Posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
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.
~~snip~~
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Your point is well taken. Almost by definition the FEDERAL government cannot OWN real property within a soverign state. The land within the state borders belongs to the State or by deed or homestead rights to the people within that state.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority to own 80% of Nevada. Nevada owns 100% of Nevada and the Governor and the people of Nevada should be up in arms over this action at the Bundy Ranch and should begin to asset their 10th amendment right to reclaim that property and assert their ownership rights.
I had never thought about this before. The Federal government did not own even an acre of the 13 colonies. When they needed land they purchased it. After the Louisiana Purchase the government relinquished any title to the states as they were created.
The Bundys have asserted adverse rights for over 20 years. Under Nevada law the title of the property would transfer to them.
I really don’t like the idea that the federal government thinks it owns the land. If land is within the borders of a state, then the state and the people within that state have title. If the government needs the land for military bases or forts, then they can use it until they abandon it and at that point it would revert back to the state.
I think that Utah and Nevada and Arizona should join with the Bundys and reclaim their land from this bureaucratic dragon. Their land is their land. It is long past time for them to assert their ownership.
It's only relevance is as backstory and history. I enjoy backstory and history, but I'm now much more concerned with the current situation.
You've said two seemingly contradictory things: (a) Bundy took a pass; and (b) BLM did not renew.
BLM did not offer renewal on the same terms and Bundy took a pass.
According to federal law, BLM grazing permits and leases are "generally renewable if the BLM determines that the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or lease are being met." However, the law provides that the amount of grazing on the permit or lease may be changed by the BLM in a new contract for different reasons, which is what the BLM did in 1993. I haven't found that regulation, but the descriptions I've found in various legal summaries and articles appear to indicate that the presence of an Endangered Wildlife Habitat is one of the valid reasons.
As far as the Bundy's prescriptive rights to graze from the late 1880s, the answer would be complicated. The Bundys only grazed on open range for about 45 years. When the law required a grazing permit and grazing fees, the Bundys began paying it and did so for 59 years. In most cases, if you sit on a claim (e.g., prescriptive rights to property) for 59 years, the claim may be subject to an equitable, affirmative legal defense call 'laches." Laches is an unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim in a way that prejudices the opposing party." The doctrine of laches would only apply if the federal government had been prejudiced by the delay.
In addition, paying grazing fees for 59 years can be argued as evidence the family did not believe it owned prescriptive rights.
Wouldn't your snow story be more analogous if the boys were shoveling snow for their own benefit, and if the owner of the land had ordered the boys off the property, and the owner of the land had gone to federal court on three occasions for a court order that the boys were not allowed on the land.
You and I are exactly the same.
Yes; I know all of that. Why was this post sent to me?
No particular reason. I should have taken your name out of the To field
Ping to #353 and 361
Regarding the snow story, the boys were shoveling for their own benefit. They were making money the way boys have for years when it snows. The boys also shoveled before it went to court. In the same way, Bundy was improving and using that area before it went to court.
By the above, I’m not acknowledging the Federal Government’s ownership of that land. It’s something I’ve rejected throughout all these discussions with anyone. There are only a limited number of instances in which the constitution authorizes federal ownership. It certainly never envisioned a leviathan asserting ownership over 80% of a unique and fully capable state.
And since the authority isn’t specifically assigned, then it reverts to the State or to the people. So, I’m thinking in terms of nullification of those previous courts.
BTW, Scoutmaster, you’ve been more than friendly and fair in all your posts. I really appreciate that.
#bundyranch: Report From The Ground
Posted on April 12, 2014 |
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/bundyranch-report-from-the-ground/
If the BLM opens fire first all hell will break loose. I know several of the militia guys there and they are ready for a fight - not looking of one but ready if it happens.
There are literally a hundred guys with trucks loaded standing by to head out if the BLM draws first blood with weapons fire.
Yes, one of. His heroes are, in his own words in statements over the years, Marx, Mao, Lenin, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. He laments that all of their agendas were not fully implemented in their times.
