Re: Nothing is Easy
> I'm glad I live in a country with a legal right known as the "Queen's Chain".
Having grown up in that country (NZ)
The situation at the Californian beach is similar. The beach is public land. ACCESS to that beach is across private land and the landowner has locked the gate - which he would be perfectly entitled to do in New Zealand (he has fewer rights to block off sole land-based access-ways to public land in California and that's what this whole argument is about)
Offtopic: The (NZ) Queen's Chain doesn't guarantee access paths to beaches and riverbanks, just the right to walk along them. Adding to the confusion, some NZ beaches/foreshores (down to low water mark) and riverbanks ARE privately owned, so you only have the right to walk in the water (Eg: Takapuna, Waikarimoana and a few other locations)
Back ontopic: There's another catch which hasn't been gone into. Under USA/CA law the public access status of a path (road or footpath) across private land to public land such as a beach is only able to be claimed if it's left opened continuously for prolonged periods. If the landowner closes it off at least once a year then they can keep the private access claim on it. This means the road being "opened/closed" by past landowners is of vital importance to the case and makes it much harder for the state to use Eminent Domain.
On the other hand there are parts of California where beachfront home owners have been using armed security guards to threaten and intimidate beachgoers (who have legally accessed the beach and are legally on public land) by claims that the beach itself is private land/tresspassing claims - and local sheriffs have been supporting such action, in some cases arresting beachgoers who refuse to vacate the area (ACLU is involved in a couple of these). There is definitely one set of laws for the rich and one for the poor in California.