PDA

View Full Version : BUNDY RANCH AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT


Pages : [1] 2

4Patriot
04-13-2014, 10:34 AM
The events surrounding the week-long standoff in Nevada between the Bureau of Land Management and the Cliven Bundy family have important implications for the continuing gun rights debate.

The confrontation came to public attention last week when federal authorities reportedly sent a heavily-armed, 200-strong posse to round up Bundy’s “trespass” cattle. In response Bundy characterized himself as the victim of an illegitimate enforcement action by an over-zealous BLM. It is hard to know who has the better legal position: Bundy has apparently lost in court on several occasions; but the BLM’s position may be underpinned by a set of regulations and edicts that that have no specific authority in the law and may thus be susceptible to challenge. The case may be one in which the BLM, while proceeding “legally” did not do so legitimately.

News reports made plain that it was not a clear-cut, black-and-white situation – the BLM’s actions were variously attributed to its desire to protect the desert tortoise, to control water and energy rights, or to clear the land so that a utility-scale solar energy project could be installed. At least in regard to the latter issue connections were drawn to cronies of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Bundy, whose family homesteaded and have used the land since the 1870s, was reported to be in arrears on his grazing fees. He counters that fee increases imposed in recent years would have had the effect of unjustly driving him out of business, as it did certain other ranchers.

Despite the confusion of issues and news reports that did not appear to favor him, Bundy succeeded in rallying to his side numerous others, both locals and outsiders, who shared his sense of grievance. Once they arrived on the scene the rhetoric escalated to the point where Bundy himself was reported to be prepared to do “whatever it takes” to stand up for what he perceived to be his fundamental rights. Bundy, his family, and his supporters were armed. The situation was one in which fears of a deadly blow-up à la Waco or Ruby Ridge were warranted.

Eventually, confronted with the notion that bloodshed could result if enforcement of the cattle eviction continued, federal officials on the scene chose, wisely, to back off. No doubt the affair is not over, but it may now be one which will be prosecuted without the heavy hand of a militarized BLM.

Should there be any doubt that this outcome is the direct result of Bundy et al’s reliance upon and exercise of their Second Amendment right to bear arms? Proponents of robust gun rights have leaned heavily on the ancient, common law right of self-defense, including the natural right of the people to defend themselves from an oppressive, tyrannical government. Gun control advocates have ridiculed that notion, arguing that a citizen revolt against the government is unimaginable because the availability of force is so one-sided, in favor of the government. No doubt a full-scale rebellion involving an existential threat to the government would prove that point, as it did once before in the Civil War.

But what of confrontations with the government that are less than cataclysmic? Perhaps the Bundy affair illustrates the practical wisdom behind the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government in small, limited situations. Forcing the government to choose to exercise force against its own people only in the most demanding circumstances, and to suffer political damage when force is mis-used, is perhaps an advantage held by the people in the asymmetrical warfare of citizen vs. government. Where essential freedoms are truly threatened, armed resistance may be morally and legally justified, and the mere suggestion of such may be a sufficient deterrent to the exercise of force by the government.

Our Declaration of Independence reminds us that fundamental rights are natural rights, not originating from man’s law but only to be secured by governments formed with the consent of the governed. The Founders secured the right to keep and bear arms as one of our foremost natural rights by including it in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

There is no language in the Second Amendment to indicate that the right of self-defense afforded to citizens does not extend to defense against arbitrary and tyrannical action by the government. In recent years we have witnessed an increasing militarization of the agencies of domestic government. The proliferation of heavily-armed SWAT teams, especially in agencies of the federal government, coupled with the purchase of vast quantities of deadly hollow-point ammunition by those agencies, should be alarming to us all. They serve no purpose except to enable the government to bring overwhelming, deadly force against its own citizens – to make its power in any confrontation between citizen and government an absolute power.

We should be grateful to the people involved with the defense of the Bundy Ranch for their willingness to stand up to the federal government. Doing so very likely put them at serious personal risk. It is hard to know, as a legal matter, who occupies the high ground in the Bundy Ranch affair, but the unfolding of events over the past week makes clear that the ability of the citizenry to push back against arbitrary and tyrannical power depends upon the corresponding right to bear arms. We should cherish that right, and should resist wrong-headed attempts to diminish the right of self-defense.

Shasta Frog
04-13-2014, 10:42 AM
I thought this was about grazing cattle on public lands. Where does the 2A come in to play? I've only seen bits and pieces on the news so I'm not to familiar with the issue

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 11:08 AM
This is more about the Bundy's theft from us (the public at large) of grazing rights.

BLM leases land use to ranchers for cattle grazing for a nominal fee. That land (BLM lands) belong to all of us, and are for public use! Plus BLM has the right to revoke grazing rights for violations or non-payment.

Bundy has not paid the required grazing fees and has lost in court multiple times trying to fight it.

As pointed out in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/):...In removing Bundy's livestock from public lands, the park service and land bureau are carrying out two U.S. District Court orders from two different judges.

"Cattle have been grazing in trespass on public lands in Southern Nevada for more than two decades," the National Park Service said. "The BLM and NPS have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort."

Added the BLM: "Mr. Bundy has also failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass."...

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993 and now owes the United States (that's all of us) more than $1 Million in unpaid grazing fees.

p0ppyman
04-13-2014, 11:27 AM
Bundy's theft from us

Bundy pulled the BS handle on the government and stopped paying for services which he felt were not performing. I think he did the right thing. He was exercising local oversight on behalf of the taxpayers. The government regularly wastes our money and we really need people to be a bit rebellious to make the government stop and force them to become better stewards of our money. We need more people to pull the BS handle on the government and choke off the politico's funds. I am constantly amazed on how many people are content to fund government corruption and let the politicos p!$$ our tax dollars and fee payments down the drain for their own personal gain, or for the gain of their friends and family.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere. ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1787, letter to Abigail Adams"

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 11:30 AM
Bundy pulled the BS handle on the government and stopped paying for services which he felt were not performing. I think he did the right thing. ...Crap.

He lost in court at least twice. He's no different from anyone else trying to take by force or threat of force something which isn't his.

p0ppyman
04-13-2014, 11:47 AM
Crap.

I for one do not consider the courts pure, and I feel many courts have strayed from the ideals of the constitution. Corrupt means utterly broken and my take is that “utterly broken” applies in varying degrees to all 3 branches of our federal government. There are many good people trying to do the best they can but they are stuck in a system whose goal is to grow its power at the expense of the governed. The concentration of power is not good and needs to be redistributed to the people starting with defunding the federal government whenever we can and pushing functions other than those expressed in the constitution back down to the states.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 11:56 AM
I for one do not consider the courts pure, and I feel many courts have strayed from the ideals of the constitution....


I understand you don't respect our laws or legal process. And in our system you're entitled to express your opinion.

And I reject your opinion as not worthy of my attention.

tamalpias
04-13-2014, 12:01 PM
This is more about the Bundy's theft from us (the public at large) of grazing rights.

BLM leases land use to ranchers for cattle grazing for a nominal fee. That land (BLM lands) belong to all of us, and are for public use! Plus BLM has the right to revoke grazing rights for violations or non-payment.

Bundy has not paid the required grazing fees and has lost in court multiple times trying to fight it.

As pointed out in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/):

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993 and now owes the United States (that's all of us) more than $1 Million in unpaid grazing fees.


The fees they are charging him was excessive. Many other ranchers in the area had stopped raising cattle because of it. If this was an environmental issue and they are trying to protect the tortoise then how is he paying this "grazing" fee going to miraculously save the tortoise? It is a bunch of BS. They want that land to eventually create a huge industrial solar energy and the ranchers are just in their way. The government will not overtly kick you out, they will tax you until you are out.

p0ppyman
04-13-2014, 12:36 PM
I understand

I see from your comment you choose to derive whatever meaning suits you from my words rather than giving me the benefit of the doubt by asking clarifying questions. It is hard work to give people the benefit of the doubt and some people just choose to not put in the effort. But they are entitled to do that in our system. I do think it makes a much richer conversation and affords a greater opportunity to unite people when all parties are willing to work hard to understand the views of others.

Thank you though for acknowledging I am entitled to express my opinion.

Sunday
04-13-2014, 12:39 PM
Seem people forget where the grocery stores get the food. Besides it is a land grab.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 12:44 PM
Apartment dwellers .. lol

Educate yourself, read Dana Loesch's stories.

Sionadi
04-13-2014, 12:48 PM
This is more about the Bundy's theft from us (the public at large) of grazing rights.

.

FYI. From the family.

Hi, I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise.

Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next. Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him.

Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks"

Shiree Bundy Cox

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 12:52 PM
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to make their case in court, and they lost.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 1:02 PM
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to make their case in court, and they lost.

Perhaps that's what folks will say to you when you're falsly accused, or GOD forbid even falsely convicted.

I doubt you'll be so cavalier then.

Apartment dwellers ..lol

LCU1670
04-13-2014, 1:07 PM
We are a nation of laws. It appears the problem started 1993, BLM or the government should have been more vigerous from the start, 21 years later, it looks more like squatters rights. Things should have been worked out/ compromises years ago. Letting it grow and fester was a big mistake. Taxpayers need to be protected, the environment protected AND the ranchers ability to raise OUR food and make a decent living all have to be balanced.

QQQ
04-13-2014, 1:22 PM
As a taxpayer, I am decidedly NOT harmed or affected at all by allowing this man's cattle to graze out in the desert.

I decidedly AM harmed by federal law enforcement wasting MY money on harassing this guy while there are actual criminals on the loose.

Sionadi
04-13-2014, 1:23 PM
We are a nation of laws. It appears the problem started 1993, BLM or the government should have been more vigerous from the start, 21 years later, it looks more like squatters rights. Things should have been worked out/ compromises years ago. Letting it grow and fester was a big mistake. Taxpayers need to be protected, the environment protected AND the ranchers ability to raise OUR food and make a decent living all have to be balanced.

Except none of the 3 are being protected by the BLM in this situation. They are closing off taxpayers public lands, tearing down the watering holes that the bundys put up which benefit the wildlife alot more than the cattle, and they are getting rid of ranchers.

UCT
04-13-2014, 1:39 PM
Theft by not paying grazing fees??? In Laguna Beach they have to pay herders to bring in goats to graze the hills so there isn't a disastrous wildfire every year. And the Federal Government reimburses Laguna Beach about half the cost. Bundy is doing a service by grazing there. He should be charging the BLM for that service.

Dragon
04-13-2014, 1:47 PM
As a taxpayer, I am decidedly NOT harmed or affected at all by allowing this man's cattle to graze out in the desert.

I decidedly AM harmed by federal law enforcement wasting MY money on harassing this guy while there are actual criminals on the loose.

Agreed.

Dragon
04-13-2014, 1:48 PM
Perhaps that's what folks will say to you when you're falsly accused, or GOD forbid even falsely convicted.

I doubt you'll be so cavalier then.

Apartment dwellers ..lol

Well done.

UnknownShooter
04-13-2014, 1:51 PM
I could absolutely believe the BLM was acting heavy-handedly, until reading the article..

we don't have kings in this country, and claiming "pre-emptive rights" , and withholding de-minimus grazing fees because of how a public agency spends those funds is just loony.

it isn't his land, he lost in court, he needs to move on.

there's no ruby-ridge here, not even on the same level. anyone who gets themselves splattered over this deadbeat rancher earns a darwin award.

tamalpias
04-13-2014, 1:53 PM
Shiree Bundy Cox it is all about the land grab, I too was a victim of it here in the middle of San Jose, which is a major city. They called my business building blight even though it was no different than any other business up and down my street. They did this over a decade ago and only stopped because a major property owner hired good lawyers and won did they leave my shop alone. The city was exposed for seizing property through blight and selling it to developers for a profit. Only about 2 years ago did the rest of the businesses around here knew why they where targeting certain properties, especially ones on major intersections. They plan on bringing a rapid bus transit line for later Bart use and knew where the stations are set up the surrounding properties will be commercially valuable. Since they couldn't use imminent domain to take my business they are trying to do so from a legal standpoint by sending every governing agency to my business to see if they can fine me out of business.

Items that had been around since the building was built decades ago are now not up to code and therefore I am fined for them. I knew it was a land grab all along. Typical government tactics.

UnknownShooter
04-13-2014, 1:54 PM
We are a nation of laws. It appears the problem started 1993, BLM or the government should have been more vigerous from the start, 21 years later, it looks more like squatters rights. Things should have been worked out/ compromises years ago. Letting it grow and fester was a big mistake. Taxpayers need to be protected, the environment protected AND the ranchers ability to raise OUR food and make a decent living all have to be balanced.

squatters dont get "rights" on public lands - adverse possession does not work on government lands (and it shouldn't work on private lands either) - not sure why anyone would think there was a social benefit to encouraging deadbeat behavior.

D.carden
04-13-2014, 2:08 PM
I got this from a FaceBook personality that I follow..!!!
Interesting read/twist either way..!!!

Not sure how true this is, however it does fit their past SOP:

From **** *******

At 1750 hours ET, I was contacted by my source within the Department of Homeland Security regarding the current situation at the Bundy Ranch. To put it bluntly, the people are being hoodwinked into believing that the situation is being resolved. It is not. It is a strategic de-escalation to fool the public. This source stated that the retreat of the BLM agents and the release of the cattle was actually crafted as a potential plan yesterday (Friday, 11 April 2014) based on the following:

1. A military assessment of satellite and drone surveillance imagery of the “patriot resistance. Drones under the control of the U.S. military were in use, taking real-time photographic images of not just the activity at the ranch, but "identifying the protesters, any arms and any supplies they might have or be carrying. “Mission accomplished.”
2. Real-time communication intercepts between patriots on-site and their off-site support;
3. Active monitoring of internet traffic regarding the coverage of events at ranch;
4. The monitoring of real-time video from the scene.

This source stated that a response by the patriot movement was anticipated, although exceeded their expectations. Although this was a real operation, they also ran this as a test case for future government operations once they saw the response. They were also actively managing the media, in some cases threatening to cut off White House access to anyone covering the event.

Despite this, the coverage by the alternative media began to create a public relations problem that was not easily managed. Note the lack of acknowledgment by the White House regarding this event. They are intentionally framing it as a state issue, despite the fact that all federal response has been and continues to be from the White House. There is a reason for this – a reason that has not been identified in any of the public reports to date. I will explain in further detail in a follow-up report on Sunday, after this source attends [redacted] to obtain more specific information about future federal operations. Regardless, according to this source, the government will take back ‘their land’ as they must to fulfill international obligations. It was never about grazing rights or anything other than (1) “securing clear title” to the land, and (2) further demonizing any patriotic resistance. It is my understanding, based on the information from this source, that it is a critical task to create a situation that will also advance their agenda of gun control and confiscation.

