Word from the front lines indicate that there should be 300-500 militia backed by Oathkeepers arriving today.

ETA:  And I own page 13

IBYCETO

In before you cant edit to own

Federal law and regulations > Nevada law.

You are also outside your lane and beyond your skill set.

The bureau last week announced the area would be closed through May 12 while contractors conduct the roundup using helicopters, vehicles and temporary pens. Cannon said the agency paid the contractors $966,000.

The Rule of Law in this Country is predicated upon the primacy of the Constitution. If a law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is supposed to carry no legal force. That the judiciary and legislative branches have ignored this, a lot, over the last 80 years is in no way justification for current actions.



 

This isn't about the fedgov owning the land.  This is about the BLM acting like a bunch of thugs and the government not assisting ranchers.  

This is the problem with this country.  Apparently the government thinks it exists for its own sake rather than for the purpose of improving the lives of the people.  They bow down to special interests and anyone with a liberal agenda but stand in the way of PRODUCERS and people who make this country run and prosper.  They punish success and reward failure.  

Go ahead and get wrapped around the axle of the nuances of grazing law but the issue is much bigger .

This situation pisses me off. I am from this area and my family and friends are involved. Cliven Bundy is going to get somebody killed or hurt behind his bullshit (figurative and literal). I've read that Shiree Bundy Cox rationalization a couple of times. In the first paragraph she tells about how her family leased grazing rights from the government and because they made improvements as lessees they somehow got "preemptive rights" to the land. They are saying that because their grandpa dug out a spring somewhere 100 years ago, they now own the water. If that is true, I guess that I own every place that I have ever camped because I put in a handy ring of rocks for a fireplace.

Shiree also says that her dad has "proven" that all of the court orders against him are false. That is a huge lie. Her dad and the govt have gone to court against each other many times over the past several years. Each time Cliven Bundy has lost. I know of at least two separate orders from US District Court which find against Bundy on all of his claims. The orders also tell Bundy to get his cattle off federal range or the government will remove them. He responded by saying: "I don't recognize the federal government". He has also said that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the US District Judges who have ruled against him. Cliven Bundy hasn't proven anything and because of his reckless refusal to comply with the rule of law, the US Govt is teaching him a civics lesson.

Cliven Bundy is a sympathetic figure. He looks and sounds like a salt-of-the-earth cattleman. Under that shiny exterior he is a scheming freeloader. His cattle have run amok on Gold Butte and all the way to Lake Mead. His herd is 10x the size it was when he was paying for grazing rights. He brags about how he is the only rancher left in his area, but it isn't too hard to see the reason for his good fortune. He has beaten his competition because he found a way to produce beef without paying for the feed. That is a real neat trick. It would almost be funny if the feed bill hadn't been picked up by our Uncle Sam.

On its face this situation is easy to sensationalize and it sparks emotion in lots of decent people. I think that it is a shame that more people don't understand what Cliven Bundy is really all about and I hope that they figure it out before somebody drops a hammer, or pops a dust cover off his/her Pmag.

If you stop paying for grazing rights, you can't complain when they remove your grazers.  Especially when you haven't paid in 18 years...

Fail. Deals with new States.



Try Art 1 Sec 8.



To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings;



 

Acting like thugs?  Thugs don't normally let you keep using their land for 18 years without paying.  

Which clause in the Constitution gives the FedGov the power to regulate intra-State grazing laws.





Take your time, we'll wait.





 

Who owned the land before Nevada became a state?  The Feds.
Who decides what happens to that land? The Feds.

Article V, Sec 3 gives them permission to make regulations about use of Fed land.
Those grazing areas are Fed land.

Read the JUDGE'S comments in the Hage case.  They act like thugs.

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

Yes, that clause says Congress can make rules and regulations for TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNITED FUCKING STATES OF AMERICA, but noted GD constitutional lawyer RevDeadCorpse says no, that clause clearly applies only to new states.

Yes, Congress can make rules for territory and property the United State isn't allowed to own. THAT makes perfect fuckin' sense.

And who is the arbiter of when a law is repugnant to the Constitution?  If it is every Nevada rancher who thinks laws that enable the federal government to own federal land because they want to read Art. IV, Sec. 3 of the Constitution out of the document, then we have chaos, not a republic.

If it is the Courts, then they have already spoken to this issue and found in favor of the government.

If it is the U.S. Congress, then we're all fucked.

