely will aggressively respond.

IF there is an actual threat, he's responding in one of the worst ways possible, and if there isn't a real threat he's delusional and therefore a significant risk.

I have No problem with keeping people who demonstrate that in jail until trial.