A more detailed report will follow on Sunday, 13 April 2014, with additional and much more specific information about their inside plans and future operations.PLEASE MAKE THIS VIRAL!

seo
04-13-2014, 2:17 PM
I watched the lengthy video taken by the protestors.

I saw a protestor kick a dog.
I saw a lady, who claims to be pregnant, move towards an officer and his dog (after being told to back up) and the dog lunged at her.
I saw several people tasered after they were told to back up and they instead moved toward the officers.
I saw protestors pounding on cars.

The protestors own videos show that they were responsible for much of what happened at the protest.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 2:23 PM
Perhaps that's what folks will say to you when you're falsly accused, or GOD forbid even falsely convicted.

I doubt you'll be so cavalier then....Every time a court makes a decision, someone is unhappy. And we have courts of appeal to take a second look at things. But at the end of the day, we are a nation of laws, and disputes are resolved in court.

And folks who complain about the corruption of the "system" fail to understand that what they are really dissatisfied with are the results. But no system will guarantee them the results they want. And on the other hand, a bad result to you might be a good result to someone else. We live in a pluralistic society made up of people with different beliefs, values, needs, desires, and goals. No system no system will produce results that are completely satisfactory to everyone all the time.

The Founding Fathers set up our system --

The Constitution of the United States of America. And from the Constitution, we can infer that they intended us to have, among other things:


A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);


Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;


Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;


A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

The system does allow for change, so you are free to try to generate sufficient support to put into place an alternate system which might suit you better.

Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of the federal government were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government. Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of state governments were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government. That sort of friction will be common to any organized society. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process (a federal system, checks and balances and separation of powers) for managing that friction.

Our system also offers us broad scope to make our own decisions. But our decisions will have consequences, no matter what the system may be. No system will necessarily spare us the undesirable consequences of poor decisions. Freedom includes the freedom to make decisions which ultimately have undesirable consequences. Freedom includes the freedom to make decisions that mess up our lives. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 2:26 PM
I suppose the authorities wished the protesters were more like those cattle; easy to push around.

Bravo for those folks, they apparently actually believed in what they said their convictions are .. unlike so many others.

Neanderthal
04-13-2014, 2:29 PM
FYI. From the family.

Hi, I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the servival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortoise.

Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next. Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him.

Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks"

Shiree Bundy Cox

Thank you for taking the time to inform us here on Calguns of your situation. As it does pertain to all Americans where ever they are on this planet right now.




Tagged for historic content.

ddestruel
04-13-2014, 2:30 PM
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to make their case in court, and they lost.

much like when a district court judge ruled unloaded open carry satisfied the right of 2nd amendment?


the FS and BLM were created to manage the lands and the natural resources maintaining and encouraging multiple public users access and sustainability of the resources. those charters have forgotten their roots and intentionally changed, the FS no longer is focused on timber sales, mining or public access, instead it is focused on closures and creating more wilderness lands which are not used by the public, and the same is true with the BLM who was originally charged with assisting ranchers, rangeland users, off road activities, managing multiple users with the resources but they are now prohibiting multiple users, blocking off most existing access, raising fees beyond the sustainability level, lowering herd sizes intentionally below the level of survivability and essentially creating vast swaths of unused land is far from their intended best management practices that they were first charged with providing. The BLM and FS are detrimentally hurt all of us with their poor management practices, their budgets rarely are self supporting yet the resources and lands they are supposed to manage are more than capable of supporting all of their operating expenses and providing revenues back to the government if politics weren’t involved.

these vast swaths of land were always intended for open range grazing and the BLM was created to manage that access and continued grazing open range space. instead today they choose to close it off. if that is the case then are they managing the open public lands or becoming a landlord intent on kicking all used but the chosen few off with the right connections. i contend these days it is the later and if that is the case then why are they even called the BLM or FS. with their mismanagement of the lands and continued closures the consequences are less users, less maintenance and annual massive firefighting budgets with lower revenues and annual deficits that grow each year.

abuses of Emminent domain, government raising fees to the point of excessive, government reneging on improvements and land access agreements under auspice of environmental necessity and then turning the land over for pennies on the dollar to a solar company and blocking out all other public access or use seems far from well intended or from just dealing with a squatter.

Its not as cut and dry as many are making it out to be and looking deeper in there is a lot more to the battle. remember if we all stand back and watch another small guy be bullied via raising fees and demanding new standards every few years at one point that little guy will be you with some other government agency laying its bullseye down on whatever you think you own or think you are entitled to do.

billmaykafer
04-13-2014, 2:36 PM
As a taxpayer, I am decidedly NOT harmed or affected at all by allowing this man's cattle to graze out in the desert.

I decidedly AM harmed by federal law enforcement wasting MY money on harassing this guy while there are actual criminals on the loose.

if they went after the illegal aliens as vigorously as they did these cows I be happier. starve illegals and feed the cows.

LeavingBabylon
04-13-2014, 2:42 PM
Crap.

He lost in court at least twice. He's no different from anyone else trying to take by force or threat of force something which isn't his.

Funny that you talk about taking by force, but he is only taking by force from the government, whose corrupt existence is permitted only because of them taking by force. Just saying that taking by force from the government is far different from taking by force from those that earn what they have.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 2:48 PM
Until YOU become the specific target of Governmental indifference, or pressure, or outright heavy handedness, you're only sitting in the bleachers.

I'll share you that I have a large ranch, several hundred acres, part of it was targeted for Eminent Domain. The system is designed to benefit the government, you play catchup from the get go. It's a stacked deck, they know it too, and although they play along with the "fairness" doublespeak, they expect you to fold, to give up; because legal fees run $100K+ out of pocket. ROW Appraisals alone run $50K+ for anything by anyone even remotely credible in court. The State will hire outsiders, private lawyers and appraisers once you poke holes in their own employee's case and figures; 3rd party costs are no issue for them. They want the land and they will do and say what they can to get it.

So, I understand the mindset of Bundy, the inherent unfairness he's confronted with. One more thing, Federal Judges are NOT impartial, they are employees of the federal Government; the same party that civil or criminally wants to prosecute him. On rare occasion only do they make their independence know.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 2:57 PM
Funny that you talk about taking by force, but he is only taking by force from the government, whose corrupt existence is permitted only because of them taking by force. Just saying that taking by force from the government is far different from taking by force from those that earn what they have.In other words the Bundys and the rest of us should all give that land back to the Native Americans and go home to wherever our ancestors were from.

GSF44Mag
04-13-2014, 3:17 PM
In other words the Bundys and the rest of us should all give that land back to the Native Americans and go home to wherever our ancestors were from.

Looking at your statement you are right. This land was never discovered, it was already inhabited. That's a fact. Indians gave up everything. The land was stolen. It wasn't found. So all of you "aliens" can go home. The Bundy's, if his property and grazing rights had been in place before BLM existed? He should keep on with his normal day to day activity. Send Uncle Sam packing. Or... Give the lands back to the Indians that it was stolen from, and pay back the rent. Pretty simple to me. Thanksgiving is the worst day in history for American Indians. You know, the people that actually inhabited this land that you now call the USA. It was stolen from them.

Jimi Jah
04-13-2014, 3:32 PM
BLM backed down and ran off. The cattle are returning. Expect Bundy to have his tax refund confiscated for the next twenty or so years.

Next.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 3:55 PM
B Expect Bundy to have his tax refund confiscated for the next twenty or so years.

That would have been the smarter route to begin with.

I would say the Native Americans in Nevada have the first claim, if thats how legal possession is being argued by the Bundy's.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 4:00 PM
if they went after the illegal aliens as vigorously as they did these cows I be happier. starve illegals and feed the cows.

In Nevada, illegal aliens often ride herd and guard sheep.

Perhaps we should send Nevada a few of the NW's endangered wolves to thin out the cattle and feral horses and give ranchers in WA,OR,ID and Montana a break.

Manolito
04-13-2014, 4:08 PM
fiddletown could you point me to the court findings that remand his cattle to the US government for trespassing? Can you explain to us how the sniper at Ruby Ridge was charged in the State of Idaho for manslaughter and the federal court remanded the case to federal jurisdiction and dropped the charges?

Do you know that BLM was made up of two separate government entities. one being the bureau of grazing?

Do you know that Seven western states have had the same trouble all brought about by a Tortoise nobody knows how to count or how to determine if they are endangered or not so a federal court gave it protection to be on the safe side.

Do you know the meaning of Illusory Superiority?

Have you read anything about the group that is causing these law suits The center for biological diversity They have a campaign to issue condoms to humans so they can remove humans and populate with animals.

This is far more complicated than what you state and hang your hat on a court ruling or two. Have you noticed until Peruta Hawaii had a no issue CCW policy backed by several federal court findings and now the most liberal court in the land has slapped them for their decisions.

I believe in the law but I am not blind to the fact Judges are humans and many have been set aside from the bench for corruption and taking pay for decisions.

This could be nothing more than clearing a field for a Senators Son to set up a Solar facility.

The actual fees are 300K a long ways from a million I am attaching the 2013 fee schedule just for information.http://www.blm.gov/or/news/files/GrazingFee2013_BLMPressRelease.pdf

I certainly see validity in your position in a perfect world with simplistic answers. You have bought into making a judgement on what the news media has decided to feed you not with thought and investigation again very complicated. The king of England took it from the world and we took it from the Native Americans and the federal government has taken it from us. Possibly Bundy is taking it back for all of us> please note your shooting, camping, and playing rights on this land are under attack as we speak in the federal courts.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 4:18 PM
This could be nothing more than clearing a field for a Senators Son to set up a Solar facility.

Solar facilities have the same issues with tortoises.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-04/where-tortoises-and-solar-power-dont-mix

And it could be that Bundy wants to restart the the Freemen movement and take from his neighbors as well as the goobermint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

When I go on a hike or hunt there are wilderness permits that cost more for a day than Bundy is charged for a steer in one year. And I don't crap in the streams.

LeavingBabylon
04-13-2014, 4:20 PM
In other words the Bundys and the rest of us should all give that land back to the Native Americans and go home to wherever our ancestors were from.

Interesting point and I would almost agree, except that I think it fails on the grounds that you or I did not take anything from the Native Americans by force. We cannot be held responsible for what our ancestors' societies did as we had no control over it.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 4:27 PM
....This is far more complicated than what you state and hang your hat on a court ruling or two....It no doubt is more complicated. But at this stage, Bundy has court rulings against him as referenced in the mainstream news articles.

If there are further legal issues, they need to addressed in the appropriate manner, in court. If there are political or public policy issues, there are ways to address those as well.

But as soon as folks start grabbing their guns and canonizing for standing up to the government, it starts to become impossible to deal with the complexities in a rational fashion. As often is the case, there are a number of parties with different rights and interests rubbing against each other. When it gets sorted out, someone is going to be unhappy.

....Have you noticed until Peruta Hawaii had a no issue CCW policy backed by several federal court findings and now the most liberal court in the land has slapped them for their decisions....And that's often the way things work. There was a long road to Brown v. Board of Education. There was a long road to Roe v. Wade. There was a long road to Heller and McDonald. And for each of those decisions, there are many who think it was wrong.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 4:37 PM
"We cannot be held responsible for what our ancestors' societies did as we had no control over it. "

Agreed, it's an old shallow Strawman argument.

hadjin
04-13-2014, 4:46 PM
Yuba .. "Solar facilities have the same issues with tortoises".

What they wanted to do is put the Solar plant elsewhere (not near Bundy's ranch), BUT that selected area was the Tortoise habitat. So they moved the boundries of the habitat over to where Bundy was in a mitigation effort, so as to now make the original space available. This is exactly what they do with wetland development obstacles.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 4:49 PM
Until YOU become the specific target of Governmental indifference, or pressure, or outright heavy handedness, you're only sitting in the bleachers....Through my career I represented heavily regulated businesses having reason to complain about heavy handed governmental regulation. And of course this is really a business dispute. Cattle ranching is Bundy's business.

The businesses I represented were, in general, very successful; and part of their success was understanding and dealing professionally with government regulation. They didn't wring their hands complaining about the injustice of things. The paid me and other lawyers good money to help keep them straight with regulators and handle things in ways to give them reasonably predictable results.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 4:55 PM
Through my career I represented heavily regulated businesses having reason to complain about heavy handed governmental regulation. And of course this is really a business dispute. Cattle ranching is Bundy's business.

The businesses I represented were, in general, very successful; and part of their success was understanding and dealing professionally with government regulation. They didn't wring their hands complaining about the injustice of things. The paid me and other lawyers good money to help keep them straight with regulators and handle things in ways to give them reasonably predictable results.

I agree with you. However as a person owning cattle myself, I like the way Bundy handled this.

The fact of the matter is that even the government is getting to "court savy" to settle everything in life.

Its absolutely refreshing to see and old cowboy stick up for what is right in this country.

I also think that more people relate to this than court. Court sucks and court is for criminals. Not literally but i think you understand my sentiments.

bwiese
04-13-2014, 4:56 PM
Gun rights are actually harmed by this action.

And nobody "won" anything today. The Fed LEs have walked away (at least a bit) not because they lost, but to stop a dangerous overheated situation, somewhat akin to more rational police agencies protecting bystanders by not doing high speed chases for mere stolen cars... there's a better way to get them down the road.

Bundy supporters had the wrong battle, wrong 'horse' , wrong time, wrong severity level. A bunch of nonanalytical emotional goons have followed him - he's spun a sympathetic 'Woe is me' tale that doesn't reflect the real legal situation.



At the heart of it, Bundy is an incompetent drama queen. He wanted to graze cattle on land not owned by him. (I am unclear if it is NV land managed by BLM, or BLM Fed-owned land itself. Really doesn't matter.) I do not think Bundy has had any proper legal counsel - or if he did, he wholly ignored it.

The Bundy matter, at its heart, is simple. Land usage rights to others' lands are conveyed by deed, contract, or easement via court decision.

Bundy had this drama back in 1993 when he was being billed for grazing and then stopped paying. If he had had any of the proper paperwork mentioned above assigning him these rights, he'd be fine - he could wave them around in court and probably continue to graze, or get his rights bought out, etc. His "ancestral" assertions are legally invalid (unless he could or did get a court easement for such purposes based on longstanding history, yadayada - I'm sure he didn't.)

If he did have this paperwork, we would not be seeing him on the news.

Instead, Bundy appears to have stopped paying BLM and - insanely - tried to pay state of NV under some cockamamie (and legally invalid) theory. Imagine trying to send your IRS payment to the CA state tax entity, the FTB - do you think the IRS will accept that and not consider you in arrears? Sending your rent check to a landlord's relative and not paying the rental management company? That's just Darwinian IQ failure.

The issue here is simple land 'squatting'. The last I heard, hippies and socialists 'squat'.

