Skip to comments.‘Expect To See A Band Of Soldiers’: Militia Members Arrive At Nevada Ranch
Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
click here to read article
I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I don’t think so. I think the Mormonism issue is just an aside.
I agree. Paying rent to use something you don’t and never have owned is a pretty simple concept.
Not only that, the argument “I trusted The government and they cheated me” is...well....yeah.
Bovines don’t vote.
I’m gonna quit being contentious with you and stop thinking accusations your way too.
Imo, we’re differing on what the word “territory” means. Imo, the territory the fed gov is limited to owning is listed quite plainly.
Territory can also ref areas under US possession that are not full states. But, it doesn’t mean whatever land the fed gov can lay its grubby paws on.
So, here’s my question. Was the disclaim by Nevada and the claim by the fed gov legit in the first place?
That the land was originally purchased by the fed gov is a red herring and makes no difference in whether the fed gov can claim lands just because it wants to.
Also, the duration of ownership by the fed gov is another red herring, if it was not a legit grab, post Nevada statehood, in the first place.
I do think it very much a states’ rights issue.
What I mean is, if I wanted to make sure that the elite turned on the red state folks, I would make an incident where a redneck rancher and his gun toting militia friends get in a shoot out with the cops. Please note the "redneck" comment is how the elites will see it.
From start to finish this has been a PR managed event. It wouldn't surprise to see these militia members as part of a false flag.
Not mine, but I like it too.
Lets also not forget that the pattern so far demonstrated over the last handful of decades is that when some folk do finally stand up against the tyrants, the rest of us will sit back down, tuck our hands under our seats and grumble “you guys are making us all look bad” and limit ourselves to just that.
It is any wonder that things have gotten as bad as they are?
I come from a state that had a history of range wars.
In short, I think the rancher in this situation is a nut, and in the wrong.
I also think that sending over armed troops to kill his cattle and threaten him is not only unjustified, but illegal.
That being said, this thing stinks. It screams of a set up. You don’t graze for free on BLM land for 20 years. Back home they come looking for you if you are 30 days late on a payment.
Was the disclaim by Nevada and the claim by the fed gov legit in the first place?
I believe the answer to that question is "yes." Congress passed the Nevada Statehood Act (which includes the following provision,) Lincoln signed it into law, and Nevada voters voted 10,375 to 1,184 for statehood.
A provision of the Nevada Statehood Act of 1864 promised that Nevada would disclaim all rights to the unappropriated public lands lying within its boundaries, and that such land would remain at the sole disposition of the United States.
Exactly right. I can’t believe how irrational the rabid Bundy supporters are. Like objective facts mean nothing. Like the concept that you pay rent to used something you want to use but do not own is bizarre. And this on FR!! Is it an infestation of trolls or something?
“The most complete data is from the Beaver Dam Mountains. Woodbury and Hardy reported a tortoise population density of 150 per square mile in 1948. BLM reduced cattle grazing a few years later and eliminated cattle in 1970. Coombs reported a tortoise density of 39 per square mile in 1974. In these 26 years cattle use was reduced 100 percent and tortoise numbers were reduced 74 percent.
These tortoises were doing so poorly a veterinarian, Dr. Jarchow, was consulted. He reported all six specimens were suffering from osteoporosis caused by a protein deficiency in their diet. Dr. Jarchow examined five specimens from the same mountains that shared their range with cattle. He reported these specimens were all healthy and well nourished.
The historical record proves conclusively that tortoise thrive when cattle are on the range with them and without cattle grazing they are always malnourished and unhealthy and their numbers plummet.
My question slightly rephrased...
What gave the fed gov the right to that land in the first place?
The uses for land that the fed gov can legally own are limited.
Do you really believe that the FF allowed a setup that would give the fed gov the legal right to take whatever land it wished for whatever purpose it wanted?
The fed gov is limited only to what The Constitution gives it power. Land ownership for reasons other than listed in The Constitution is not within the fed gov’s power in any legal manner.
Keep in mind that Constitutional restraints didn’t just start coming under concerted attack in the ‘60s. This is a problem with history damned near as long as The Constitution’s existence.
I know I am going to flamed for this and called a bunch of names.. but here goes. I will try to present this discussion in a straighforward manner and people decide for themselves. (I so far agree with BuckeyeTexan.)
How this question is answered is going to affect how a person views this current situation.
Does FedZilla have authority to purchase land?
If the answer is no, then an explanation of the Louisiana Purchase will be the next topic (and all other followup and similar purchases.)
Ok, but regardless of a no or yes answer, assume that FedZilla has purchased land. (Yes, I know that the purchase would be made with my money, which can open up a host of other discussions.) But with the FedZilla purchase, then what entity would then have authority over that land? Would it be FedZilla, would it be me (the purchase was made with my money), or who? Could I just go out to that land and build a house and declare it mine? If the purchase was the Louisiana Purchase, then there is no state involvment at the time of purchase. How does FedZilla control the land? Could FedZilla declare some of it as National Parks or National Forest? Could FedZilla sell some it to individuals such as myself? Could FedZilla relinquish some authority to a state after the state has been recognized?
This discussion changes quickly if FedZilla takes authority over land which it never purchased and never had authority but wants to have authority over; actions such as emminent domain, or declaration of wetlands, or some obtuse snail, come to mind.
“Exactly right. I cant believe how irrational the rabid Bundy supporters are. Like objective facts mean nothing. Like the concept that you pay rent to used something you want to use but do not own is bizarre. And this on FR!! Is it an infestation of trolls or something?”
Where I’m arguing is does the fed gov even have the right/power under The Constitution to own lands of any sort OTHER than for those purposes listed in The Constitution?
Or, is this just another something by the fed gov that was never legit in the first place that we’ve all simply gotten used to?
There’s lots of that “simply got used to” concerning fed gov power grabs that we can’t seem to bother standing up against. Is it any wonder that the fed gov now believes it can get away with anything it desires with full knowledge that none of us citizens will do a damned thing about it?
He could have challenged the US govt’s ownership in court (good luck with that), but didn’t. As a matter of fact he paid grazing fees to the BLM (thus acknowledging the govt’s ownership) before the BLM stopped grazing. Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on and should be charged every dime in grazing fees, penalties, interest, and court and enforcement costs due to a situation he created.
The FedZilla can and has bought lands. Those lands became territories. The FedZilla has the right to manage territories. Over time, those territories (at least on CONUS) became states.
Once statehood is achieved, they’re no longer territories and the limits on land ownership by the fed gov come into play.
That’s a different discussion. I could agree that the government shouldn’t own land but the legal fact is they do. I’d like to see the government sell the land to the Bundys. If the land is so scrubby like people say why does the government want to own it? Sell it and pay down debt.
So, if a bad man with a lot of gunhands behind him tells me that I can’t graze my cattle, on land he can’t legally own, unless I pay him money, I’m then, and forever after, acknowledging his rightful ownership of that land?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.