Posted on 04/10/2014 10:35:30 AM PDT by bimboeruption
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that two militia members from Montana and one from Utah have arrived at Cliven Bundy’s ranch.
“We need to be the barrier between the oppressed and the tyrants,” Ryan Payne of the West Mountain Rangers told the Review-Journal. “Expect to see a band of soldiers.”
Payne said that militias from New Hampshire, Texas and Florida are likely to join and stand with Bundy and stay at his ranch.
“They all tell me they are in the process of mobilizing as we speak,” Payne told the Review-Journal, adding that hundreds of militia members are expected.
The Review-Journal also reports that Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy, was shot with a stun gun by law enforcement officers Wednesday and that the rancher’s sister, Margaret Houston, was pushed to the ground.
“I pulled the tasers out of him,” Cheryl Teerlink told the Review-Journal.
Lawmakers are adding their voices into the fray, criticizing the federal cattle roundup fought by Cliven Bundy who claims longstanding grazing rights on remote public rangeland about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada said he told new U.S. Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze in Washington, D.C., that law-abiding Nevadans shouldn’t be penalized by an “overreaching” agency.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval pointed earlier to what he called “an atmosphere of intimidation,” resulting from the roundup and said he believed constitutional rights were being trampled.
Heller said he heard from local officials, residents and the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and remained “extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure.”
The federal government has shut down a scenic but windswept area about half the size of the state of Delaware to round up about 900 cattle it says are trespassing.
BLM and National Park Service officials didn’t immediately respond Wednesday to criticisms of the roundup that started Saturday and prompted the closure of the 1,200-square-mile area through May 12.
It’s seen by some as the latest battle over state and federal land rights in a state with deep roots in those disputes, including the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s. Nevada, where various federal agencies manage or control more than 80 percent of the land, is among several Western states where ranchers have challenged federal land ownership.
The current showdown pits Bundy’s claims of ancestral rights to graze his cows on open range against federal claims that the cattle are trespassing on arid and fragile habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. Bundy has said he owns about 500 branded cattle on the range and claims the other 400 targeted for roundup are his, too.
BLM and Park Service officials see threats in Bundy’s promise to “do whatever it takes” to protect his property and in his characterization that the dispute constitutes a “range war.”
U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, noted that BLM officials were enforcing federal court orders that Bundy remove his animals. The legal battle has been waged for decades.
Kornze, the new BLM chief, is familiar with the area. He’s a natural resource manager who grew up in Elko, Nev., and served previously as a senior adviser to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid aide Kristen Orthman said her boss “hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved.”
Sandoval, a former state attorney general and federal district court judge, weighed in late Tuesday after several days of media coverage about blocked roads and armed federal agents fanning out around Bundy’s ranch while contractors using helicopters and vehicles herd cows into portable pens in rugged and remote areas.
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” the governor said in a statement.
Sandoval said he was most offended that armed federal officials have tried to corral people protesting the roundup into a fenced-in “First Amendment area” south of the resort city of Mesquite.
The site “tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution” and should be dismantled, Sandoval said.
BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon and Park Service spokeswoman Christie Vanover have told reporters during daily conference calls that free-speech areas were established so agents could ensure the safety of contractors, protesters, the rancher and his supporters.
The dispute between Bundy and the federal government dates to 1993, when land managers cited concern for the federally protected tortoise and capped his herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile rangeland allotment. Officials later revoked Bundy’s grazing rights completely.
Cannon said Bundy racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees over the years while disregarding several court orders to remove his animals.
Bundy estimates the unpaid fees total about $300,000. He notes that his Mormon family’s 19th century melon farm and ranch operation in surrounding areas predates creation of the BLM in 1946.
Since the cattle roundup began Saturday, there has been one arrest.
Bundy’s son, Dave Bundy, 37, was taken into custody Sunday as he watched the roundup from State Route 170. He was released Monday with bruises on his face and a citation accusing him of refusing to disperse and resisting arrest.
A court date has not been set.
His mother, Carol Bundy, alleged that her son was roughed up by BLM police.
Meanwhile, federal officials say 277 cows have been collected. Cannon said state veterinarian and brand identification officials will determine what becomes of the impounded cattle.
I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I don’t think so. I think the Mormonism issue is just an aside.
I agree. Paying rent to use something you don’t and never have owned is a pretty simple concept.
Not only that, the argument “I trusted The government and they cheated me” is...well....yeah.
Bovines don’t vote.
I’m gonna quit being contentious with you and stop thinking accusations your way too.
Imo, we’re differing on what the word “territory” means. Imo, the territory the fed gov is limited to owning is listed quite plainly.
Territory can also ref areas under US possession that are not full states. But, it doesn’t mean whatever land the fed gov can lay its grubby paws on.
So, here’s my question. Was the disclaim by Nevada and the claim by the fed gov legit in the first place?
That the land was originally purchased by the fed gov is a red herring and makes no difference in whether the fed gov can claim lands just because it wants to.
Also, the duration of ownership by the fed gov is another red herring, if it was not a legit grab, post Nevada statehood, in the first place.
I do think it very much a states’ rights issue.
What I mean is, if I wanted to make sure that the elite turned on the red state folks, I would make an incident where a redneck rancher and his gun toting militia friends get in a shoot out with the cops. Please note the "redneck" comment is how the elites will see it.
From start to finish this has been a PR managed event. It wouldn't surprise to see these militia members as part of a false flag.
Not mine, but I like it too.
