Your cart is currently empty!
The Most Comprehensive Motorized Access Advocacy Resource For Arizona.
Chapter #8
Roads, since the beginning of time, have been used by the public for free speech communication, peaceful assembly, and are considered part of the public forum. They are public spaces that provide the safety and security of free thought and allow the individual to safely parade without fear of persecution.
Roads are like any other public place which inherit the protections of Public Forum Doctrine. Under the Public Forum Doctrine, as described by many Supreme Court rulings, public roads and streets are considered Traditional Public Forums that provide an easement for free speech communication. When determining if free speech protections apply to a given property the court questions whether “a traditional right of access . . . comparable to that recognized for public streets and parks” applies. See Members of City Council of City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 814 (1984), and The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 13 (1965).
“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.”
Hague V. CIO 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)
“As regulation of the use of the streets for parades and processions is a traditional exercise of control by local government, the question in a particular case is whether that control is exerted so as not to deny or unwarrantedly abridge the right of assembly and the opportunities for the communication of thought and the discussion of public questions immemorially associated with resort to public places.”
312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941)
Similarly, in Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, the Court had said that “the streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion.” 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)
Move to the next page to learn about Revised Statute 2477 rights of way and Federal Legislative Jurisdiction.
1865 – The Mining Act of 1865 is written and introduced by Senator William M. Stewart from Nevada.
1870 – An amendment is proposed to grant special rights for the Sutro Tunnel in Nevada.
1870 – The founder of The Mining Act of 1865 opposes the proposed amendment and provides valuable insight into the legislative intent of RS 2477.
1976 – The Federal Land Policy Management Act, otherwise known as the BLM Organic Act, established the Bureau of Land Management multiple use mandate and repealed the Mining Act of 1865.
1995 – The RS 2477 Settlement Act was introduced to settle disputes between the states and the Federal Government concerning RS 2477 roads, but failed to become law.
1992-1997 – The US Congress include prohibitions in the annual Appropriations Act to prohibit federal agencies from establishing any rule or regulation pertaining to the validity, recognition or management of RS 2477 rights-of-way without the express authorization of the US Congress.
1997 – The Comptroller General issued an opinion that made section 108 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act permanent law.
2003 – The Government Accounting Office issued a second opinion re-enforcing Decision B-277719 concerning a memorandum of understanding between the State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management.