Replies

Bundy has had an opportunity for 20+ years to substantiate his claims. He has not provided any evidence that he held grandfathered grazing rights to public lands. His legal defense was as follows:

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) (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.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)).
Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming

that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320;
that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320;
that the United States‘ exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319;
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, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320 (under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze would be trumped).

While I think Bundy is legally in the wrong here, I think it abhorrent that the federal government thinks it's appropriate to mount a small-scale, armed invasion of BLM agents to remove cattle when it won't lift a finger to remove 12 million illegal aliens who are also trespassing and doing exponentially more damage to the land and the economy than grazing cattle.

There is plenty of legal argument left surrounding the issue of ‘ownership’. The federal government can control territories but not own them. For example, Puerto Rico is a US Territory but it is not owned by the federal government.

The district court erred if it ruled ‘ownership’ of Nevada to the federal government. It was never ownership, it was legal territorial jurisdiction; control and administration.

Inhabitants of a region coming under federal jurisdiction never lose ‘ownership’ of the land they live on. Such inhabitants inherit rights under the US Constitution of which property is one.

When a territory becomes a state, the federal rights of inhabitants come under state jurisdiction with federal approval. The Bundy family has rights granted by the state of Nevada and the federal government must respect those rights.