Someone says the issue is the BLM are acting like dicks.  I agree with that.  But to go from BLM cops acting like dicks about something to "there is nothing in the Constitution that permits the fedgov to own public land" is an emotional leap that this rancher, frankly, doesn't merit in my view.  I understand people are mad at the government as a general proposition.  I understand that FSA ranchers in Nevada who don't want to pay grazing fees are mad about this particular situation.  But I fear when otherwise rational people decide to start throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

1) The U.S. owns the land in question. Art 4. Sec. 3 Clause 2.
2) The U.S. regulates the land in question. Art. 4 Sec. 3 Clause 2.
3) The U.S. regulations trump Nevada state law. Art. 6 Clause 2.

Needful rules. Is there some hidden need we are not aware of master?

So anyone who rents out land is really giving it away to the renter?

How am I supposed to get a kickass tan if I can't bare arms?

What "territory" is the FedGov allowed to own? It's listed in Art 1 Sec 8. Unless you are claiming it's a military arsenal, Naval shipyard, post roads, post office... You are just dead wrong.



The Committee of Style's primary objective when penning the Constitution was internal consistency. That there were no contradictions contained within it and that all powers given were proper and clearly defined. Your interpretation only makes sense if you include at least two generations worth of "case law" to twist the plain meanings of the original clauses.



Keep the personal attacks out of this please.



 

If everyone else pays grazing fees, why shouldn't he?

The Courts. And should the Courts fail, then We the People.



As we are doing...



 

All I want to know is anyone going to west from Florida in the next couple days?

I'd say regulating who can use it and how is needful.  That whole  "tragedy of the commons" thing.

If you think the founders did not intend for the federal government to be able to purchase property, I don't know what to tell you. 'Establish a post office' does not mean that congress can only buy land for a post office, for example.

You talk about case law, and yet there are legions of cases construing Art 4 Sec 3 Clause 2 exactly as I have described.

You're making things up. But that makes you a wonderful GD constitutional lawyer.

Who owned the territory comprising the current state of Nevada before it became a state?

1. Improper claim as per Art 1 Sec 8

2. Only those regulations are per Art 1 Sec 8 which doesn't include regulation of intra-State grazing laws.

3. Only so far as those powers so exercized are consistent with Art 1 Sec 8 or Amd 10.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

 

Background info from both sides of the argument:

I called the Bunkerville Constable Office yesterday to ask more about this, and learned a lot. I also called Rob Mrowka of Biologicaldiversity.org to hear his side of it.

They both said the Feds have removed many of the tortoises, and since they don't know how to take care of them, they euthanize them according to Bunkerville. Bob Mrowka said the euthanization story was scare tactics from the tortoise conservatory to get more money. "If you don't send us more funding, all of tortoises iz dead."

The BLM has shut down their traditional Boy Scout Camp Sites, historic camping areas, and Bunkerville actually owns the area, not BLM. Bundy was making payments until the payments started being sent back to him from Bunkerville Township. This is when BLM claims he owes back payments.

Bunkerville has no Law Enforcement, and since they fall within Clark County (Vegas) they are beholden to the mafia Sheriff from Sin City. It's the same time-old tale of corrupt politicians screwing over the locals, and this is the last guy left.

This issue has the meddling from Harry Reid and Sherry Berkley in it.

BLM Harassment
The BLM has declared most of the land off the roads as "off limits", and harasses local residents who have enjoyed the area for over a century.

If you pull off the side of the road, for example, you can be arrested and physically injured at the whim of uniformed persons.

Bundy is basically saying, "We've been here since the 1800's, we don't recognize your authority to regulate the land on which cattle graze."

BLM and the desert tortoise advocates are saying, "But you complied for so many years, and then you stopped. We've beaten you in court, now comply or have your cattle confiscated (oh, BTW, your cattle are State property anyway since they aren't branded)."

Trends in Feds Shutting Down Small Business in the Area
The person that answered the phone in Bunkerville used to have a meat processing business in their family, until the USFDA shut them down. They fought with FDA for years and years until they finally got too old and tired, and just gave up. They have no law enforcement in Bunkersville to protect the people from BLM goons, since they fall under Clark County (Vegas, and Vegas Metro PD-look at a map and see how far away they are).

Payment and Land Ownership Background
Bundy's family made payments for 60 years after the BLM was created in 1946, but BLM seems to have claimed the land in question sometime, when it was really Bunkersville city land. BLM started harassing people and closing off Boy Scout and local church camping sites that they had used since the early 1900's, and began telling locals that they could no longer pull off to the side of the road and exit their vehicles even.