And just as much as when you as a landlord perform an eviction of a tenant or squatter, you might have the local sheriff out there to assist and quell issues [many septs have an eviction services unit]. Similarly here the BLM - the land manager or owner - has the right to control use of its land and has staff with a police function. (US Marshals could also serve in place or as an addition, and do so for agencies/agency sub functions that don't have their own LE group.)

Whether the BLM wants to completely shut down the land, use it to breed special purple masturbating hamsters, lease it out for coal mining or oil drilling (with return fees paid by mining/ oil co's who are smarter than Bundy and will pay fees) is of ZERO legal import. IT'S LEGALLY UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND GOV'T MISSION. It's perfectly constitutional.

There are significant concerns, yes, about Federal land access and usage. However, those are solved by [i]elections and not protests of lawful enforcement of illegal unpermitted usage.

These concerns over Fed land access are addressable at the _political_ level and are disambiguated from Bundy's local _legal_ predicament. The surrounding protesters, in effect, want to overrun the courthouse because Bundy doesn't have proper land deed or contract to graze his cattle, after land mgmnt transfer was legally accomplished in accord with voters' will [i.e, by their elected representatives].

In fact, for specific NV lands managed by BLM, the solution could be for NV politicians to renegotiate deal with BLM. You get that result by _political_ force and campaign donations, not surrounding some Fed LEOs doing anti-squatter policy. That is also accomplishable by _winning) state elections (people forget that, and this is a more local way to affect these Fed oriented matters). And Fed policy is also changeable by winning Presidential elections with electable candidates.

NV voters also accepted NV sale of huge tracts of land to the Fed Gov in the past, for funding state services, so they have only themselves to blame: perhaps they could offer to buy back various Fed-owned lands at negotiated-but-inflated-from-past prices, but that would require (1) tax money for purchase, (2) tax money for maintenance.

Bundy's situation can be likened to a localized infection near a tumor. Killing the tumor may help reduce the infection, but the infection is still a separate malady requiring separate addressing.

Fix Fed land use policy by recognizing past mistakes in selling excess land to Feds/hiring them to manage, or by giving them carte blanche to manage. You won't fix it by allowing a confused guy looking for freebies to use false assertions to squat on it.

Please, please, please note the differences between Bundy versus Dick Heller and (the late) Otis McDonald.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:07 PM
Gun rights are actually harmed by this action.

And nobody "won" anything today. The Fed LEs have walked away (at least a bit) not because they lost, but to stop a dangerous overheated situation, somewhat akin to more rational police agencies protecting bystanders by not doing high speed chases for mere stolen cars... there's a better way to get them down the road.

Bundy supporters had the wrong battle, wrong 'horse' , wrong time, wrong severity level. A bunch of nonanalytical emotional goons have followed him - he's spun a sympathetic 'Woe is me' tale that doesn't reflect the real legal situation.



At the heart of it, Bundy is an incompetent drama queen. He wanted to graze cattle on land not owned by him. (I am unclear if it is NV land managed by BLM, or BLM Fed-owned land itself. Really doesn't matter.) I do not think Bundy has had any proper legal counsel - or if he did, he wholly ignored it.

The Bundy matter, at its heart, is simple. Land usage rights to others' lands are conveyed by deed, contract, or easement via court decision.

Bundy had this drama back in 1993 when he was being billed for grazing and then stopped paying. If he had had any of the proper paperwork mentioned above assigning him these rights, he'd be fine - he could wave them around in court and probably continue to graze, or get his rights bought out, etc. His "ancestral" assertions are legally invalid (unless he could or did get a court easement for such purposes based on longstanding history, yadayada - I'm sure he didn't.)

If he did have this paperwork, we would not be seeing him on the news.

Instead, Bundy appears to have stopped paying BLM and - insanely - tried to pay state of NV under some cockamamie (and legally invalid) theory. Imagine trying to send your IRS payment to the CA state tax entity, the FTB - do you think the IRS will accept that and not consider you in arrears? Sending your rent check to a landlord's relative and not paying the rental management company? That's just Darwinian IQ failure.

The issue here is simple land 'squatting'. The last I heard, hippies and socialists 'squat'.

And just as much as when you as a landlord perform an eviction of a tenant or squatter, you might have the local sheriff out there to assist and quell issues [many septs have an eviction services unit]. Similarly here the BLM - the land manager or owner - has the right to control use of its land and has staff with a police function. (US Marshals could also serve in place or as an addition, and do so for agencies/agency sub functions that don't have their own LE group.)

Whether the BLM wants to completely shut down the land, use it to breed special purple masturbating hamsters, lease it out for coal mining or oil drilling (with return fees paid by mining/ oil co's who are smarter than Bundy and will pay fees) is of ZERO legal import. IT'S LEGALLY UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND GOV'T MISSION. It's perfectly constitutional.

There are significant concerns, yes, about Federal land access and usage. However, those are solved by [i]elections and not protests of lawful enforcement of illegal unpermitted usage.

These concerns over Fed land access are addressable at the _political_ level and are disambiguated from Bundy's local _legal_ predicament. The surrounding protesters, in effect, want to overrun the courthouse because Bundy doesn't have proper land deed or contract to graze his cattle, after land mgmnt transfer was legally accomplished in accord with voters' will [i.e, by their elected representatives].

In fact, for specific NV lands managed by BLM, the solution could be for NV politicians to renegotiate deal with BLM. You get that result by _political_ force and campaign donations, not surrounding some Fed LEOs doing anti-squatter policy. That is also accomplishable by _winning) state elections (people forget that, and this is a more local way to affect these Fed oriented matters). And Fed policy is also changeable by winning Presidential elections with electable candidates.

NV voters also accepted NV sale of huge tracts of land to the Fed Gov in the past, for funding state services, so they have only themselves to blame: perhaps they could offer to buy back various Fed-owned lands at negotiated-but-inflated-from-past prices, but that would require (1) tax money for purchase, (2) tax money for maintenance.

Bundy's situation can be likened to a localized infection near a tumor. Killing the tumor may help reduce the infection, but the infection is still a separate malady requiring separate addressing.

Fix Fed land use policy by recognizing past mistakes in selling excess land to Feds/hiring them to manage, or by giving them carte blanche to manage. You won't fix it by allowing a confused guy looking for freebies to use false assertions to squat on it.

Please, please, please note the differences between Bundy versus Dick Heller and (the late) Otis McDonald.



Since I suspect you have no knowledge or interaction with BLM nor do you know how cattle/feeding rights work I'll give you a pass on your rant as typical city speak. I am not trying to slight your opinion either.

bwiese
04-13-2014, 5:10 PM
Since I suspect you have no knowledge or interaction with BLM nor do you know how cattle/feeding rights work I'll give you a pass on your rant as typical city speak. I am not trying to slight your opinion either.

Regardless of deep info, there has to be some grant of rights and documentation thereof on land not owned. There's either a right to use, or not, or some sorta fee-based setup.

I'm confident Bundy doesn't have it. And if he did, a lawyer would've solved this for him in 1993.

His assertion that he was gonna shift his payments from BLM to state of NV indicates a certain degree of insanity.

[My only interaction with BLM is to stop BLM cops from taking guns based on their idiotic understandings of CA gun laws.]

And hundreds of armed people trying to 'solve' Bundy's issue ain't the right way,

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:10 PM
Many Many Many claims for feeding cattle have been disputed.

I know plenty of cattle ranchers that have 99 year rights to land for cattle that isn't on paper legally. The courts have almost always upheld the ranchers position that "historical rights" trump BLM's new policies.

I have seen the same thing here in LC where a ranch family i know has been grazing their cattle there for 100 years with no paper work and the county honors it as long as he continues grazing the animals.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 5:11 PM
...Its absolutely refreshing to see and old cowboy stick up for what is right in this country.

I also think that more people relate to this than court. Court sucks and court is for criminals. Not literally but i think you understand my sentiments.Of course I understand your sentiments. Bundy has become a romantic figure. The old cowboy fights the bureaucrats in his way on his turf.

But the sad fact is that this will not end well for the Bundys. As Bill Weiss pointed out:...nobody "won" anything today. The Fed LEs have walked away (at least a bit) not because they lost, but to stop a dangerous overheated situation, somewhat akin to more rational police agencies protecting bystanders by not doing high speed chases for mere stolen cars... there's a better way to get them down the road.

Bundy supporters had the wrong battle, wrong 'horse' , wrong time, wrong severity level. A bunch of nonanalytical emotional goons have followed him - he's spun a sympathetic 'Woe is me' tale that doesn't reflect the real legal situation....

p0ppyman
04-13-2014, 5:11 PM
issues with tortoises.

Funny thing per the study at the link below, seems cattle dung provides a protein source for the tortoise! More cattle, healthier tortoises and larger numbers.

“If tortoise biologists are correct, then areas from which livestock have been excluded for a long time should have thriving tortoise populations. On the other hand, the science of range ecology predicts that excluding cattle will reduce the tortoise population and they will become rare.”

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:12 PM
Regardless of deep info, there has to be some grant of rights and documentation thereof on land not yours.

I'm confident Bundy doesn't have it. And if he did, a lawyer would've solved this for him in 1993.

His assertion that he was gonna shift his payments from BLM to state of NV indicates a certain degree of insanity.

[My only interaction with BLM is to stop BLM cops from taking guns based on their idiotic understandings of CA law.]

Bill, you gotta trust me on this one. Its not gun rights here. Its cattle and feeding rights. Its real weird stuff. A handshake actually still matters in this business.

BLM has been trying to push out cattle for years now. Its not going very well for them either. Strange old laws. Whole different world.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:14 PM
Of course I understand your sentiments. Bundy has become a romantic figure. The old cowboy fights the bureaucrats in his way on his turf.

But the sad fact is that this will not end well for the Bundys. As Bill Weiss pointed out:


I think at the end of this your might be surprised. This is actually one of the first incidents that has gotten this much attention.

There have been others but the ranchers have actually won in court due to historical precedence.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 5:16 PM
...This is actually one of the first incidents that has gotten this much attention.

There have been others but the ranchers have actually won in court due to historical precedence.But it appears that here Bundy has already lost before two federal judges.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:19 PM
But it appears that here Bundy has already lost before two federal judges.

That is a little ground breaking IMHO that doesn't happen often in this type of situation.


Pretty scary if you ask me. Historical cattle use dates back centuries and it looks like the feds are taking a different turn.

It will be interesting to watch this play out further.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 5:22 PM
Funny thing per the study at the link below, seems cattle dung provides a protein source for the tortoise! More cattle, healthier tortoises and larger numbers.

“If tortoise biologists are correct, then areas from which livestock have been excluded for a long time should have thriving tortoise populations. On the other hand, the science of range ecology predicts that excluding cattle will reduce the tortoise population and they will become rare.”

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049

Are there any newer studies than 1990? In 1980 they were saying the same thing about cattle grazing HELPING bighorn sheep at Hart Mtn in Oregon. Not so in the study you linked.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 5:32 PM
That is a little ground breaking IMHO that doesn't happen often in this type of situation.


Pretty scary if you ask me. Historical cattle use dates back centuries and it looks like the feds are taking a different turn.

It will be interesting to watch this play out further.It also might suggest that there are wrinkles here that we're not aware of -- perhaps some undisclosed historical details.

Dragunov
04-13-2014, 5:33 PM
As a taxpayer, I am decidedly NOT harmed or affected at all by allowing this man's cattle to graze out in the desert.

I decidedly AM harmed by federal law enforcement wasting MY money on harassing this guy while there are actual criminals on the loose.I concur.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:36 PM
It also might suggest that there are wrinkles here that we're not aware of -- perhaps some undisclosed historical details.

You got It! BLM was once the dept of grazing. Federal land was always there historically for cattlemen to graze their cattle. Right up to the point where they stopped using that land and someone else moved in or the land was sold or homesteaded by another.

Its really weird stuff the way it works. Again, its kinda where handshakes are still important historically.

taperxz
04-13-2014, 5:39 PM
I think they want him out of here to put up solar panels. BLM will still lease the land per acre but it won't be for cattle it will be for energy.

Cattleman are a dying breed. Soon are beef will be raised like KFC chickens.

FLIGHT762
04-13-2014, 5:53 PM
I watched the lengthy video taken by the protestors.

I saw a protestor kick a dog.
I saw a lady, who claims to be pregnant, move towards an officer and his dog (after being told to back up) and the dog lunged at her.
I saw several people tasered after they were told to back up and they instead moved toward the officers.
I saw protestors pounding on cars.

The protestors own videos show that they were responsible for much of what happened at the protest.

I saw the same video and came to the same conclusions. Go back to the video. Around 38 seconds, in the background you'll see a guy on an ATV driving on the right shoulder of the highway, in the wrong direction, driving toward the large truck exiting the property.

The crowd blocks it a bit for a couple of seconds, but you'll see a dust cloud and it looks like he intentionally ran the ATV into the right front tire of the truck and that's what sends a bunch of agents to him and tazing him. I haven't heard anyone talk about this. The ATV driver instigated it.

I did see the agent throw the 57 Y/O woman to the ground. That was unnecessary and was excessive. He could have pulled her back a bit, but he was too rough on her.

There were issues on both sides, but it is not one sided.

p0ppyman
04-13-2014, 5:56 PM
I think they want him out of here to put up solar panels.

I heard they wanted to put the solar panels up some distance away (Laughlin, Nevada) but needed the Gold Butte area to create what they call an “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development," area.

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 5:59 PM
Jimi Jah: Self-employed people don't get tax returns. They PAY taxes. Tax returns are for wage slaves and welfare recipients.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Tincon
04-13-2014, 5:59 PM
f
This is far more complicated than what you state and hang your hat on a court ruling or two.

Then would you have it so that any law which a posse of men with guns thought was unfair is struck down by force?

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, [Manolito], the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast and if you cut them down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Be careful what you wish for.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 6:10 PM
Sounds a lot like the Montana Freemen.

High Country News

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/in-nevada-delicate-20-year-standoff-with-blm-ends-in-a-tense-roundup

"“When I decided that I was paying grazing fees for somebody to manage me out of business, I said, ‘Hell no,’ ” Bundy says in a video of a presentation he gave in February. “And what did I tell them? I no longer need your service as a manager over my ranch, and I’m not going to pay you for that no more.”

“As far as I’m concerned,” he adds, “the BLM don’t exist.” The federal government might as well not, either."

"It was Bundy’s own promise to “be more physical” with the BLM during the impoundment operation, after all, that led the agency to set up strict public protest areas and press policies in the first place. “This is incendiary stuff,” former Nevada Gov. Richard Bryan said on a Nevada news show Thursday, expressing fear of more violence on the way. “Some of these folks are frankly half a bubble off...People really believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction over anything.”

