http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/first-amendment-area.jpg
Posted on 04/09/2014 8:18:46 AM PDT by FBD
LAS VEGAS -- The son of a rural Nevada cattle rancher has been freed from federal custody, a day after his arrest by agents working to remove cattle from disputed grazing areas northeast of Las Vegas.
A U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman in Las Vegas said Monday that 37-year-old Dave Bundy is accused of refusing to disperse and resisting officers.Bundy's mother, Carol Bundy, says U.S. Bureau of Land Management agents arrested her son Sunday in a parked car on State Route 170 near Bunkerville.
Pictures obtained by the 8 News NOW I-Team show where David Bundy had parked his car to take pictures of the cattle eviction.
Bundy says he was only exercising his First Amendment rights when federal officers told him to leave the area and when he didn't, they grabbed him."Two officers surround me, third one in front of me. They jumped me and took me to the ground. You can see they scraped up my face," Bundy said.Bundy's father, Cliven Bundy, says his cattle are entitled to graze in the Gold Butte area."They steal my cattle, and that is bad enough. But they make my son a political prisoner," Cliven Bundy said.
This weekend wranglers, hired by the federal government, started removing cattle owned by Bundy from a stretch of land near the Virgin River Gorge.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
What “Federal land”? The land provided for in Art 1 Sec 8? Or the stuff they’ve been incrementally stealing?
Well that is where we disagree.
There is a need for the federal government to own land, a military base being an example of that need. With the government owning a base, no state law, or county or city or private land owner is able to kick the government off of that land or restrict the use of that land.
Further, BLM is not abusing any authority. Rather it is asserting the private property rights of the federal government to use public lands in accordance with law. Specificly the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and Title 43 of US code.
Art 1 Sec 8 gives the precise list of what the FedGov can own. Post roads and post offices, .mil bases, and 10 miles square for DC.
That’s it. Period. End of story.
The BLM arbitrarily took grazing land away from ranchers in this area because of a f**king turtle. One that may actually be better off with the ranchers using said land.
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=80
I would also remind you that the NFA is no more Constitutional than your Grazing Act and for exactly the same reason. The length of time an unConstitutional Act has been on the books in no way lends it veracity or value.
Did your family own land in Yellowstone in the 1800’s like Bundy did in Nevada?
My understanding, is the federal government “reclassified” this grazing land as habitat for the desert tortoises. They still billed him for grazing there, but told him that he had to move his cattle. See more here:
http://mvprogress.com/2014/04/06/one-of-bundy%E2%80%99s-sons-arrested-in-roundup-incident/
Go to bed with the Fed’s and your going to get screwed, your nothing more than a renter playing by their rules.
The Feds hate individualists and the productive. They want him to move into town (Hairy Reid's Las Vegas) and become a GOOD tax slave/subject.
The guy's problem is that he lives too close to Las Vegas and within Clark County.
Cattle rustling used to be a hanging offense. Now it’s a government profession.
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, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof
The BLM did NOT take away grazing land. You can not take away from someone else what you already own. The BLM assered the owners rights of the federal government to use that land in the manner the owner thought was the best use of that land.
No, but the Bundy family didn't own the land in question in the 1800s. The Bundy family has never owned the land in question, just as I have never owned Yellowstone.
They still billed him for grazing there, but told him that he had to move his cattle.
They were still billing him for grazing his cattle there because . . . he was still grazing his cattle there.
None of which the BLM is doing here.
Bundy is in compliance with State laws.
You can keep trying to justify your beloved BLM's actions, but it's not going to get you very far.
“There was no lease charge, then there was, then the BLM started increasing the “off limits” land, and now we have this.
And people like you supporting the Feds in this...”
And people like you can’t read! He was paying a lease fee and stopped, the off limits was declare several years after he stopped payments. I’m not supporting the Feds but I do support ownership and they have it. The real question is should they and I say NO. But right now it is what it is,
So what? It is not Bundy’s land.
If it were not the federal government’s land but say a different rancher, would Bundy have the “right” to demand that the other rancher lease the land to him? Would Bundy have the right to graze his cattle there without paying for the priviledge? No to both.
Bundy is trying to assert squaters rights on land he does not own and by Article 1 section 8, congress has the EXCLUSIVE right to legislate the rules of that land.
The authority is not limited to the erection of forts ... etc.
As for state laws, reread the first clause of that paragrah and tell me who has EXCLUSIVE legislative rights over that parcel of land.
Keep trying to allow people to assert squaters rights and you are going to end up in a socialist country at the least and a communist country at the worst.
What are the actual marginal costs the gov't incurs to "own" this land per year?
Why is it not subject to local Property (wealth) taxes?
How is it beneficial to the Gov't to own this land? How is it beneficial to the people of Clark County for the Feds to own this land?
Because they kept arbitrarily changing the deal.
The Feds claim ownership of that land absent Art 1 Sec 8 authority to own that land for that purpose to begin with.
Once that happens, Congress can pass any law as to the use of that land and have EXCLUSIVE control over that parcel. No justification is required.
I don't know about Nevada, but the State of Montana has an amazingly detailed management of water rights across the whole State. Scarey actually. Water rights could easily be an underlining issue here.
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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
No where are they building anything on this land. They are setting it aside for a turtle. Setting land aside for a turtle is NOT listed in Art 1 Sec 8.
Period.
The Feds are supposed to be managing things for the people, not for the JustUs fed bureaucrats operating remotely and unconstrained.
http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/first-amendment-area.jpg
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.