Nevada rancher's son freed, BLM collecting cattle

KLAS- TV LAS VEGAS ^ | Posted: Apr 07, 2014 2:07 PM PDTUpdated: Apr 08, 2014 11:48 AM PDT | By Glen Meek, I-Team Reporter -  By Kyle Zuelke, Photojournalist

[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.

[sport]

There’s going to come a day when people are pushed to the breaking point...

I used to believe that myself. I no longer do. Now the prevailing attitude is, As long as my ox is not the one getting gored, I don't give a damn. The ones in power know that as long as they knock them off one at a time.... the response will be, better him than me.

[taxcontrol]

How much land the federal government should own or be limited to, is a seperate question. To address that specific issue, I would support a constitutional amendment that limits the federal government to owning no more that 20% of the land mass of a state.

But to the point of this rancher’s case, asserting squater’s rights and then attepting to manipulate the press with misleading statements as Bundy has done in this situation, is not the right way to go about addressing the situation.

[Paladin2]

"not the right way to go about addressing the situation."

So what is the BEST way?

A list of BETTER ways?

[FBD]

“Federal Snipers Train Guns on Family For Filming Cattle – Federal Bureau of Land Management Confiscate Grazing Land To Protect “turtle”

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/04/08/federal-snipers-train-guns-on-family-for-filming-cattle-federal-bureau-of-land-management-confiscate-grazing-land-to-protect-turtle-generational-rancher-faces-feds/

The BLM doesn't care about the desert tortoises anymore then they care about these ranchers, all of who have left the area except for Clive Bundy. The left wingers are already comparing him to Randy Weaver. And he's making a stand, it appears. The feds are ready to turn this into another Ruby Ridge. Maybe they'll call in those gunslingers from the Mexican drug cartels that they gave guns to in “Fast and Furious”.

http://patriotsbillboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screen-shot-2014-04-07-at-9.15.36-AM.png

[Dead Corpse]

So... This is perfectly justified including the theft of his cattle.

Got it. You approve of the FedGovs actions. Noted.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The Feds are trying to take away the water rights on public grazing in other states also. They change the rules on cattle producers at will. Our herds are now down to WWII levels. Soon you will have to choose between making your car payment or eating steak it will be that expensive. Thats the plan.

The BLM is a little tyranny of its own. They try to keep people off their mining claims on public land also. Mr. GG2 has had a few confrontations with these a#@holes. They also try to run licensed hunters off rightful hunting areas. This week it just happens to be a rancher in Nevada who won’t slink away.

[Dead Corpse]

How much land the federal government should own or be limited to, is a seperate question.

It's the ONLY question. .mil bases, post roads, and DC. That's all that's listed in the Constitution.

Keep on supporting the FedGov though. "Go Team! Burn those 'squatters' out!"

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Scoutmaster]

There is no point to it.

The land is federal land because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848. West of the Rockies, the federal government retained ownership of much, if not most, of the land.

The federal government owns 84.5% of the land in Nevada. It just does, without a specific reason or point.

Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss the macro question of whether the federal government should own a massive amount of undeveloped land.

[taxcontrol]

Actually, the other question is private property rights. Should the owner of a piece of land be able to determine the use of that land and who has access to that land?

If one supports private property rights as it is one of the primary support legs of a free enterprise capitalist economy, then the rights of the state must match and be equal to the rights of the citizens. IOW, the government can exercise the same control and restrictions over government land as the private citizen is able to exert on their land.

If however, one does not support property rights, then the non-owner can claim squatter's rights to exercise control over other people's property. When you open that door, the relationship changes between the citizen and the state and then opens the door for socialism / Marxism as the state then becomes the final arbitrator over who's rights are supreme.

[FBD]

“Bundy does not recognize federal ownership of land. Bundy believes that all federal land in Clark County, Nevada belongs to the people of Clark County, Nevada, and not the federal government.”

-sounds about right to me. But the federal government currently lays claim to over 80% of the land in Nevada. That doesn't leave much arable land left to the "people". By the way, when do we "the people" get to use the 5 million dollar helicopters? Would be nice to take a scenic flight sometime over the area. Heck, I'd settle for a drive in a $50,000 "the people owned" SUV.

[DuncanWaring]

I’ve got a vague recollection of reading once that desert tortoises actually do better on land that’s been grazed by cattle than on ungrazed land.

Sound familiar to anyone else?

[Dead Corpse]

All property should be private. This “public land” thing is how crap like this happens.

Sell off all government holdings and privatize everything.

This isn’t about private property though. This is about the BLM abusing authority it shouldn’t have in the first place.

Period.

[Scoutmaster]

Got it. You approve of stealing from the federal government coffers, which is the money of Freepers. Noted.

[SERE_DOC]

"free speech zone" several miles away for protesters."

what a dazzling display of bullsh!t,

"free speech zone"

Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

No such thing as a free speech zone... according to the Constitution.

Any act that these thugs perpetrate is an act of TREASON, in their attempt to control a alleged "free society", is an attempt to overthrow the government and will cause the patriots to strike back, in like and kind.

And the excuse of "I was only following orders" worked out so well at Nuremberg with the old school Nazi's...

[Dead Corpse]

Further, Bundy says he’s in compliance with State laws... It’s the Federal laws he’s ignoring.

And rightly so.

[Dead Corpse]

Stealing money the Feds shouldn’t have stolen to begin with. Robinhood all up on this one...

Also note, the Feds can round up a ranchers cattle but can’t be bothered to do the same to illegals crossing the border not far away from where all this is going down.

[DuncanWaring]

Here we go:

"The More Cows On The Range, The More Tortoises".

Article even makes reference to the Bundy family.

[Scoutmaster]

I agree with you with respect to illegal aliens crossing the border.

Are you saying the federal government charging a business to use federal land is stealing? I'm itching to start a geothermal business at Yellowstone.

[Dusty Road]

Private land here in Texas.