Tincon
04-13-2014, 6:11 PM
Fiddletown and Unknown Shooter: While I have nothing but respect for the cops in the Oathkeepers, you two are obviously Auschwitz door-guard types that are INCAPABLE of educating yourselves (Get 'em, Manolito!), instead swallowing whatever your captain feeds you. The 2nd Amendment was written because there will ALWAYS be people like you that freedom-loving people will have to remain eternally vigilant AGAINST! We're watching you. Always.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

If you had any sense you would realize that the laws protect people from the "Auschwitz door-guard types." Take a look at history and see which forces prevail during periods of lawlessness. It isn't you internet white knight types, who stay at home and protect your and yours, if you can even swing that.

The only way the innocent are protected is by someone going out and enforcing order, by creating the law. It is by the work rough men who stand ready in the night against the tide of disorder and violence. You think these clowns kicking dogs and screaming about a new world order out in the desert are that? Or the people ranting on the internet about some cattle rancher who didn't pay his fees? Get real. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

There may come a time when force is needed, when the law becomes an enabler of criminals rather than a protector of the innocent. But I pray to God when that day comes we have men with more character than you to stand up and do what needs to be done.

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 6:25 PM
Flight762: What you saw in that video was TAINTED and skewed by your law enforcement background that assures you that some jackass in a uniform ALWAYS has authority over any mere civilian. What those simple people saw out there was some *****holes that had NO BUSINESS being there tinkering with their livelihoods and their very inalienable RIGHTS. Those BLM jackboots needed to just GET BACK and NOW. Someone should have shot that guy with the dog IN THE FACE. Just like the BLM guy trying to tell the cowboys in that other video to "Listen... blah, blah, blah." The heroic cowboy just smiled at him and said, "No YOU listen. Go HOME!" BLM 'authority' and that stupid uniform, as well as the vests, AR15's, and sniper rifles, meant NOTHING to a pissed off bunch of AMERICANS!

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

YubaRiver
04-13-2014, 6:31 PM
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/950/5878/original.jpg

PVTJoker is that you?

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 6:46 PM
Ok, Tincon... say whatever puffs up the medals on your uniform. What you fail to realize because of your inflated self-worth is that there are people in this world that have NO NEED OF YOU and your 10,000 pages of laws. There is ONE PAGE of laws, the very first one (that you cops wiped your *****es with a long time ago) and that is ALL THEY NEED.
Those that are only protected by someone enforcing order are called SHEEP. Funny thing about sheep; they always end up with a shepherd. Let me guess... it's YOU, right? We Americans went about things differently. WE CREATED THE LAW, then we hired rough men to stand ready in the night. I was one of them. What we hired was more like a hungry dog, tied up in the backyard where, as long as you didn't enter the yard, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO EVER WORRY ABOUT GETTING BITTEN! That's what we created. It was converted, perverted, subverted, INVERTED, and now we have to listen to control-types like YOU telling us to go back to the sheep pen and shut up. Well, it's time for a change, copper. And NOTHING can get in the way of an idea whose time has come. Keep your powder dry. Mine is.
You should change your avatar. You would have been a Tory if you were around back then and the 13 colonies would have chased you into the sea.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 6:59 PM
Yuba: Hah! That guy is an American. A true Patriot. There should be a parade in his honor. And the fact that he had the restraint to keep his calm, unlike many cops nowadays, speaks volumes about his character. One thing is for sure: He HAD to know that if he pulled the trigger first, all those cowboys/etc. below would have died.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

jcwatchdog
04-13-2014, 6:59 PM
This is more about the Bundy's theft from us (the public at large) of grazing rights.

BLM leases land use to ranchers for cattle grazing for a nominal fee. That land (BLM lands) belong to all of us, and are for public use! Plus BLM has the right to revoke grazing rights for violations or non-payment.

Bundy has not paid the required grazing fees and has lost in court multiple times trying to fight it.

As pointed out in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/):

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993 and now owes the United States (that's all of us) more than $1 Million in unpaid grazing fees.


I's still trying to figure out how the government came to the conclusion that this rancher owes money to the government for allowing his cattle to graze on random weeds that grow in a vast section of land. Did the government plant the weeds? And if they collect the money, what will they do with the money? You say he stole from "us", but I doubt any of us will see any of that money ever, or that the grazing money would even be used for that land. Really, what would they use 1 million dollars for on that land? Plant more weeds? The money would go into the black hole that is the federal government. I'd rather this guy keep the money and at least put it towards the economy by having a business that he pays taxes on, (possibly even provides jobs) instead of giving it to the feds. If the feds want more money have their king Obama print them up some more.

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 7:05 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Asg3wUP-m5E/U0oRW7lnKsI/AAAAAAAA8E0/jzh-gB0pufo/s1600/1959497_10151917378615876_1655608561854301998_n.jp g

Tincon
04-13-2014, 7:08 PM
Ok, Tincon... say whatever puffs up the medals on your uniform.

At least I served. What were you doing, making love to yourself off in your bunker while watching Red Dawn over and over? Or did you serve yourself and you are just being a hypocrite? You were probably one of those guys that cracked during basic and cried to go home.

What you fail to realize because of your inflated self-worth is that there are people in this world that have NO NEED OF YOU and your 10,000 pages of laws.

Yeah, actually they do. Because without "my" laws there is no order other than the barrel of a gun. Once again, if you knew anything about history that you didn't learn from Red Dawn, WND, or whatever nut job pod cast you listen to, you would know that such an environment is not conducive to liberty. All that thrives in chaos is evil.

There is ONE PAGE of laws, the very first one (that you cops wiped your *****es with a long time ago) and that is ALL THEY NEED.

Funny, I'm not exactly a cop, certainly not anymore. But it's even funnier that you talk about not needing laws, but then talk about "one page of laws" that you do need. That page (I assume you mean the bill of rights) means nothing without the system to enforce them. Yet another thing you would understand if you knew anything at all about history.


Those that are only protected by someone enforcing order are called SHEEP. Funny thing about sheep; they always end up with a shepherd.

So all children are sheep? The elderly are sheep? People who leave their homes to go to work are sheep? Yeah, I guess so. But you in your bunker are safe from being a sheep eh?


We Americans went about things differently. WE CREATED THE LAW, then we hired rough men to stand ready in the night.

That's exactly right. Now you are here telling us we should tear down that system, built with the blood and tears of Americans far more courageous and wise than you, over what, some guy getting told he can't run his private for profit cattle operation on public land without paying his fees? :facepalm:

Tincon
04-13-2014, 7:11 PM
I's still trying to figure out how the government came to the conclusion that this rancher owes money to the government for allowing his cattle to graze on random weeds that grow in a vast section of land. Did the government plant the weeds? And if they collect the money, what will they do with the money? You say he stole from "us", but I doubt any of us will see any of that money ever, or that the grazing money would even be used for that land. Really, what would they use 1 million dollars for on that land? Plant more weeds? The money would go into the black hole that is the federal government. I'd rather this guy keep the money and at least put it towards the economy by having a business that he pays taxes on, (possibly even provides jobs) instead of giving it to the feds. If the feds want more money have their king Obama print them up some more.

It's not about the law being fair. I pay $5k a year in property taxes for my home, and trust me, the gov is not doing anything worth a small fraction of that for me. But I don't get to pick up a rifle and threaten the tax man because I don't like the law.

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 7:21 PM
I's still trying to figure out how the government came to the conclusion that this rancher owes money to the government for allowing his cattle to graze on random weeds that grow in a vast section of land. Did the government plant the weeds? And if they collect the money, what will they do with the money? You say he stole from "us", but I doubt any of us will see any of that money ever, or that the grazing money would even be used for that land. Really, what would they use 1 million dollars for on that land? Plant more weeds? The money would go into the black hole that is the federal government. I'd rather this guy keep the money and at least put it towards the economy by having a business that he pays taxes on, (possibly even provides jobs) instead of giving it to the feds. If the feds want more money have their king Obama print them up some more.

YES... indeed. The issue here is that our Constitution was PURPOSELY written so that a simple man, with a simple education, can understand, and, therefore, ABIDE by it. Enter Cliven Bundy. A simple man, for sure. Plain spoken. And what he is saying is that the ONLY way he is wrong is if you start waving 10,000 pages of LAWS and CODE in his face. He has no use for it, yet he is as American as any of us and this country is his BIRTHRIGHT, and anyone who comes to take his cattle by waving legal papers in his face is in for a fight. It worked on the other 50 ranchers that USED to live and farm there, but not him! You people that built this golden calf you call THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and want to force everyone here to worship it can bend over and stick it! Do that crap in the cities, but leave us ALONE! There has to be a place where Americans can go when they don't want to play your games. We will pay our taxes, for the things WE DECIDE we owe you for (National defense, Border control, highways, and that's about it!) and then GET BACK! Or else!

SWalt
04-13-2014, 7:25 PM
Sounds a lot like the Montana Freemen.

High Country News

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/in-nevada-delicate-20-year-standoff-with-blm-ends-in-a-tense-roundup

"“When I decided that I was paying grazing fees for somebody to manage me out of business, I said, ‘Hell no,’ ” Bundy says in a video of a presentation he gave in February. “And what did I tell them? I no longer need your service as a manager over my ranch, and I’m not going to pay you for that no more.”

“As far as I’m concerned,” he adds, “the BLM don’t exist.” The federal government might as well not, either."

"It was Bundy’s own promise to “be more physical” with the BLM during the impoundment operation, after all, that led the agency to set up strict public protest areas and press policies in the first place. “This is incendiary stuff,” former Nevada Gov. Richard Bryan said on a Nevada news show Thursday, expressing fear of more violence on the way. “Some of these folks are frankly half a bubble off...People really believe that the federal government has no jurisdiction over anything.”

So let me put the bold in terms in terms even a 2A advocate can understand.

"DOJ is taking my DROS fees and doing what?"

PVTJOKER
04-13-2014, 7:33 PM
At least I serve <bunch of crapulous, bloviating, egotistical, tripe snipped for brevity>

You know NOTHING. About me. About History. About America. Were you picked on in school? You were, weren't you! And that's why you became a cop, eh? So you could punk everyone else like everyone punked you! Aaaaahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhaaaaaaaa..... <breath> hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhhhh.... Just remember, for every one like you, there are A THOUSAND like this guy:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Asg3wUP-m5E/U0oRW7lnKsI/AAAAAAAA8E0/jzh-gB0pufo/s1600/1959497_10151917378615876_1655608561854301998_n.jp g
:eek:

jcwatchdog
04-13-2014, 7:36 PM
It's not about the law being fair. I pay $5k a year in property taxes for my home, and trust me, the gov is not doing anything worth a small fraction of that for me. But I don't get to pick up a rifle and threaten the tax man because I don't like the law.


At least for that they can make a case that they actually DO something with the money for yearly property taxes. Bridges, streets, and the general infrastructure as well as providing services like police, firemen, emts, etc. But out in a vast open area like that, I don't see their reasoning for even having a "grazing fee". Other than to steal more money to use however they see fit. I'd really like to know who controls that money and where it gets spent.

Kestryll
04-13-2014, 7:40 PM
Since pvtjoker couldn't post like an adult he's on a time out, don't expect a reply from him for some time.

Tincon
04-13-2014, 7:41 PM
At least for that they can make a case that they actually DO something with the money for yearly property taxes. Bridges, streets, and the general infrastructure as well as providing services like police, firemen, emts, etc. But out in a vast open area like that, I don't see their reasoning for even having a "grazing fee". Other than to steal more money to use however they see fit. I'd really like to know who controls that money and where it gets spent.

So would I, and I'm opposed to both the collection of the fee and the restriction on BLM land use for grazing. I don't agree with DROS fees either. But because I don't agree with a government program doesn't mean it's time to declare "the second American revolution" and go running around the desert posing for the camera with my rifle.

jcwatchdog
04-13-2014, 8:13 PM
So would I, and I'm opposed to both the collection of the fee and the restriction on BLM land use for grazing. I don't agree with DROS fees either. But because I don't agree with a government program doesn't mean it's time to declare "the second American revolution" and go running around the desert posing for the camera with my rifle.


It's somewhat sad, but apparently the only way this guy had to fight was to do what he did. The courts of course were siding with the government and did not provide relief, they just affirmed the fees the government would be allowed to collect.

I guess it all depends on perspective. I can see a correlation with these incidents and the incidents involving the British that started this whole United States thing to begin with :) I'm sure there were plenty of people back then that believed in not rocking the boat, not taking up arms, trying to work within whatever framework of the law they had, that things would be OK if they just worked within the system. And then there were those that decided that the law was slanted too much against them, and they would never be treated fairly or justly.

Grazing land is not a big deal on it's own, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast & Furious, fees/taxes for whatever tickles a politician's fancy...Things add up. How many things will add up before something bad really does happen? I don't look forward to the day and hope it never comes, and I doubt most people that boast about it on here actually want a civil war. But this incident came close, and the government knew it. If just ONE person on either side fired, things would not have gone well.

That said, I think this overall strengthens gun rights, not hurts or diminishes them. How many times have we heard that we should have more gun control because we couldn't hope to fight the federal government that have drones and nuclear weapons, and that it's silly to think that a bunch of regular armed citizens could stand up to the government? These people did, and it reaffirmed the 2nd amendment's purpose. It does have validity even today. It keeps some form of rudimentary check on government. Even if that check is just to back the government into a corner and not want a confrontation that will give them a black eye in the press. That's was enough. The bigger picture is what I see, and I think most people that see this don't see it in a negative light. Of course some see "gun nuts". But those people would see that regardless. Someone posted this on calguns before, it's a good video that makes you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zioJtO1KTNM



.

fiddletown
04-13-2014, 8:29 PM
It's somewhat sad, but apparently the only way this guy had to fight was to do what he did. The courts of course were siding with the government and did not provide relief, they just affirmed the fees the government would be allowed to collect....Courts do not always side with the government. In a number of recent cases of great significance to us the courts did not side with the government: Heller; McDonald; Moore; Peruta; Richards; Baker; etc.

Don@Tahoe
04-13-2014, 10:13 PM
Interesting article....

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/04/reid-smelling-anything-but-rosy-in-ranch-fight/#3rl6kWRJY4Fdi3Di.99

STAGE 2
04-13-2014, 10:39 PM
But at the end of the day, we are a nation of laws, and disputes are resolved in court.

Sorry Frank, but this simply isn't true. When you have a president unilaterally deciding to modify a law enacted by congress, or an attorney general (state or federal take your pick) who only enforces those laws which they agree with, or federal agencies using political affiliation as a barometer for enforcement actions or regulatory approval, then you don't have a nation of laws.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Bundy's actions, but the idea that the rule of law is the same unwavering standard it once was, or even exists anymore for that matter, flies in face of reality.