"I pretty much stand with the rancher’s on this matter, regardless if he owes leasing money or not. I heard him say on the news that one of his beefs about the lease payment is his refusal to pay the Government.....but, would have no problem if this was going to the state or county."
Mr. Bundy has been paying the county since this debacle began. He tried to pay the BLM, but they refused to take his money for grazing rights. They want that land. The feds have already driven the other ranchers off their land; Bundy is the only one who had the balls to stand up and be counted. Agenda 21 must be implemented and they will kill you and take your property to do it.
"So when you listen to him you get a broader understanding of where he’s coming from...and I think it’s very important he began fighting this from the beginning...and has been for years."
Mr. Bundy is not the nut-job many people believe him to be. Those who have not listened to him, uncensored, and who have done no research of their own into the situation have only the word of the MSM and feds to go on. Mr. Bundy is cogent and makes good arguments in his own defense. He was quite good on Hannity yesterday afternoon; very reasonable and well-spoken.
Also, everyone should remember that the Founders were criminals under British law. They were called all manner of bad things by the statists of the time.
At some point, we will all have to take a stand and hang together or most assuredly hang separately. The ballot box and soapbox have failed us. How much more are people expected to take? When is enough overreaching, overbearing, tyrannical, unconstitutional injustice enough? This old man in Nevada has had enough. One could do far worse than rallying behind Mr. Cliven Bundy.
A politician somewhere must be making a boatload of money off that land.
I'm thinking Solar deal.
Bump for long-term reference.
I agree. They should sell it all off and use the proceeds to pay down the debt.
In your example, the boys were making money by shoveling. They weren’t laying claim to title of any of the homes of the driveways, or the driveways, they purchased.
Second - and this is merely for discussion, because neither of us knows to my understanding. Suppose the series of six ten-year grazing contracts permitted the construction of certain improvements but provided they would be appurtenances to the property that became the property of the land owner upon termination/expiration of the lease/permit?
That’s not outlandish. Many landowners will only ground lease their property. The most common term I’ve seen is 100 years. A family in my small suburb is home to a family that never sells land and has ground-leased it since the Great Depression. Walmart ground leases from them, as does a golf course, a strip shopping center, a Bank of America, a senior citizens’ home. Those are major transactions in the ten years. When the ground leases expire, the family will own improved property.
I understand and appreciate the concern over the Constitutionality of claimed federal ownership. It’s one of the areas about which I’m reading more.
Thank you for the sentiments.
Yeah, I think the states can regulate their own parks. The feds can own real estate for government buildings and military facilities.
“...Wouldn’t be surprised if this is the straw that starts pushing people over the edge...”
Wouldn’t be surprised if it MEANT to.
Probably not, but I put nothing past this clown and his henchmen.
The fees have been the same since 1986. The law in 1986 set the minimum fee at $1.35 per AUM, and the fee for 2014 is still $1.35/AUM.
It takes an act of congress to raise the fee amount. They haven't.
From the BLM's website: "The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2014 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2013."
My comment = since it cannot fall below $1.35/AUM per the 1986 executive order, and the rate in 2014 is $1.35/AUM, I'm thinking there was no raising of fees in the interim. There may have been, but it's been at the floor of $1.35 for several years now.
Hey Mr. Rodger, looks like most of the American people sided that cowboy you referred to as a "nut".
And a whole lot of people didn't back down from your big gov armed BLM, park rangers etc., and their threats to regulate them out of their lands.
You should have sent them some of your 10,000 pages of regulation and control statutes and document.
1992 they were $1.92. Clinton’s incoming Sec. of the Interior Bruce Babbit and his new BLM head Jim Baca were proposing reforms that would raise fees closer to a “fair market” values $4.28. It sparked a backlash in 1993 that caused Babbit to throw Baca under the bus.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/6/165
I seem to remember them reaching a high of around $2.40 before going back down to the baseline.
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.