Nevada rancher standoff turns on a states’ rights debate

CBS ^ | April 14, 2014

[HMS Surprise]

You’re proven to be a troll. Head over to the Huffpost please.

[rolling_stone]

already have when you made same assertion previously

[mad_as_he$$]

Now you are just talking crazy talk. Adverse possession is common law predating the Magna Carta.

[taxcontrol]

Please site using the US Constitution, federal law, or treaty where the Congress permits adverse possession of federal lands.

[taxcontrol]

Really? Your best argument is name calling?

[HMS Surprise]

Nope, that’s my worst argument.

[mad_as_he$$]

You could start educating yourself with 28 USC.

[taxcontrol]

My research comes up with the following:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1068

Note the several limitations
- up to 160 acres
- that it is up to the Sec Interior’s discretion
- that it must start no later than Jan 1 1901
- must have paid taxes levied by the State

From what I have read, even if Bundy did file a claim of adverse possession, he would only gain at most 160 acres (not the 600,000) and even that would be in jepardy as it is unlikely that the State of Nevada has assessed taxes due on that land.