SVTPete83
04-13-2014, 10:57 PM
Sorry Frank, but this simply isn't true. When you have a president unilaterally deciding to modify a law enacted by congress, or an attorney general (state or federal take your pick) who only enforces those laws which they agree with, or federal agencies using political affiliation as a barometer for enforcement actions or regulatory approval, then you don't have a nation of laws.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Bundy's actions, but the idea that the rule of law is the same unwavering standard it once was, or even exists anymore for that matter, flies in face of reality.

Well said.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Ninety
04-13-2014, 11:44 PM
In other words the Bundys and the rest of us should all give that land back to the Native Americans and go home to wherever our ancestors were from.
I don't know where you came from bud. But I find your take on this matter rather disturbing. You act as if it is so cut and dry. You lay out the way the founding fathers designed the checks and balances in this country but that doesn't include the BLM.

Have you looked into the HAGE story? The one that started this whole debacle back in 91? Like the lady from San Jose said.. they tried to buy him out , then fine him out, then an imaginary line was drawn.. they tresspassed his cattle , stole them and sold them... then charged him the difference in cost.. He had to fold up his operation.. Years later the two people running the BLM and Forestry service got busted for conspiracy.

Bundy took a stand against the Federal governments over reach, unethical and unconstitutional practices.

It was / is a land grab all over the country to take PUBLIC lands from the people. What does the Federal government care about Bundy's cattle grazing on what would otherwise be a desert if Bundy and his family hadn't improved upon it for over a hundred years.
http://cofarmbureaublog.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/leaked-memo-uncovers-administration-land-grab/

Why are you even here?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds

In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case, U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media.

“the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”


Truly disturbing.

rivraton
04-14-2014, 12:13 AM
As a taxpayer, I am decidedly NOT harmed or affected at all by allowing this man's cattle to graze out in the desert.

I decidedly AM harmed by federal law enforcement wasting MY money on harassing this guy while there are actual criminals on the loose.

:iagree:

Mr. P
04-14-2014, 12:34 AM
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to make their case in court, and they lost.

Gutless drivel! Hide behind the excuse of a "court decision", because standing against what's so obviously perverse and unjust takes courage and resolve, which requires action to effect change rather than cowering behind a computer screen, waiting for Master's approval. If the founding fathers had been so lacking in character, we would still be answering to the Crown.

Bassin&blastin
04-14-2014, 1:07 AM
This video put it in lamens terms for those ignorant enough to side with the Feds vs. We the people
http://youtu.be/GQb0qJLhea8

Bassin&blastin
04-14-2014, 1:12 AM
This is the implementation of AGENDA 21 ! The anexation of our country ! I would compare anyone who takes the fed side on this to the traitor loyalists during the 1st but by the looks of things definitely not the last American Revolution . .

fiddletown
04-14-2014, 7:41 AM
...the idea that the rule of law is the same unwavering standard it once was, or even exists anymore for that matter, flies in face of reality.The rule of law has always been a struggle -- from the earliest days of our Republic. There has always been claims of abuse. But civilization is founded on a commitment to the rule of law.

Gutless drivel! Hide behind the excuse of a "court decision", ...I guess it's more fun for a bunch of yahoos to find an excuse to grab a gun, thump their hairy chests and pretend to be heroes.

This is the implementation of AGENDA 21 ! The anexation of our country !...Ah yes, the usual, ignorant conspiracy theory drivel.

desert dog
04-14-2014, 8:24 AM
That land (BLM lands) belong to all of us, and are for public use! Plus BLM has the right to revoke grazing rights for violations or non-payment.

Don't be so naïve; As of now, the public is welcome to go on that Nevada land and shoot, camp, 4x4, ride, hunt, or hike. Once the BLM develops that land for its own purposes, the land that "belongs to all of us" will be closed off. Don't believe me? Well I have already seen it happen in the BLM land around Mojave and Jawbone that I used to 4x4, ride, and shoot on since childhood. Now, I get ran off by armed BLM employees because of the wind and solar farms that operate on government subsidies. All the roads are slowly being closed to public access. So much for land that "belongs to all of us".

The BLM and the lands they manage are being utilized as a tool to return political favors. Right or wrong in his frustration at the government, Bundy exposed this for the nation to see.

The Bundy family BOUGHT the grazing and water rights to that land from the TAXPAYERS many years ago. When the BLM formed, they decided to make all past contracts null and void. We have let the federal government acquire the right to do this, a right that you will never be granted and could just as easily be used against you.

fiddletown
04-14-2014, 8:40 AM
...As of now, the public is welcome to go on that Nevada land and shoot, camp, 4x4, ride, hunt, or hike. Once the BLM develops that land for its own purposes, the land that "belongs to all of us" will be closed off. Don't believe me? Well I have already seen it happen in the BLM land around Mojave and Jawbone that I used to 4x4, ride, and shoot on since childhood. Now, I get ran off by armed BLM employees because of the wind and solar farms that operate on government subsidies. ...First, BLM management of public lands is properly a subject to be addressed in the political arena and in the courts. That is the process we have.

As to BLM restricting public access and use, how much of that has been the fault of the users? How many threads have we seen on this board about shooters trashing public lands open to target practice?

BLM manages public lands to benefit the public. In a given instance, public benefit might not be your personal benefit.

Ninety
04-14-2014, 8:49 AM
First, BLM management of public lands is properly a subject to be addressed in the political arena and in the courts. That is the process we have.

As to BLM restricting public access and use, how much of that has been the fault of the users? How many threads have we seen on this board about shooters trashing public lands open to target practice?

BLM manages public lands to benefit the public. In a given instance, public benefit might not be your personal benefit.

How does one manage for public benefit by closing the land to the public.
Closing places down for gov programs has nothing to do with litter. The people do far more to keep the environment, deserts clean then the blm does. Isn't that what they get paid to do?



Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

Ocguy31
04-14-2014, 9:05 AM
Am I really reading the grabber tactic of making this a cattle-grazing issue, right here on Calguns?

This issue did not explode until the country witnessed the ludicrous armed federal response, and subsequent tazing/abuse of protestors. Sprinkle in illegal "First Amendment Zones" being chastised by the highest elected NV officials in office, and you can figure out why people put their lives and freedom on the line.

This incident was as much about crab-grass and tortoises as Concord and Lexington were about wasted tea.

taperxz
04-14-2014, 9:06 AM
First, BLM management of public lands is properly a subject to be addressed in the political arena and in the courts. That is the process we have.

As to BLM restricting public access and use, how much of that has been the fault of the users? How many threads have we seen on this board about shooters trashing public lands open to target practice?

BLM manages public lands to benefit the public. In a given instance, public benefit might not be your personal benefit.

Very little happens that is detrimental to BLM land. BLM administered lands is basically waste land. These lands have been determined to be of very little to no value to the government. (basically nobody wanted it) Thats why it falls into the BLM as opposed to the National Forest system.

In Bundys case it should also be relevant that 90% of the state of Nevada is BLM administered.

When cattlemen were given grazing rights it was because that is literally all that land was good for. For the most part thats all it is good for until now when the government has found new things to use it for. That should not negate the past agreements that still exist with the rancher or his family historically.

Now with that being said, "historically" has two sides to it. Its someone were to access private land to gain access to BLM historically and unfettered, that private land can't be shut down. (handshake applied)

Or of course the opposite in the Bundys case. The courts got it wrong on the historical part of this case in regards to land use.

taperxz
04-14-2014, 9:09 AM
How does one manage for public benefit by closing the land to the public.
Closing places down for gov programs has nothing to do with litter. The people do far more to keep the environment, deserts clean then the blm does. Isn't that what they get paid to do?



Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

BLM doesn't do squat. Literally and i know how they operate first hand.

desert dog
04-14-2014, 9:13 AM
As to BLM restricting public access and use, how much of that has been the fault of the users? How many threads have we seen on this board about shooters trashing public lands open to target practice?

Once again, stop being so naïve. NONE OF IT was closed because of public misuse. It was closed to protect the "security" of the contractor's assets (their stated reason). There are now guard shacks and checkpoints you have to go through to enter these areas. Armed BLM employees patrol the area to keep you away. The Fed gave the land to, and subsidized the operation of alternative energy companies to return political favors and reap the benefits of their personal investments. The Fed is no longer "managing" these lands, they are now managing the financial livelihood of those who pay them.

Jimi Jah
04-14-2014, 9:32 AM
Jimi Jah: Self-employed people don't get tax returns. They PAY taxes. Tax returns are for wage slaves and welfare recipients.


I am self employed for over 40 years. I pay 4 quarterly pre-payments. If those payments are over the taxable amount, you get a refund. Many do as they don't want to be short at tax time.

thmpr
04-14-2014, 9:41 AM
This makes sense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAwALTdrMZ8

banker1
04-14-2014, 9:56 AM
It's interesting that the courts were supposed to provide some relief was brought up...Bundy had none coming...why, because the Judge in the recent injunction matter was a long time friend and same college alumnus as Sen. Harry Reid

Injunction order:

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

Harry Reid honoring same Judge

http://www.openworld.gov/press-releases/senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-welcomed-open-world-host-judge-lloyd-george-capit-0


This was about nothing more than this 5 billion dollar solar plant that has been slotted for the area....Harry Reids former Chief of Staff now heads the BLM...

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/09/nevadan-named-blm-chief/

Solar Plant:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831


If you look at the maps in this thing, you'll see that his ranch sits right in the middle of it....

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf


So that leads one to believe that the fix was in on this guy, and the reason the Feds backed off is not because they wanted to find a less hostile solution. It was because elections are coming up and Harry Reid is a Democrat and they didn't want the skirmish to affect the elections IMO...


I also find it hard to believe that even though I'm not a Lawyer, and don't know all the in and outs of easements, leases and eminent domain, that a few self proclaimed Lawyers on this board feel the man has no rights because he doesn't have something written on a piece of paper, when in the State of California, much to the chagrin of many...the biggest water right claim is held by descendants of a guy who hammered a plaque to a tree in the 1800's

This is just another squeeze by Politicians who have sold out to big corps and foreign interests...it's happening there, here in California and in South Dakota with a few Indian Tribes on behalf of oil companies...

When people defend the government in matters like this, it just shows how much backbone the American people as a whole has lost....hopefully the Cowboy prevails and doesn't get ram-rodded....like so many others have....

It also shows why the 2nd Amendment is very important and should be fought for, and the nonsense in California in regards to restricting firearms needs to end






And just for giggles, this is about as spot on as you can get:

tAwALTdrMZ8&sns

STAGE 2
04-14-2014, 10:06 AM
The rule of law has always been a struggle -- from the earliest days of our Republic. There has always been claims of abuse. But civilization is founded on a commitment to the rule of law.

Even if you attempt to move the goal posts your standard fails. The examples I cited above illustrate not just a lack of commitment to the rule if law but an open affront to it.

seo
04-14-2014, 10:16 AM
Flight762: What you saw in that video was TAINTED and skewed by your law enforcement background that assures you that some jackass in a uniform ALWAYS has authority over any mere civilian. What those simple people saw out there was some *****holes that had NO BUSINESS being there tinkering with their livelihoods and their very inalienable RIGHTS. Those BLM jackboots needed to just GET BACK and NOW. Someone should have shot that guy with the dog IN THE FACE. Just like the BLM guy trying to tell the cowboys in that other video to "Listen... blah, blah, blah." The heroic cowboy just smiled at him and said, "No YOU listen. Go HOME!" BLM 'authority' and that stupid uniform, as well as the vests, AR15's, and sniper rifles, meant NOTHING to a pissed off bunch of AMERICANS!

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

I saw the unedited video posted by the protestors. It was not tained or skewed by LE.

seo
04-14-2014, 10:20 AM
Am I really reading the grabber tactic of making this a cattle-grazing issue, right here on Calguns?

This issue did not explode until the country witnessed the ludicrous armed federal response, and subsequent tazing/abuse of protestors. Sprinkle in illegal "First Amendment Zones" being chastised by the highest elected NV officials in office, and you can figure out why people put their lives and freedom on the line.

This incident was as much about crab-grass and tortoises as Concord and Lexington were about wasted tea.

I watched the protesters own unedited video.

I saw a protester run an ATV into another vehicle.
I saw a protester kick a police dog (a felony isn't it?)
I saw many tasered who moved towards officers after being told to back up.

I did see some questionable things my law enforcement as well, but much of this was brought on by the protesters and their own actions.

morfeeis
04-14-2014, 10:33 AM
This video put it in lamens terms for those ignorant enough to side with the Feds vs. We the people
http://youtu.be/GQb0qJLhea8
Thank you, i've been following this story for a while but having a video to share with those who are new to the subject is a great tool.

Ocguy31
04-14-2014, 10:34 AM
The rule of law has always been a struggle -- from the earliest days of our Republic. There has always been claims of abuse. But civilization is founded on a commitment to the rule of law.


Civilization is littered with the abuse of power by those who create/enforce/interpret the "rule of law."

Hiding behind "Oh, but a judge ordered the cattle rounded up" to explain the 82 vehicles full of agents (actual count), the slaughter of private property (cattle), the repression of the 1st and 2nd amendments to the BoR, and threatening to shoot into a crowd of civilians, just does not hold water.

Tincon
04-14-2014, 10:37 AM
It's interesting that the courts were supposed to provide some relief was brought up...Bundy had none coming...why, because the Judge in the recent injunction matter was a long time friend and same college alumnus as Sen. Harry Reid

The ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit, but I suppose it's all a conspiracy.

banker1
04-14-2014, 10:39 AM
The ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit, but I suppose it's all a conspiracy.


You mean the one that get's over turned and spanked on a routine basis.....also the 9th Circuit was in 1999...the court case I posted was from 2013

Ocguy31
04-14-2014, 10:43 AM
I watched the protesters own unedited video.

I saw a protester run an ATV into another vehicle.
I saw a protester kick a police dog (a felony isn't it?)
I saw many tasered who moved towards officers after being told to back up.

I did see some questionable things my law enforcement as well, but much of this was brought on by the protesters and their own actions.

I think its clear who the aggressors were. The dog was kicked at when he jumped at the rancher's son, and using a taser that high on someone's body multiple times, when there is no immediate threat to safety, should be a loss of badge.

Nothing I have seen or heard has warranted the actions of the BLM. Thankfully in the end, they realized it would be better for everyone to go home that night.

I won't even get into how it makes zero sense to bring in helicopters, expensive "contract cowboys", drones, 82+ vehicles full of enforcers, etc to recoup $1mm. Particularly when even if they auctioned off all the cattle, it wouldn't even put a dent in it. Any idea what the bill for that circus is?

Ninety
04-14-2014, 10:46 AM
I watched the protesters own unedited video.

I saw a protester run an ATV into another vehicle.
I saw a protester kick a police dog (a felony isn't it?)
I saw many tasered who moved towards officers after being told to back up.

