The above map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government.
Thre are a lot of pieces to this. You need the family history to start.
How about “adverse possession” of the land as a Bundy defense?
That’s what these prescriptive rights sound like.
Id say that should they be foolish to NOW put a lien against the cattle....they MIGHT JUST BE LIABLE for damages as per their inane RAID and confiscation.
Whoa. they didn’t “think about it”?
So their first thought was, “Hey, let’s spend about $2M arming a bunch of thugs and use a bunch of helicopter hours so we can show how disgusting we are.....in order to get $1M in fines” ???
And, no one at BLM, had a different - and less expensive and confrontational - idea?
Shut it down. Just shut it down.
The Bundy’s have been ranching that land since 1870.
IMO the land they have been grazing cattle on for over a century should belong to them.
The feds will get what they want. If they can’t directly get the property they will send in the environazi shock troops that find, suddenly, the land is the only habitat in the world for a turtle. Environazis didn’t like farmers in the Central Valley of California so they found a mouse that ONLY lives on the most fertile farmland. The feds wanted the water so they found a delta smelt in a river. The feds wanted some beach front property so they declared it a critical habitat wetland and kicked off the oyster farmers. It’s good to see people stand up to the thuggery of the feds in the Bundy case but don’t know where this goes from now.
That being said I have no doubt the same blood thirsty quest for power that motivated Pol Pot flows through Obama. If we didn’t have guns he would have no problem setting the goons on all of us. None.
A lot of people are asking this now. But BLM’s first response was a show of force. Threat under a gun. Is Clive Bundy the modern-day Hank Rearden?
Ruby Ridge and Waco????
Heavy handed force was the first choice by the BLM for the simple reason the goal was intimidation and an object lesson for any other potential dissenters to federal rule.
Since the prevailing opinion seems to be that by blinking, the feds achieved just the opposite, expect pretty much a news blackout on the event(s) by the MSM.
My gut feeling is that the feds still want to make an example of Bundy. They are plotting a way to do more than just get their “grazing fees”.
Another issue that I do not know the answer to is how Nevada’s “open range” law impacts on his cattle grazing rights.
It called preemptive Rights.
The above map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government.
Sorry, but the facts of the case do not support that assertion.
The BLM first responded via administrative order when Bundy did not renew his grazing lease back in 1994. The second BLM action was to go to the courts and file suit. When Bundy lost that case and then refused to remove his cattle, the BLM went back to court to get permission to remove the trespassing cattle themselves. When Bundy threaten violence, the BLM got a restraining order.
All of this occurred prior to the roundup.
Bundys defense is that the federal government has no authority to hold those lands.
They dont, but they tried to get around the 17th clause of art 1 sec 8 by claiming to “manage” those lands under a “trust” for the people. The question in my mind is..is it managed as a trust for the people of the state of Nevada who have rightful claim to that land? Or do they consider it “their” land?
If they manage it as a trust, for whatever purposes, then I suspect eminent domain comes into play, as Bundy can claim that they violated that trust and were no longer fit to manage since they gave preference to another entity.
All he has to do is prove that they mismanaged that land and gave that special preference to an outside group..no matter for what means.
The state of Nevada had better get and change their constitution and claim that land. If they do, then all this ends. ALL STATES should do that.
Bundy needs to get a constitutional lawyer, and a contract lawyer and shut up. I know for a fact I would donate to a legal fund for him to do that IF he hires such.
I think the problem is how it is administered (specifically, how environmental law is administered), not who owns it. We’ve seen loggers driven out of business over environmental issues, same with ranchers. Even farmers in central California are being driven to reduce acreage due to environmental law.
Better accommodation of human and business interests is certainly possible and should be established as a high priority by Congress.
In the meantime, the President should recognize the inhumanity of current environmental law by signing an executive order exempting Bundy from further persecution pending review of the law by Congress. He has set aside ACA law due to its inadequacies. Why not this one?
They can try to lien the cattle, but it is a little late now. Since they have caused damage to such.
See the Sagebrush Rebellion. Hage et al, against the BLM and USFS.
From the article:
“In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993 but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land.”
Since the BLM has been fighting him in court since the mid-90s, his refusal to obey a court order in 1998 does not give him the right to own the land. There is a reason the court ruled against him in 2013.