Militias head to Nevada rancher’s standoff with feds: We’re not ‘afraid to shoot’

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds who’ve circled his land — and talk is, they’re not afraid to open fire.

A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: I’m not “afraid to shoot,” he said.

Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundy’s sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation “was like a war zone” and that she felt “like I was not in the United States,” The Daily Mail reported. The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: “Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided,” in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the rancher’s son was hit with a taser.

On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundy’s property, escalating a court dispute that’s wound for two decades over the rancher’s refusal to pay for grazing fees.

Now militia groups are on the scene, promising to help the Bundys keep up the fight.

“This is what we do, we provide armed response,” Jim Lordy, with Operation Mutual Aid, told the local broadcast station. “They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.”

Mr. Lordy also said “many more” militia groups are coming to the site to join in the Bundy family defense.

As I understand it, the old deal is what Bundy is pointing to. He has a history on the land, and when the new deal with BLM came to pass, he took a pass. Is that supportable? I remember when military retirees took the government to court over promises about lifetime healthcare that were made to them long ago. They were able to produce a few old recruiting brochures that verified the promises were made, and up to that year group was permitted to continue operating under those older promises. That seemed fair to me.

I also recall reading someplace that one received 10 year deals with BLM but they were renewable except in extremity. As I understand it, BLM acknowledged that, but used the desert tortoise as their “extreme” reason for not renewing.

So, Bundy’s case appears to be based on old promises. His case also is based on his family’s presence on that land back into the 1880’s, iirc.

In my mind, any time someone permits you to work without interference, they are acknowledging your right to be there. I remember a story once about some kids shoveling snow off neighbor driveways. One old man watched them shovel but refused to pay saying he hadn’t agreed to it. They said he had. He had to pay because he was both aware and permitting of their completing his driveway. Now, that isn’t western rangeland, but it is a principle that says with awareness goes responsibility.

Now, this is ALL mitigated at this point by Sen Reid’s shenanigans regarding this very land. I read one of the documents yesterday about impediments to development of this area that Reid wants.

This has become a classic Louis L’Amour western. The big bad landowner/politician is using brute power to rid himself of smaller ranchers. We need William Tell Sackett to ride into town.

“*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor”

” His case also is based on his family’s presence on that land back into the 1880’s, iirc.”

Here is another point that is often missing. I usually quote the 1998 case, because it spells out in detail why Bundy stopped paying. However, the land his cattle are being seized from are the “New Trespass Lands” in the 2013 case. These are lands Bundy’s cattle were not grazing on until AFTER the 1998 decision.

Bundy is claiming he has been grazing there since the 1800s. But he was NOT grazing there at least from 1954-1998. It was only after 1998 that he STARTED using that land for grazing. Had he used that land from grazing prior to 1998, it would have been part of the 1998 case.

“In an order dated November 3, 1998, this court permanently enjoined Bundy from grazing his livestock within a different area, the Bunkerville Allotment, and ordered Bundy to remove his livestock from the Allotment before November 30, 1998. U.S. v. Bundy, No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998). The court also ordered that the [*2] United States was entitled to trespass damages from Bundy for livestock left on the Bunkerville Allotment after such date.

In its [new] complaint, the United States alleges that, not only has Bundy failed to comply with the court’s orders that he remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment and pay the financial penalties, but that Bundy’s cattle have moved beyond the boundaries of the Bunkerville Allotment and are now trespassing on a broad swath of additional federal land (the “New Trespass Lands”), including public lands within the Gold Butte area that are administered by the BLM, and National Park System land within the Overton Arm and Gold Butte areas of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

The United States seeks an order enjoining Bundy’s unauthorized grazing on the New Trespass Lands...

...Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-98-531-JBR (RJJ), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23835 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States...

...Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming...that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applied only to federal lands outside the borders of states...[and] that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass...

...The United States has submitted Bundy’s deposition excerpts indicating that Bundy has grazed livestock on the New Trespass Lands and further evidence of the trespass of Bundy’s cattle in those areas.”

These lands were not part of the grazing Bundy did from 1954 thru 1998. He has been grazing there, illegally, from no earlier than 1998.

200 armed fedcoats for 1 rancher, and the last one at that, after 50+ have been chased out by BLM, puts me on Bundy’s side.

The fedcoats are rustlers, trying to sell his cattle.

Irrespective of the legal battle here, the fedcoats COULD have just arrested him and taken him off to the pokey to settle this. But no. Why not?

And why the 200 armed men? For cows?

There are now stories of BLM shenanigans over Texas, Utah, Arizona, in short, several Western states. People’s lands are being reclassified, taken, and the water/mineral/oil rights being sold off with kickbacks to people like Reid.

I stand with Bundy.

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.