I did see some questionable things my law enforcement as well, but much of this was brought on by the protesters and their own actions.

You should go back and watch that video again.. Or get your eyes checked..

Here you go.
nhKIddR_x8U

taperxz
04-14-2014, 10:47 AM
The ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit, but I suppose it's all a conspiracy.

That doesn't make it right. If this were gun rights you would be saying its a Ninth Circuit conspiracy. :) Then you would go on to say how the SCOTUS will slap it down.


I have some first hand knowledge of the BLM. The're as crooked as a 3 dollar bill and are routinely used by politicians to get what they want.

In the end this rancher will win based on historical usage of that land. ;)

The federal government announced Saturday it will no longer enforce a court order to remove about 900 animals from a stretch of land in rural Nevada over a decades-long dispute regarding grazing fees.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze said





The governemt knew it was wrong. PERIOD!

riddler408
04-14-2014, 10:51 AM
Clark County actually owns those grazing rights. And the fees themselves are only about 13k a year... do the math here folks... Far from over 1million. and the 13k comes from 2014 grazing fee all the way back, I am sure it wasn't so high in 1993. BLM sold the grazing rights to that land in 1994 IIRC. he has since tried to pay the county but they would not accept his money...

Do research before you post here folks.

FUD helps no one!


This is more about the Bundy's theft from us (the public at large) of grazing rights.

BLM leases land use to ranchers for cattle grazing for a nominal fee. That land (BLM lands) belong to all of us, and are for public use! Plus BLM has the right to revoke grazing rights for violations or non-payment.

Bundy has not paid the required grazing fees and has lost in court multiple times trying to fight it.

As pointed out in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/):

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees in 1993 and now owes the United States (that's all of us) more than $1 Million in unpaid grazing fees.

banker1
04-14-2014, 10:57 AM
Clark County actually owns those grazing rights. And the fees themselves are only about 13k a year... do the math here folks... Far from over 1million. and the 13k comes from 2014 grazing fee all the way back, I am sure it wasn't so high in 1993. BLM sold the grazing rights to that land in 1994 IIRC. he has since tried to pay the county but they would not accept his money...

Do research before you post here folks.

FUD helps no one!


That lines up with what Bundy said that he owed roughly 300k...

Tincon
04-14-2014, 11:05 AM
From a "real" American:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

riddler408
04-14-2014, 11:25 AM
That lines up with what Bundy said that he owed roughly 300k...

Look up BLM grazing fees. it is on the BLM website easily found

FLIGHT762
04-14-2014, 12:55 PM
You should go back and watch that video again.. Or get your eyes checked..

Here you go.
nhKIddR_x8U

Here's one of the videos from the protestors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

If you look in the background @ about 38 sec., you will see an ATV rider riding on the wrong side of the road, riding toward the dump truck as it's entering the paved road (I believe people have said this is Bundy's Son). The ATV and the dump truck collide, you see a dust cloud. Look at the position of the ATV into the right front tire area of the dump truck. It looks to me like the ATV rider may have ran into the Dump Truck it on purpose. That is what gets all of the BLM agents running over to the him and his ATV. That's what got the party started with all of the Tazering.

At about 25 seconds in, this is where the BLM agent threw the Lady to the ground. It's not seen in this video well, but I saw another video from another I phone and it showed her being thrown down.

Your Video, shows what happened after the collision between the ATV and Dump truck and doesn't show what brought everyone's attention to the front of the Dump Truck and to the guy on the ATV. I was actually surprised when I found it (the ATV/truck collision) on the video since I didn't see anyone post about it.

I don't have a dog in this fight and have done minimal posting regarding this whole thing, but I've seen issues on both sides. This isn't a one sided affair.

Ninety
04-14-2014, 1:01 PM
No doubt the atv incident started it. I wouldn't say the atv collided with the truck... I'd say the truck hit the atv.. I know what video u are talking about and can post it later. They stopped the truck to check fir dead cattle.
The man didn't attack the dog .
He didn't run into the truck, the truck ran Into him.


Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 1:37 PM
So would I, and I'm opposed to both the collection of the fee and the restriction on BLM land use for grazing. I don't agree with DROS fees either. But because I don't agree with a government program doesn't mean it's time to declare "the second American revolution" and go running around the desert posing for the camera with my rifle.

I agree with your sentiment here, but it raises a question that needs an explicit answer: when is it time to declare "the second American revolution"? Just how much disagreement with the government must you have?

If the government is, with some consistency, doing as it pleases despite the opposition of much of the population, and routinely breaking its contract (the Constitution) with the people, is that yet another mere disagreement to be ignored?

At what point do you stop being a free person and instead, as a result of repeated willful acquiescence to government decisions and actions you disagree with, become servile?

desert dog
04-14-2014, 2:22 PM
There has always been claims of abuse. But civilization is founded on a commitment to the rule of law.

I disagree, and would argue that civilizations of FREE people enjoy said freedoms as a result of their DEFIANCE of unjust laws and overreaching government. What commitment to the law will you display when almost everything is a violation of it? What to do when it becomes such a complicated web of prohibitions, that not even those that teach law understand what the law truly is? What "commitment to the law" will you have when those who make the law do so illegally and for personal gain?

The rule of law is not always just or right. A free civilization is founded on a commitment to stand for what is right and to oppose that which threatens the fabric of the free society.

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 2:31 PM
Courts do not always side with the government. In a number of recent cases of great significance to us the courts did not side with the government: Heller; McDonald; Moore; Peruta; Richards; Baker; etc.

And in a number of other recent cases of similar significance, the courts did side with the government: NRA v BATFE, McCraw, Drake, Woollard, Kachalsky, NYSRPA v Cuomo, etc.


The courts side with the government much more often than not, on the order of 75% of the time, if the U.S. Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report (http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2010/10statrpt.pdf) is to be believed.

What with all the doctrines in place in the courts to give the government maximum advantage (Presumption of Constitutionality, Constitutional Avoidance, general deference to the legislature and even to administrative agencies), such an outcome should be of no surprise to anyone.

As such, that courts do not always side with the government is of no real consequence here. They side with the government often enough to make reliance on them for a favorable outcome a laughable proposition.

The only reason we are relying on them is that we have no better options on the table. Lack of better options does not in any way imply that the option in use is a good one.


If the courts were to fail us as regards the effort to secure the right to keep and bear arms, and the jury and ballot boxes are no longer viable options, what would you counsel? Would you counsel deference to tyranny? Would you have been among those counseling restraint and deference to the King (who was, after all, the law at that point in time) at the point the American Revolution was kicked off?

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 2:32 PM
The rule of law has always been a struggle -- from the earliest days of our Republic. There has always been claims of abuse. But civilization is founded on a commitment to the rule of law.


And when those (e.g., the POTUS) tasked with enforcement of that same rule of law lack that commitment, then what?

Are you really so sure that it is rule of law that the feds are enforcing in this specific instance?

Tincon
04-14-2014, 3:25 PM
I agree with your sentiment here, but it raises a question that needs an explicit answer: when is it time to declare "the second American revolution"? Just how much disagreement with the government must you have?

If the government is, with some consistency, doing as it pleases despite the opposition of much of the population, and routinely breaking its contract (the Constitution) with the people, is that yet another mere disagreement to be ignored?

That is an interesting question. Obviously there are many factors which would influence such a decision. Jefferson provided an entire list in the Declaration of Independence, which was as a practical matter a declaration of revolutionary war (a war which had already begun).

But I think there are a few circumstances that would justify armed revolution. If the government did not hold (real) elections, executed protesters, and systematically attempted to seize all privately held weapons by force, then you have moral grounds for a revolution. This is basically what we were faced with in the 1770s.

What the chest thumpers need to bear in mind is, once we are in armed conflict with the government, there is no law. You can't just revolt over a few things you don't like. The baby goes out with the bathwater. Many, many, people will die, and the economy and pretty much everything else will grind to a halt. We will become a third world nation overnight, with countless starving refugees, lack of medical treatment, water, you name it. Think Katrina, but with bombs going off everywhere. It is an absolute last resort. To propose it over some land/fee/cattle dispute seems to me a terrible miscalculation at best, and a horrible sort of madness at worst.


At what point do you stop being a free person and instead, as a result of repeated willful acquiescence to government decisions and actions you disagree with, become servile?

Well we are servile, but that is a result of the government the People have chosen and elected. If you want to have a war over that, don't pretend it has anything to do with the law. Don't think anything will change because of one either, unless you plan of having some sort of military dictatorship if you "win."

LeavingBabylon
04-14-2014, 3:57 PM
What the chest thumpers need to bear in mind is, once we are in armed conflict with the government, there is no law. You can't just revolt over a few things you don't like. The baby goes out with the bathwater. Many, many, people will die, and the economy and pretty much everything else will grind to a halt. We will become a third world nation overnight, with countless starving refugees, lack of medical treatment, water, you name it. Think Katrina, but with bombs going off everywhere. It is an absolute last resort. To propose it over some land/fee/cattle dispute seems to me a terrible miscalculation at best, and a horrible sort of madness at worst.

This highlights the fact that people will likely not stand up against the government until the economy grinds to a halt anyway (which I believe it will in the near future). It will be very easy for the people to see the governments' actions as atrocious when many have no food to put on the table.

Tincon
04-14-2014, 4:05 PM
This highlights the fact that people will likely not stand up against the government until the economy grinds to a halt anyway (which I believe it will in the near future). It will be very easy for the people to see the governments' actions as atrocious when many have no food to put on the table.

Possibly, there is some historical support for this idea. However there also some historical support for the idea that the government can use relative poverty as a means to ensure dependence and ignorance of the majority of the population. Buying them with bread and circuses, while discouraging access to anything other than the MSM version of information. The largest expansion of government in US history (outside of wartime, which is another issue) occurred during one of the poorest periods (the great depression).

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 4:33 PM
But I think there are a few circumstances that would justify armed revolution. If the government did not hold (real) elections, executed protesters, and systematically attempted to seize all privately held weapons by force, then you have moral grounds for a revolution. This is basically what we were faced with in the 1770s.


But if we presume that any circumstances which lack all those elements represent insufficient grounds for armed revolt, then it follows that the government can do as it pleases as long as it:



maintains the illusion of real elections,
incarcerates, but does not execute, protesters,
regulates privately held arms to extinction (e.g., by levying crushingly burdensome taxes)


Would that not also be moral grounds for revolution? Which is to say, are not moral grounds for revolution those in which liberty has withered and died due to the actions of the government in such a way that the citizenry is left with no real alternative for reclaiming the liberty that has been lost?



What the chest thumpers need to bear in mind is, once we are in armed conflict with the government, there is no law. You can't just revolt over a few things you don't like. The baby goes out with the bathwater. Many, many, people will die, and the economy and pretty much everything else will grind to a halt. We will become a third world nation overnight, with countless starving refugees, lack of medical treatment, water, you name it. Think Katrina, but with bombs going off everywhere. It is an absolute last resort. To propose it over some land/fee/cattle dispute seems to me a terrible miscalculation at best, and a horrible sort of madness at worst.
This is absolutely correct. However, that does not automatically imply that the use of arms here was actually incorrect. One valid use of arms is to make the cost to government of infringing liberty high enough to force the government to negotiate.



Well we are servile, but that is a result of the government the People have chosen and elected.
The Germans chose and elected their government as well, and it became a power hungry monstrosity that took the combined efforts of nearly the entire world to bring down. Indeed, many tyrannical governments came into being at the behest of the people. A government's validity is not solely an artifact of its approval by the people. I believe a primary message of the founders of the country is that a government is valid only so long as the liberty of the citizenry remains intact. When that liberty is no longer intact due to the actions of the government, the validity of the government ceases to exist even if the people prefer servitude.

That vigilance is the price of liberty does not automatically make a government's existence valid in the absence of that vigilance.



If you want to have a war over that, don't pretend it has anything to do with the law. Don't think anything will change because of one either, unless you plan of having some sort of military dictatorship if you "win."The law is itself an expression of the degree of liberty of the citizenry. A body of laws that primarily governs the actions the government can take for the preservation of the liberty of the citizenry is an indicator that liberty is healthy. A body of laws that primarily governs the actions the citizenry can take is an indicator that liberty is in grave danger.

And what we have before us today is the latter, not the former.


As I've noted elsewhere, there are other peaceful means of resolution yet to be exercised, but the enemies of liberty are working diligently to ensure that the only viable option is that of civil war. If armed insurrection is the only viable option for reclaiming liberty left standing, are we as a people going to exercise that most dreadful of options for the chance at reclaiming liberty, or are we going to acquiesce to everlasting servitude? I know which of those two options is the historical norm, and it shapes my expectations of the future.

dirtcurt
04-14-2014, 4:35 PM
I don't know if this was covered anywhere but Cliven Bundy said his rights started when the first member of his family stopped the wagons and his livestock drank the water on the land. The fact that the government encouraged people to settle on the lands and take what they needed to accomplish that task gives his family the continued use of the land. The water is what is really was at risk here. Do you think the backhoe and dump truck was to deal with cows or was it used to dig up all of his watering systems? They did or will try to remove his water from the equation. Without the water there will be no livestock and no Bundys. Unlike the mountains where timber grew and had value, the desert is nothing without the water. I suspect nobody really tried to lay claim to the land because until oil and gas, it was worth only the water it had on it. Just go look at maps in Idaho where timber checkerboards are all over the place and corporations have actual ownership of land in checkerboard patterns. I suspect nobody really cared who actually owned the desert land until 1993. If they have torn out his water, then he had better hurry up and re-build it soon.

LeavingBabylon
04-14-2014, 4:41 PM
Possibly, there is some historical support for this idea. However there also some historical support for the idea that the government can use relative poverty as a means to ensure dependence and ignorance of the majority of the population. Buying them with bread and circuses, while discouraging access to anything other than the MSM version of information. The largest expansion of government in US history (outside of wartime, which is another issue) occurred during one of the poorest periods (the great depression).

Ha! I'd say that's the phase were in now. It's just a question of whether, as things get worse, Americans are going to be placated by the bread and circuses or take a stand for liberty. A lot of people seem to want to have their lives dictated, but more and more I am seeing signs of an America that will not be satisfied until true liberty is attained. Time will tell...

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 5:15 PM
When people on this forum talk about folks getting government freebies and refusing to pay their share, the words "war for freedom" and "patriot" aren't tossed around so readily in support of the freeloader.

I hope some will recognize the irony.

