🚀 go-pugleaf

Johnny King wrote:

> 
> The Supreme court has held that the constitution is interpreted in light
> of the common law, and in common law all persons have a right to travel by
> all reasonable and customary means.
> 
> The Supreme Court has held that any restriction of a fundamental interest
> (constitutional right), can only be done for a "compelling state
> interest", and that the courts must examine the reasons the state offers
> for a "compelling state interest" with "strict scrutiny", where "the state
> has a heavy burden of proof to justify the restriction".
> 
> Accordingly, an arbitrary restrition of forms of travel is
> unconstitutional.


Which makes me wonder why the International Mountain Bike Association, other
bike advocacy groups, or ATV or equestrian advocacy groups haven't brought
forth the case.  I also wonder what would constitute a "compelling state
interest" in this case, especially since many of the restrictions are imposed
by local not state governments.

Does anybody know of a situation where IMBA or someone similar has tried this
tack to reopen or prevent closure of trails?  This could really be a Pandora's Box.

-m.