Bundy’s feud with the feds has been going on for years and apparently the federal courts have ruled against him. However, is this land actually under federal or state jurisdiction? Bundy claims he has paid the county for grazing rights, but why would the county accept the money if the land were federal? Despite the possible legal weakness of Bundy’s claim, why are the feds arming up for a confrontation? Couldn’t a local sheriff see to the seizure of the cattle? Will Bundy be given compensation for his cattle if they are removed from the land and either sold or destroyed? This is the same federal overreaction that lead to the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The feds show more sensitivity to terrorists than to our own citizens.
You bring up a lot of good questions that have been bothering me for a long time on this issue.
My big question is this: If he and his family don’t own this land and have never owned this land, what makes them think that they have any right to graze their cattle on it at all? Doesn’t the landowner (in this case the government) have the right to charge what they want for a lease? You don’t like it, graze your cattle somewhere else or buy feed for them.
Now if there was a contract, at one point, between this family and the feds, giving them grazing rights forever, then we’re talking about a breech of contract (same thing that was done to the indians).
What am I missing here?
(I won’t hang my hat on an issue unless I’m certain that the cause is righteous. I’m seeing too many holes with this situation.)