Tincon
04-14-2014, 5:16 PM
But if we presume that any circumstances which lack all those elements represent insufficient grounds for armed revolt, then it follows that the government can do as it pleases as long as it:



maintains the illusion of real elections,
incarcerates, but does not execute, protesters,
regulates privately held arms to extinction (e.g., by levying crushingly burdensome taxes)


Would that not also be moral grounds for revolution? Which is to say, are not moral grounds for revolution those in which liberty has withered and died due to the actions of the government in such a way that the citizenry is left with no real alternative for reclaiming the liberty that has been lost?


At some point, perhaps. If the elections are really only an illusion (which is a vague statement), the incarceration is long term and without due process or jury trial, and the average person is truly denied useful arms, then those issues would make the discussion a reasonable one. But none of those issues are what has people up in arms. People are ready to go to war over some guy's grazing rights.


The Germans chose and elected their government as well, and it became a power hungry monstrosity that took the combined efforts of nearly the entire world to bring down. Indeed, many tyrannical governments came into being at the behest of the people. A government's validity is not solely an artifact of its approval by the people. I believe a primary message of the founders of the country is that a government is valid only so long as the liberty of the citizenry remains intact. When that liberty is no longer intact due to the actions of the government, the validity of the government ceases to exist even if the people prefer servitude.


I agree, and I think you will observe that the Nazi government met my three criteria for a revolution: lack of (real) elections, executed protesters, and systematic seizure of all privately held weapons by force.


The law is itself an expression of the degree of liberty of the citizenry. A body of laws that primarily governs the actions the government can take for the preservation of the liberty of the citizenry is an indicator that liberty is healthy. A body of laws that primarily governs the actions the citizenry can take is an indicator that liberty is in grave danger.

The law must do both. There is danger from groups other than the federal government. There are lots of examples of this.


As I've noted elsewhere, there are other peaceful means of resolution yet to be exercised, but the enemies of liberty are working diligently to ensure that the only viable option is that of civil war. If armed insurrection is the only viable option for reclaiming liberty left standing, are we as a people going to exercise that most dreadful of options for the chance at reclaiming liberty, or are we going to acquiesce to everlasting servitude? I know which of those two options is the historical norm, and it shapes my expectations of the future.

You may be right, but this issue makes a terrible catalyst. That, if nothing else, is my point.

Warrior King
04-14-2014, 5:27 PM
Don't be so naïve; As of now, the public is welcome to go on that Nevada land and shoot, camp, 4x4, ride, hunt, or hike. Once the BLM develops that land for its own purposes, the land that "belongs to all of us" will be closed off. Don't believe me? Well I have already seen it happen in the BLM land around Mojave and Jawbone that I used to 4x4, ride, and shoot on since childhood. Now, I get ran off by armed BLM employees because of the wind and solar farms that operate on government subsidies. All the roads are slowly being closed to public access. So much for land that "belongs to all of us".

The BLM and the lands they manage are being utilized as a tool to return political favors. Right or wrong in his frustration at the government, Bundy exposed this for the nation to see.

The Bundy family BOUGHT the grazing and water rights to that land from the TAXPAYERS many years ago. When the BLM formed, they decided to make all past contracts null and void. We have let the federal government acquire the right to do this, a right that you will never be granted and could just as easily be used against you.

Agree the issue of energy companies taking blm lands needs to be a bigger issue.

I do not agree with everything the Bundy family claims but this should be handled another way. There should be some sort of settlement and transparency.

Ocguy31
04-14-2014, 5:30 PM
When people on this forum talk about folks getting government freebies and refusing to pay their share, the words "war for freedom" and "patriot" aren't tossed around so readily in support of the freeloader.

I hope some will recognize the irony.

Yes, I'm sure they are the exact same thing. An able bodied adult living solely off of government resources due to addiction or laziness, is the exact same thing as cows eating crab-grass on the same land for over 100 years.


It is a common logical fallacy of the Weak Analogy variety:

Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:

(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.

An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough."

YubaRiver
04-14-2014, 5:58 PM
cows eating crab-grass on the same land for over 100 years.

Desert doesn't grow "crab grass" and has value to many citizens besides the grazing. In fact many people would rather visit the public lands in the desert than Disney Land. The rancher pays only $1.35 per cow a month. If he can't make a living at that, he needs another line of work.

morfeeis
04-14-2014, 6:02 PM
HFiosLqjoQQ#t=65

jcwatchdog
04-14-2014, 6:05 PM
When people on this forum talk about folks getting government freebies and refusing to pay their share, the words "war for freedom" and "patriot" aren't tossed around so readily in support of the freeloader.

I hope some will recognize the irony.



There is no irony, there is a difference. This guy isn't taking anything and never asked for anything from the government. He is just grazing his cattle on land that most people wouldn't even look twice at because it's remote and mostly barren.

YubaRiver
04-14-2014, 6:08 PM
HFiosLqjoQQ#t=65

How to pronounce Nevada. It is not like Thurston Howell the Third with a vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/oXNKQW7QQFc

tankarian
04-14-2014, 6:09 PM
Day by Day's take on the Bundy vs. BLM range war:

http://cdn.bearingarms.com/uploads/2014/04/day-by-day-e1397396423572.jpg

morfeeis
04-14-2014, 6:19 PM
How to pronounce Nevada. It is not like Thurston Howell the Third with a vocal fry.
http://youtu.be/oXNKQW7QQFc
serious man, that's what you took away from the video?

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 6:22 PM
Yes, I'm sure they are the exact same thing. An able bodied adult living solely off of government resources due to addiction or laziness, is the exact same thing as cows eating crab-grass on the same land for over 100 years.


It is a common logical fallacy of the Weak Analogy variety:

So because he's a cowboy he gets a free pass on being a freeloader for 20 years and racking up 1M in back fees and is totally different from the other freeloaders, even though he's freeloading on a much greater scale. Gotcha.

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 6:30 PM
At some point, perhaps. If the elections are really only an illusion (which is a vague statement), the incarceration is long term and without due process or jury trial, and the average person is truly denied useful arms, then those issues would make the discussion a reasonable one. But none of those issues are what has people up in arms. People are ready to go to war over some guy's grazing rights.


An armed citizenry is no deterrent to tyranny unless that citizenry shows the willingness to engage in violent resistance in the event the government engages in tyranny. Why would a government treat the possibility of armed resistance as credible, and thus be deterred by it, otherwise?

While we may question the wisdom of the citizenry showing such willingness in this specific case, the plain fact of the matter is that the citizens in question believe this case to be one of government tyranny sufficient to deserve such a show of force.

Any living organism with a reasonably large brain will, if abused enough, eventually lash out at the abuser even when the specific action being responded to is not itself an abuse greater in magnitude or scope than prior abuses. Which is to say, once sufficient abuse has been endured, even a minor and innocuous action may be enough to set off a violent reaction that is well out of proportion to the specific action that is responded to. This may be such a case. While those who have engaged in this event may not themselves have suffered much abuse, they have clearly witnessed it enough to generate a similar reaction.

The government from this point forward had better tread very carefully, because organisms that believe themselves to be trapped like that tend to react unpredictably and violently. If the enemies of liberty wish to see civil war in their lifetimes, continued government abuse even when it is only perceived as such is certainly the way to achieve it.

There is a way to de-escalate the overall situation, and that is for the government to relieve the pressure by restoring liberty where it has been usurped. That is such a rare occurrence throughout history that I don't expect to see it. Rather, I expect to see this government continue in its current course. The results will not be pretty, for the very reasons you've cited.



I agree, and I think you will observe that the Nazi government met my three criteria for a revolution: lack of (real) elections, executed protesters, and systematic seizure of all privately held weapons by force.


Certainly, but my point is that tyranny has multiple forms, and the founders of the country (most especially, those who were behind the Bill of Rights) were opposed to all such forms, not merely the most obvious ones such as that of Nazi Germany.



The law must do both.


But as regards restrictions on the citizenry, only when absolutely necessary. We are quite clearly well beyond that point.



There is danger from groups other than the federal government. There are lots of examples of this.


Of course. But historically, governments are by far the greatest danger to liberty. While one should not ignore those other groups, it would not be wise to assign to them greater importance than history shows they deserve.



You may be right, but this issue makes a terrible catalyst. That, if nothing else, is my point.

Oh, you'll get no disagreement with me on that. But see above. If we fail to understand the reason that this case is a potential catalyst, then we will be surprised if/when events spiral out of control, and we will most certainly lose any ability to prevent that.

LoneYote
04-14-2014, 6:53 PM
So because he's a cowboy he gets a free pass on being a freeloader for 20 years and racking up 1M in back fees and is totally different from the other freeloaders, even though he's freeloading on a much greater scale. Gotcha.

He is running a business managing animals. Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me...

taperxz
04-14-2014, 7:05 PM
So because he's a cowboy he gets a free pass on being a freeloader for 20 years and racking up 1M in back fees and is totally different from the other freeloaders, even though he's freeloading on a much greater scale. Gotcha.

You clearly know nothing about ranching or grazing rights.

Looking forward to you paying $30 a lb for hamburger

:laugh:

SWalt
04-14-2014, 7:07 PM
Everyone in CA ought to be happy the Spanish actually gave land grants. Without those, CA might as well be NV. The Federal Government needs to give away 1/2 of those lands in 1000 acre allotments to any citizen who enters a lottery. Including water and mineral rights. Look at a BLM map of the western states. Why do they even control that much?

GSF44Mag
04-14-2014, 7:09 PM
Hey FritoBandito... You may want to read what is going on here..

For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to disposed of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.
http://americanlandscouncil.org/the-promises-are-the-same/

States are states. Feds can't just come in and make laws, steal land from state to state.
In other words: Congress can't force states to cede all public lands to federal government control as a condition of statehood to be accepted into the union.

Who does the land actually belong to? NV.? Or Obummers corrupt Gubbimint?
This may be why Bundy is making his stand. And I for one applaude him if so.

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 7:14 PM
So because he's a cowboy he gets a free pass on being a freeloader for 20 years and racking up 1M in back fees and is totally different from the other freeloaders, even though he's freeloading on a much greater scale. Gotcha.

If Bundy is a freeloader, then it follows that the government has expended resources providing him with something for which he has not paid, and without which he would be unable to survive.

That, of course, raises the question: what has the government (BLM, specifically) provided that required expenditure of resources on their part that Bundy has not paid for, without which Bundy would have been unable to remain there?

GSF44Mag
04-14-2014, 7:20 PM
Another side note comes to mind.. SO the Gubbamint spends Millions of dollars to try to run out a so-called mooching rancher over eating wild grass, and supposedly trampling Desert Tortises. But imagine the impact of those many millions of dollars being focused where the should be, on the Border! Lets spend millions to round up cattle while thousands trample across our BLM land, trashing it, garbage everywhere. But no! 600 cows are the problem. Wake up folks! This is real, and is happening right before our eyes. I cant condemn Bundy. But I can condemn our Govt, that allows Mexican Cartels to over-run our land. This is just another scheme to make people think that these "Bed wetting weenies" are actually doing their jobs. Put those ar15's to good use.. on the Mexican Border. That's where they belong.

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 7:30 PM
He is running a business managing animals. Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me...

I would buy that argument if he was only utilizing his private property, but the survival of his business depends entirely on the continued use of public lands in exchange for payment of a nominal fee. He is in effect subsidized by the government, which is OK because the goods he produces are beneficial to society.

He has refused to pay that fee for 20 years, and has openly admitted that he does indeed have the money to pay the fees, he's simply being obtuse. Are we all equal under the law or are we not? If you and I have to pay fees/taxes/etc, then he should too, right? He's no special snowflake, he's not entitled to special treatment, and he's gotten himself into this situation for refusing to pay his share for 20 years.

There's thousands of business owners out there, and they all have to pay taxes/fees/etc because that's what a law abiding business does. What makes him any different and special that he can get away with government subsidies without paying the pied piper?

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 7:32 PM
You clearly know nothing about ranching or grazing rights.

Looking forward to you paying $30 a lb for hamburger

:laugh:

Oh, so if this one guy has to pay his grazing fees, our beef will go up to $30/lb? As far as I know every other rancher out there using BLM grazing rights pays their fees, and our beef isn't at $30/lb is it now?

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 7:44 PM
Hey FritoBandito... You may want to read what is going on here..

For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to disposed of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA.
http://americanlandscouncil.org/the-promises-are-the-same/

States are states. Feds can't just come in and make laws, steal land from state to state.
In other words: Congress can't force states to cede all public lands to federal government control as a condition of statehood to be accepted into the union.

Who does the land actually belong to? NV.? Or Obummers corrupt Gubbimint?
This may be why Bundy is making his stand. And I for one applaude him if so.

I would applaud him on the grounds that a state should generally retain ownership of public lands unless it cedes those rights to the Federal government. One could argue that because the state neglected to assert it's sovereignty over those lands, they are silent accomplices in the government land grab.

Regardless of who retains ownership of the land, the Federal or State government, it is crystal clear that Bundy is not the owner. He is a beneficiary of the use of public lands for the continued success of his cattle ranching business, whether those lands are Federally owned or State owned does not give him the privilege of not paying his fees. He can pay his fees and continue fighting his case in court, if that is what he wishes to pursue, and if he was being financially burdened by the payments being made to BLM he could even argue that his business is being burdened by the BLM, but the way the situation sits now it is in fact being subsidized by them.

taperxz
04-14-2014, 7:49 PM
Oh, so if this one guy has to pay his grazing fees, our beef will go up to $30/lb? As far as I know every other rancher out there using BLM grazing rights pays their fees, and our beef isn't at $30/lb is it now?

How many ranchers do you know? I think probably not one.

Stop before you look real ignorant.

Ninety
04-14-2014, 7:52 PM
Oh, so if this one guy has to pay his grazing fees, our beef will go up to $30/lb? As far as I know every other rancher out there using BLM grazing rights pays their fees, and our beef isn't at $30/lb is it now?

I would buy that argument if he was only utilizing his private property, but the survival of his business depends entirely on the continued use of public lands in exchange for payment of a nominal fee. He is in effect subsidized by the government, which is OK because the goods he produces are beneficial to society.

He has refused to pay that fee for 20 years, and has openly admitted that he does indeed have the money to pay the fees, he's simply being obtuse. Are we all equal under the law or are we not? If you and I have to pay fees/taxes/etc, then he should too, right? He's no special snowflake, he's not entitled to special treatment, and he's gotten himself into this situation for refusing to pay his share for 20 years.

There's thousands of business owners out there, and they all have to pay taxes/fees/etc because that's what a law abiding business does. What makes him any different and special that he can get away with government subsidies without paying the pied piper?

You must of missed the part where the BLM changed the terms of his contract. I wonder if they did that to all the other "thousands" of ranchers.. oh wait.. they already drove them out.

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 7:55 PM
If Bundy is a freeloader, then it follows that the government has expended resources providing him with something for which he has not paid, and without which he would be unable to survive.

That, of course, raises the question: what has the government (BLM, specifically) provided that required expenditure of resources on their part that Bundy has not paid for, without which Bundy would have been unable to remain there?