Lets also not forget that the pattern so far demonstrated over the last handful of decades is that when some folk do finally stand up against the tyrants, the rest of us will sit back down, tuck our hands under our seats and grumble “you guys are making us all look bad” and limit ourselves to just that.
It is any wonder that things have gotten as bad as they are?
I come from a state that had a history of range wars.
In short, I think the rancher in this situation is a nut, and in the wrong.
I also think that sending over armed troops to kill his cattle and threaten him is not only unjustified, but illegal.
That being said, this thing stinks. It screams of a set up. You don’t graze for free on BLM land for 20 years. Back home they come looking for you if you are 30 days late on a payment.
Was the disclaim by Nevada and the claim by the fed gov legit in the first place?
I believe the answer to that question is "yes." Congress passed the Nevada Statehood Act (which includes the following provision,) Lincoln signed it into law, and Nevada voters voted 10,375 to 1,184 for statehood.
A provision of the Nevada Statehood Act of 1864 promised that Nevada would disclaim all rights to the unappropriated public lands lying within its boundaries, and that such land would remain at the sole disposition of the United States.
Exactly right. I can’t believe how irrational the rabid Bundy supporters are. Like objective facts mean nothing. Like the concept that you pay rent to used something you want to use but do not own is bizarre. And this on FR!! Is it an infestation of trolls or something?
“The most complete data is from the Beaver Dam Mountains. Woodbury and Hardy reported a tortoise population density of 150 per square mile in 1948. BLM reduced cattle grazing a few years later and eliminated cattle in 1970. Coombs reported a tortoise density of 39 per square mile in 1974. In these 26 years cattle use was reduced 100 percent and tortoise numbers were reduced 74 percent.
“These tortoises were doing so poorly a veterinarian, Dr. Jarchow, was consulted. He reported all six specimens were suffering from osteoporosis caused by a protein deficiency in their diet. Dr. Jarchow examined five specimens from the same mountains that shared their range with cattle. He reported these specimens were all healthy and well nourished.
“The historical record proves conclusively that tortoise thrive when cattle are on the range with them and without cattle grazing they are always malnourished and unhealthy and their numbers plummet.
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=80
My question slightly rephrased...
What gave the fed gov the right to that land in the first place?
The uses for land that the fed gov can legally own are limited.
Do you really believe that the FF allowed a setup that would give the fed gov the legal right to take whatever land it wished for whatever purpose it wanted?
The fed gov is limited only to what The Constitution gives it power. Land ownership for reasons other than listed in The Constitution is not within the fed gov’s power in any legal manner.
Keep in mind that Constitutional restraints didn’t just start coming under concerted attack in the ‘60s. This is a problem with history damned near as long as The Constitution’s existence.
I know I am going to flamed for this and called a bunch of names.. but here goes. I will try to present this discussion in a straighforward manner and people decide for themselves. (I so far agree with BuckeyeTexan.)
How this question is answered is going to affect how a person views this current situation.
Does FedZilla have authority to purchase land?
If the answer is no, then an explanation of the Louisiana Purchase will be the next topic (and all other followup and similar purchases.)
Ok, but regardless of a no or yes answer, assume that FedZilla has purchased land. (Yes, I know that the purchase would be made with my money, which can open up a host of other discussions.) But with the FedZilla purchase, then what entity would then have authority over that land? Would it be FedZilla, would it be me (the purchase was made with my money), or who? Could I just go out to that land and build a house and declare it mine? If the purchase was the Louisiana Purchase, then there is no state involvment at the time of purchase. How does FedZilla control the land? Could FedZilla declare some of it as National Parks or National Forest? Could FedZilla sell some it to individuals such as myself? Could FedZilla relinquish some authority to a state after the state has been recognized?
This discussion changes quickly if FedZilla takes authority over land which it never purchased and never had authority but wants to have authority over; actions such as emminent domain, or declaration of wetlands, or some obtuse snail, come to mind.
“Exactly right. I can’t believe how irrational the rabid Bundy supporters are. Like objective facts mean nothing. Like the concept that you pay rent to used something you want to use but do not own is bizarre. And this on FR!! Is it an infestation of trolls or something?”
Where I’m arguing is does the fed gov even have the right/power under The Constitution to own lands of any sort OTHER than for those purposes listed in The Constitution?
Or, is this just another something by the fed gov that was never legit in the first place that we’ve all simply gotten used to?
There’s lots of that “simply got used to” concerning fed gov power grabs that we can’t seem to bother standing up against. Is it any wonder that the fed gov now believes it can get away with anything it desires with full knowledge that none of us citizens will do a damned thing about it?
He could have challenged the US govt’s ownership in court (good luck with that), but didn’t. As a matter of fact he paid grazing fees to the BLM (thus acknowledging the govt’s ownership) before the BLM stopped grazing. Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on and should be charged every dime in grazing fees, penalties, interest, and court and enforcement costs due to a situation he created.
The FedZilla can and has bought lands. Those lands became territories. The FedZilla has the right to manage territories. Over time, those territories (at least on CONUS) became states.
Once statehood is achieved, they’re no longer territories and the limits on land ownership by the fed gov come into play.
That’s a different discussion. I could agree that the government shouldn’t own land but the legal fact is they do. I’d like to see the government sell the land to the Bundys. If the land is so scrubby like people say why does the government want to own it? Sell it and pay down debt.
So, if a bad man with a lot of gunhands behind him tells me that I can’t graze my cattle, on land he can’t legally own, unless I pay him money, I’m then, and forever after, acknowledging his rightful ownership of that land?
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.