Bundy Ranch Posts Response to Readers of USA Today

Facebook ^ | April 23, 2014 | Ammon Bundy

[ponygirl]

Readers of USA TODAY:

Some have asked why didn't my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800's they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against...

[ponygirl]

Ammon's post, as well as the comments that follow, pose some interesting questions. The post is public, so you don't need a Facebook account to access it.

If you don't want to go to Facebook, you can view the post at bundyranch.blogspot.com

[BereanBrain]

Secure the border, not the Bundys

[Hildy]

The federal government breaks the law every day. They don’t pay THEIR taxes in the Western States, which is called PILT. They give us pennies on the dollar and even then they make us beg for it and still don’t pay. Who holds them accountable?

[thackney]

Why excerpt Facebook?. Full Text:

Readers of USA TODAY:

Some have asked why didn’t my father pay the grazing fee. This can be understood in two ways. One is founded on preemptive rights and the other upon state rights or state sovereignty. When my family rolled into this country in the 1800’s they began to tame the land and use it for survival, settling this land the same as the rest of the United States. Each family claimed their stake and developed the area. Others respected the area and understood as long as the family was using the resources or land it was the families to claim and share. When states were initiated into the union these rights or claims became more defined and further protected by state law as rights that could be sold traded or even borrowed against.

Now after over a hundred years of preemptive rights by beneficial use recognized and protected by the state, the federal government claims that the land is not state land but US territory and theirs for the taking or charging of fees.

So here we stand with a questions. Is this land Nevada State land or US territory? If state land, then my fathers rights are recognized and the federal government has no claim to charge for something that is not theirs. If it is US territory then Nevada is not a sovereign state. Only 11% of Nevada is declared by the federal government to be private or state. The rest they claim as their land to do what they want with and the people of Nevada have no rights to it.

Now more questions; Should the people of Nevada have the right to govern their own state? Why did the federal government retain 89% of Nevada land after statehood? Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land? A good study of these questions will answer why Cliven Bundy refuses to pay an entity for something that is not theirs.

Thank you,
Ammon Bundy

[driftdiver]

thanks for posting, good to see their explanation.

Also clarifies why they don’t comply with a federal court.

[oh8eleven]

From the comments ...

[Logical me]

No such thing as State sovereignty. The communists in Washington have decided no State or Person owns anything. It all belongs to the communists and they will do with anything or anybody what they want. Good by freedom, and they are doing just that. We are now slaves of the communists, made up of both Democrats, Republicans and other parties.

[BenLurkin]

Does the US constitution give the federal government the right to retaining state land?

Not a good way to put the question, since the land was never state land.

It wasn't state land before the creation of the state, since there was no state. And it wasn't state land after creation of the state, since it never stopped being Federal land.

He needs to find another way of illustrating his point.

[Hostage]

A poster commented last week that had Bundy paid the fees, he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.

Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business. That is the real scandal. That is what needs investigating.

[Duke C.]

Language in the Nevada Constitution has created much misunderstanding:

"That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States …"

This would seem to say that the residents of Nevada were disclaiming all land held by Congress in perpetuity.

Not true. This clause appears in EVERY States' Constitution. Congress needed to ensure that they were delivering clear title to the newly sovereign State. They never followed through, probably because they were busy with the Civil War. And no-one has noticed, until now.

So Congress has a Constitutional duty to dispose of the land they hold to Nevada, a Sovereign State. It wont be easy.

[BenLurkin]

It is certainly no surprise that a Federal court upholds Federal supremacy.

Sometimes it seems that expanding the scope and power of the Federal government is more important to the Federal courts than any other matter with which they are tasked.

But disobeying an order from such a court, sadly, is asking for big trouble.

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/

[RedStateRocker]

I am not clear on the concept of “presumptive right”. Can someone kindly explain what it is an why it is important? Google is not of much help.

Thanks in advance

[Fledermaus]

It was a territory before becoming a state. Never was federal land.

[mom.mom]

If the government said he couldn’t use the land 20 years ago, because of a turtle, why would he pay them a grazing fee? Did the government charge him for grazing on land which they forbid him to use?

Mr. Bundy has a deeded right to use the land.

[Terry L Smith]

These same questions, I have raised in earler posts.

I stand with the Bundy’s.

[BenLurkin]

It was a Federal Territory.

Of course it was Federal land!

[bigbob]

It’s also true that BLM can and does change the terms of the grazing agreements unilaterally, to which the ranchers have the choice of “take it or leave it”. No one could operate a business under those conditions.

[combat_boots]

“...he would have been required to acknowledge the federal dominion of the water shed and this would have cut his water usage by half resulting in losing his cattle business.

Something caused 50 or so ranchers in Nevada to be put out of business.”

Bingo

[fedupjohn]

Ping