Environmental Activist Position
I also spoke with Rob Mrowka, who is a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity to hear his side of the story. Basically, once Bundy's money started getting returned to him by Bunkerville, the case was handed over to the courts, and the courts ruled in favor of the BLM, even after being appealed to the Court in San Francisco. Bundy represented himself every time. Once the Federal Appellate Court upheld the ruling against him, he said he wouldn't comply, local and State LE didn't want any part of it, and Bundy was left to continue to let his cattle graze in the area where they had all along.

Rob Mrwoka filed a lawsuit, demanding that the courts be upheld, and the BLM finally responded. Both Bundy and Mrowka say this is a sovereignty issue, and not about the tortoises, but we really wouldn't be at this point if it weren't for the question about who really owns the land- Bunkerville or BLM, and then the tortoise advocacy.

I asked if there was some kind of development planned for the area where the cattle graze, and Mrowka insisted that there was not, since it is a protected area for the desert tortoise. He also said that there are a lot of solar farms being built in Nevada, where they remove the tortoises to other locations after the solar farming company pays dislocation fees for the animals, and there is one on the Moapa Indian Reservation nearby. The only plans that BLM has for Bunkerville Ranch are to erect a monument of some kind.

I personally am not a fan of the BLM, the Federal Government claiming 87% of Nevada's land, and desert tortoises. I grew up seeing desert tortoises out where I'm from in the high desert, but haven't seen one in decades. It would be nice if the Governor of Nevada would back his statements with some force and put these BLM neckbeards in their place.

TL/DR: Cattle Rancher has been grazing cattle on the land since 1870. Nobody has a problem with this other than environmental and animal rights advocates. They filed suit to enforce Federal protection of the Desert Tortoise land area where cattle graze. LEO's never wanted to enforce because they knew it was BS, but are now forced to. States rights versus Fed overreach are central.

No. Of course not. There are a number of legitimate uses for Federal property. From court houses to military bases.



Making 86% of Nevada "Federal land" isn't one of them.



 

I think their argument is that upon becoming a state, all territorial land reverts to state control.  Nevermind the enabling acts that say that ain't how it goes, but I believe that's what they are thinking.

Well I don't know the entire story here, but if they rented the land out to him and then over the course of 'x' number of years he stopped payments and the renters never followed up or tried to collect then I could see a possible case for adverse possession.

Sort of a Bear Pit issue.   Couple of over-reaching losers, and no foreseeable winners.

This is the gist I've been able to parse out from the fud on both sides. Hence my stance...



 

Quote History

Quoted:
Background info from both sides of the argument:

I called the Bunkerville Constable Office yesterday to ask more about this, and learned a lot. I also called Rob Mrowka of Biologicaldiversity.org to hear his side of it.

They both said the Feds have removed many of the tortoises, and since they don't know how to take care of them, they euthanize them according to Bunkerville. Bob Mrowka said the euthanization story was scare tactics from the tortoise conservatory to get more money. "If you don't send us more funding, all of tortoises iz dead."

The BLM has shut down their traditional Boy Scout Camp Sites, historic camping areas, and Bunkerville actually owns the area, not BLM. Bundy was making payments until the payments started being sent back to him from Bunkerville Township. This is when BLM claims he owes back payments.

Bunkerville has no Law Enforcement, and since they fall within Clark County (Vegas) they are beholden to the mafia Sheriff from Sin City. It's the same time-old tale of corrupt politicians screwing over the locals, and this is the last guy left.

This issue has the meddling from Harry Reid and Sherry Berkley in it.

BLM Harassment
The BLM has declared most of the land off the roads as "off limits", and harasses local residents who have enjoyed the area for over a century.

If you pull off the side of the road, for example, you can be arrested and physically injured at the whim of uniformed persons.

Bundy is basically saying, "We've been here since the 1800's, we don't recognize your authority to regulate the land on which cattle graze."

BLM and the desert tortoise advocates are saying, "But you complied for so many years, and then you stopped. We've beaten you in court, now comply or have your cattle confiscated (oh, BTW, your cattle are State property anyway since they aren't branded)."

Trends in Feds Shutting Down Small Business in the Area
The person that answered the phone in Bunkerville used to have a meat processing business in their family, until the USFDA shut them down. They fought with FDA for years and years until they finally got too old and tired, and just gave up. They have no law enforcement in Bunkersville to protect the people from BLM goons, since they fall under Clark County (Vegas, and Vegas Metro PD-look at a map and see how far away they are).

Payment and Land Ownership Background
Bundy's family made payments for 60 years after the BLM was created in 1946, but BLM seems to have claimed the land in question sometime, when it was really Bunkersville city land. BLM started harassing people and closing off Boy Scout and local church camping sites that they had used since the early 1900's, and began telling locals that they could no longer pull off to the side of the road and exit their vehicles even.

Environmental Activist Position
I also spoke with Rob Mrowka, who is a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity to hear his side of the story. Basically, once Bundy's money started getting returned to him by Bunkerville, the case was handed over to the courts, and the courts ruled in favor of the BLM, even after being appealed to the Court in San Francisco. Bundy represented himself every time. Once the Federal Appellate Court upheld the ruling against him, he said he wouldn't comply, local and State LE didn't want any part of it, and Bundy was left to continue to let his cattle graze in the area where they had all along.

Rob Mrwoka filed a lawsuit, demanding that the courts be upheld, and the BLM finally responded. Both Bundy and Mrowka say this is a sovereignty issue, and not about the tortoises, but we really wouldn't be at this point if it weren't for the question about who really owns the land- Bunkerville or BLM, and then the tortoise advocacy.

I asked if there was some kind of development planned for the area where the cattle graze, and Mrowka insisted that there was not, since it is a protected area for the desert tortoise. He also said that there are a lot of solar farms being built in Nevada, where they remove the tortoises to other locations after the solar farming company pays dislocation fees for the animals, and there is one on the Moapa Indian Reservation nearby. The only plans that BLM has for Bunkerville Ranch are to erect a monument of some kind.

I personally am not a fan of the BLM, the Federal Government claiming 87% of Nevada's land, and desert tortoises. I grew up seeing desert tortoises out where I'm from in the high desert, but haven't seen one in decades. It would be nice if the Governor of Nevada would back his statements with some force and put these BLM neckbeards in their place.

TL/DR: Cattle Rancher has been grazing cattle on the land since 1870. Nobody has a problem with this other than environmental and animal rights advocates. They filed suit to enforce Federal protection of the Desert Tortoise land area where cattle graze. LEO's never wanted to enforce because they knew it was BS, but are now forced to. States rights versus Fed overreach are central.

View Quote

Thank you for getting to the bottom of this, very informative.

This.

The BLM has been abusing it's authority at every level for decades, and has utilized the advantage of owning the courts and a bottomless pocketbook to destroy, harrass, intimidate, and bully farmers and ranchers, as well as recreational users of public land.

This gent and his family have been grazing on open range for generations, and for generations the BLM has taken his fees in recognition of his legal right to utilize that land that he improved and fostered.

Piece of paper? Proof of "Ownership"?
Kiss my ass.
The BLM didn't need a piece of fucking paper to take his $$$ in the past, and he was specificly named when the justification of "Non-Payment" was listed, so his goddamned legitimate  grazing rights and land use was legally recognized previously.
Some of the lawyer wannabes are slipping.

When this thing goes Waco and the dead Feds are held up as a justification for further gun rights destruction, it will be because confrontation was the entire intent of the Feds.

You walk in and start taking a mans livelyhood out from under him, by shoving a gun in his face, expect a fight from him, and his neighbors that figure they are next.
My money is on the feds COUNTING on a confrontation.

The only thing the FBI and the Feds learned at Waco, was how well murdering people, justifys abusing peoples rights nationally in the aftermath.
Klinton was that kind of fucker, Obongo is that kind of fucker, and Holder as AG means the script is already written and approved for release to the media, when the shooting starts.

.

Fuck the BLM.

All I need to know - same Government put this sign up - fuck the feds.

Is there competition for that land or something?

Are there too many people in Nevada trying to use it? Was there violence orsomething going down that required them to step in suddenly?

Sounds like a convenient excuse to me, regulate the Commons my ass.

This is a good read for us GD constitutional lawyers

It's almost as if Ayn Rand was a time traveller isn't it?

Could this be the "money shot"?



http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html

"Uncle Sam" hasn't paid jack shit to "feed" those cattle.  Your rant sounds like someone was eating the King's grass.

Puke.

Saw on the news lots of people are gathering out there and are pissed.

Yes i knew what it was. I think more then one person spelled it wrong.

Amen.

+1  

Yes it is!

Found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

This thread makes me sad. Its disheartening to see how many are going to side with tyranny when the other foot drops.