Land and water are both valuable natural resources without which Mr. Bundy's herd would not be able to survive, nor would his business. I do not believe there are any direct expenses the government can claim, however there are lost opportunity costs for alternative uses of the land, should the government ever wish to use those lands for other purposes that are of benefit to the nearby communities or that could provide a stream of revenue to the government.

I believe there were some special interests in the water rights and the possibility of building a solar power generating station on the land he currently uses for grazing, so the government would benefit from utilizing the lands for those alternative uses. There's stories of Senator Harry Reid in particular pushing for Bundy to be pushed out in order to facilitate the use of the lands for his pet projects and in questionable manners to benefit his campaign donors.

The fact that Harry Reid is a slimeball doesn't give Bundy a pass though. If he wants to fight the law, he should pay his fees, and take the government to court while still in good standing and in compliance with the law.

Frito Bandido
04-14-2014, 8:04 PM
How many ranchers do you know? I think probably not one.

Stop before you look real ignorant.

Because personal relationships with ranchers are the only way anyone can know anything about the macroeconomics of ranching.

Less than 1% of animals killed in the US come from family farms, and 78% of cows raised exclusively for beef are factory-farmed according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

So tell me more about this mythical $30/lb of beef.

taperxz
04-14-2014, 8:10 PM
Because personal relationships with ranchers are the only way anyone can know anything about the macroeconomics of ranching.

Less than 1% of animals killed in the US come from family farms, and 78% of cows raised exclusively for beef are factory-farmed according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

So tell me more about this mythical $30/lb of beef.

More ignorance I see. Family farms are the number one resource of cattle!

The stats you quote comes from the fact that the big corps buy the range cattle from the mom and pops to finish them for market sale.

That makes your quoted government stat bogus.

kcbrown
04-14-2014, 8:13 PM
Land and water are both valuable natural resources without which Mr. Bundy's herd would not be able to survive, nor would his business.


But those resources are not costing the federal government anything to provide and, thus, not costing the people of the country anything to provide and, therefore, Bundy is not freeloading, and that makes your characterization of such patently false.



I do not believe there are any direct expenses the government can claim, however there are lost opportunity costs for alternative uses of the land, should the government ever wish to use those lands for other purposes that are of benefit to the nearby communities or that could provide a stream of revenue to the government.
You do not want to go down that road. Down that road lies the Kelo v City of New London decision. Down that road lies many kinds of tyranny, for what could be done with something is precisely the justification that is used to restrict all manner of liberty, including the myriad restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that we fight so vehemently against.

Make up your mind. Either you cherish liberty or you do not. Which is it?



The fact that Harry Reid is a slimeball doesn't give Bundy a pass though. If he wants to fight the law, he should pay his fees, and take the government to court while still in good standing and in compliance with the law.And if the BLM should change the terms of the contract, as has been alleged? "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".

jj805
04-14-2014, 8:31 PM
You must of missed the part where the BLM changed the terms of his contract. I wonder if they did that to all the other "thousands" of ranchers.. oh wait.. they already drove them out.

He also missed the part where Bundy tried to pay the state, but the state refused to take payment.

craised
04-14-2014, 8:47 PM
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.
What people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.
The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single handedly took a stand against.

Hugga Nugga
04-14-2014, 8:50 PM
BLM was prepared to spend an amount larger than what was supposedly owed by the ranch. I would be nice to see one of these government entities have the same enthusiasm in protecting the borders.

hadjin
04-14-2014, 8:51 PM
Bundy may not own the land, but he owns the water rights, not the Gov.\
I heard they also were mandating he cut his herd down by 2/3rds

taperxz
04-14-2014, 8:54 PM
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.
What people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.
The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single handedly took a stand against.


Love this and I have cattle. Could you perhaps use paragraphs and a little sentence structure?

mud99
04-14-2014, 9:40 PM
IMO, a million dollars in grazing fees over 20 years is highway robbery. Maybe it's legal but it isn't right.

What are the purpose of these fees?

As an FYI, you guys might want to read about the current BLM situation going on at Clear Creak. BLM has been building gates across county roads, pulling motorcycle riders over on those roads and then ticketing them for riding on BLM land. Closing the area due to asbestos risk, environmental report finds little risk, but then strict policies are put in place, requiring permits to "tour" the area which must be purchased in advanced and you are limited to 5 a year.

The county is fighting them but it is a slow process.

BLM is getting really aggressive and it's a serious problem.

I had a very rough run in with them a few years ago, I don't know why they act they way they do but they must be under some really strict orders. Never had such a hostile interaction with LEO. I didn't play along with their fishing expedition and they went really crazy, threatening me with all sort of charges and impounding vehicles and storming off pissed when I didn't fall for it.

YubaRiver
04-15-2014, 3:01 AM
But those resources are not costing the federal government anything to provide and, thus, not costing the people of the country anything to provide and, therefore, Bundy is not freeloading, and that makes your characterization of such patently false.


You do not want to go down that road. Down that road lies the Kelo v City of New London decision. Down that road lies many kinds of tyranny, for what could be done with something is precisely the justification that is used to restrict all manner of liberty, including the myriad restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that we fight so vehemently against.

Make up your mind. Either you cherish liberty or you do not. Which is it?


And if the BLM should change the terms of the contract, as has been alleged? "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".

He lives 100 miles from a city of 1 million people who need that water. He is indeed stealing by not paying for his use. (Assuming your are right about water being part of the deal.)

YubaRiver
04-15-2014, 3:11 AM
IMO, a million dollars in grazing fees over 20 years is highway robbery. Maybe it's legal but it isn't right.

What are the purpose of these fees?



He (should, but refused to) pay $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair

The fees go to the US Treasury and pay for Highways, Schools and Military etc.

He was fined $200 a day per cow to get the cows removed so fines brought the amount owed from $300,000 to $1 million.

YubaRiver
04-15-2014, 3:13 AM
"Last October, the federal government returned to court and obtained a new order, providing that “Bundy shall remove his livestock from the former Bunkerville Allotment within 45 days of the date hereof, and that the United States is entitled to seize and remove to impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass after 45 days of the date hereof.” A third federal court order issued the same year explains that Bundy did not simply refuse to stop trespassing on federal lands — he actually expanded the range of his trespassing. According to the third order, “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 third order also authorizes the federal government to “impound any of Bundy’s cattle that remain in trespass.”

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bundy-ranch-dispute-as-blm-exploiting-fracking-rights.3439/

UnknownShooter
04-15-2014, 6:29 AM
lol.. so it's fracking, tortises, chinese solar kickbacks & harry reid gone wild (twenty years ago), along with not recognizing the ownership of the land by the federal government.

and we get to watch video with a "pregnant woman" telling the rangers not to touch her, as she repeatedly gets in their faces & screams at them.

wharrrrrrgarble derp derp derp!

4Patriot
04-15-2014, 7:25 AM
I started this thread, so I am taking the liberty to offer an additional comment.

I am greatly disappointed by the substance of many, perhaps most, of the responding comments. The original post made it clear that I took no position on the legality of Bundy's claim. It was clear then, and remains clear now, that the issue is complicated, and I (we) don't have the facts necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Instead, the focus of my comments was on the 2nd Amendment: Should there be any doubt that the decision by the Feds to back off came as a result of the fact that Bundy and his supporters were also armed, and just might be prepared to use those weapons?

I expected (or hoped) that the focus of most replies would be on the role of the 2nd Amendment in preserving life and liberty, not only against the predations of criminals and nut-jobs, but also against a too-muscular government.

Instead we have collected a lengthy set of often pointless ramblings about whether or not Bundy was justified to take the position he did and to stand his ground. Many of those comments displayed profound ignorance of the issues, and a disturbing willingness to condemn (or support) Bundy on the basis of knowledge of the circumstances that can only be described, charitably, as incomplete.

It may be true also that Bundy and his supporters are not well-spoken, not good advocates for their own position. But shouldn't we take notice that he has drawn the support of many others, including the governor of his state and the local sheriff. Are they as off-base as many on this site seem to think Bundy is?

My point is not to defend Bundy in his fight against the Feds -- as stated at the outset the issues appear not to be black and white. The point is to offer the observation that the 2nd Amendment provides him the ability to assert his position in the face of otherwise overwhelming odds, assuming he is willing to make the personal sacrifices that may be required.

Assuming that Calguns forum subscribers are gun owners who want to preserve, or re-assert, their 2nd Amendment rights, we need to step up to our responsibilities as advocates for our cause. We're all entitled to our opinions of course, but it would be helpful if some us took the effort to formulate better opinions. If we elevate the dialogue about guns to a higher level we might just convince some people who haven't joined our camp. If we persist with ignorant, knee-jerk ramblings we will merely confirm our opponent's worst suspicions about us.

Ninety
04-15-2014, 7:42 AM
Well I would say that the 2nd Amendment came to the rescue of the 1st Amendment here. As we all know.. without the 2nd , the rest fall easily. This story was never about cattle , It was about the Federal Government setting up "1st Amendment Areas" , placing "Snipers" on ridge tops and "Theft" of private property without compensation.

If it were not for brave Men and Women showing up from around this great country , exercising their 2nd Amendment right, the 1st , 4th, 8th, 10th would have been trampled.

4Patriot
04-15-2014, 7:50 AM
Well I would say that the 2nd Amendment came to the rescue of the 1st Amendment here. As we all know.. without the 2nd , the rest fall easily. This story was never about cattle , It was about the Federal Government setting up "1st Amendment Areas" , placing "Snipers" on ridge tops and "Theft" of private property without compensation.

If it were not for brave Men and Women showing up from around this great country , exercising their 2nd Amendment right, the 1st , 4th, 8th, 10th would have been trampled.

Good point, Ninety, well said.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 8:20 AM
I started this thread, so I am taking the liberty to offer an additional comment.

I am greatly disappointed by the substance of many, perhaps most, of the responding comments. The original post made it clear that I took no position on the legality of Bundy's claim. It was clear then, and remains clear now, that the issue is complicated, and I (we) don't have the facts necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Instead, the focus of my comments was on the 2nd Amendment: Should there be any doubt that the decision by the Feds to back off came as a result of the fact that Bundy and his supporters were also armed, and just might be prepared to use those weapons?

I expected (or hoped) that the focus of most replies would be on the role of the 2nd Amendment in preserving life and liberty, not only against the predations of criminals and nut-jobs, but also against a too-muscular government.

Instead we have collected a lengthy set of often pointless ramblings about whether or not Bundy was justified to take the position he did and to stand his ground. Many of those comments displayed profound ignorance of the issues, and a disturbing willingness to condemn (or support) Bundy on the basis of knowledge of the circumstances that can only be described, charitably, as incomplete.

It may be true also that Bundy and his supporters are not well-spoken, not good advocates for their own position. But shouldn't we take notice that he has drawn the support of many others, including the governor of his state and the local sheriff. Are they as off-base as many on this site seem to think Bundy is?

My point is not to defend Bundy in his fight against the Feds -- as stated at the outset the issues appear not to be black and white. The point is to offer the observation that the 2nd Amendment provides him the ability to assert his position in the face of otherwise overwhelming odds, assuming he is willing to make the personal sacrifices that may be required.

Assuming that Calguns forum subscribers are gun owners who want to preserve, or re-assert, their 2nd Amendment rights, we need to step up to our responsibilities as advocates for our cause. We're all entitled to our opinions of course, but it would be helpful if some us took the effort to formulate better opinions. If we elevate the dialogue about guns to a higher level we might just convince some people who haven't joined our camp. If we persist with ignorant, knee-jerk ramblings we will merely confirm our opponent's worst suspicions about us.

As with anything gun related, you need to understand that a show of force must meet justification.

When the federal government is met with citizens in arms, justification is an important part of the equation here.

Its the difference between bearing arms for self defense or committing a crime. I think many of us are looking at the details of this to see how or how not this action helps or hurts the RKBA.

e90bmw
04-15-2014, 8:37 AM
The fees they are charging him was excessive. Many other ranchers in the area had stopped raising cattle because of it.

He hasn't paid ANYTHING in twenty one years!!!

They were charging $1.5/month per cow/calf pair. Explain how that is too much? less than $20/head per year to graze??????

Here is his position:
"I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."

The dude is an utter (pun intended) whack job and using him as an example of a 2A stand is ridiculous at best.

He's no champion, he's an 1800's holdover and nut job.
Where is his e'ffn tin hat.

ElvenSoul
04-15-2014, 8:41 AM
Free da cows!

Jimi Jah
04-15-2014, 9:19 AM
One solution would be for the BLM/US gov to sell off that federal land, they own 86% of Nevada. To me, that isn't a state but a federal territory.

Sell it to the state or to private hands. That's a great way to pay down the national debt and to free the states from federal ownership.

UnknownShooter
04-15-2014, 9:34 AM
I started this thread, so I am taking the liberty to offer an additional comment.

I am greatly disappointed by the substance of many, perhaps most, of the responding comments. The original post made it clear that I took no position on the legality of Bundy's claim. It was clear then, and remains clear now, that the issue is complicated, and I (we) don't have the facts necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Instead, the focus of my comments was on the 2nd Amendment: Should there be any doubt that the decision by the Feds to back off came as a result of the fact that Bundy and his supporters were also armed, and just might be prepared to use those weapons?

I expected (or hoped) that the focus of most replies would be on the role of the 2nd Amendment in preserving life and liberty, not only against the predations of criminals and nut-jobs, but also against a too-muscular government.

Instead we have collected a lengthy set of often pointless ramblings about whether or not Bundy was justified to take the position he did and to stand his ground. Many of those comments displayed profound ignorance of the issues, and a disturbing willingness to condemn (or support) Bundy on the basis of knowledge of the circumstances that can only be described, charitably, as incomplete.

It may be true also that Bundy and his supporters are not well-spoken, not good advocates for their own position. But shouldn't we take notice that he has drawn the support of many others, including the governor of his state and the local sheriff. Are they as off-base as many on this site seem to think Bundy is?

My point is not to defend Bundy in his fight against the Feds -- as stated at the outset the issues appear not to be black and white. The point is to offer the observation that the 2nd Amendment provides him the ability to assert his position in the face of otherwise overwhelming odds, assuming he is willing to make the personal sacrifices that may be required.

Assuming that Calguns forum subscribers are gun owners who want to preserve, or re-assert, their 2nd Amendment rights, we need to step up to our responsibilities as advocates for our cause. We're all entitled to our opinions of course, but it would be helpful if some us took the effort to formulate better opinions. If we elevate the dialogue about guns to a higher level we might just convince some people who haven't joined our camp. If we persist with ignorant, knee-jerk ramblings we will merely confirm our opponent's worst suspicions about us.

He wasn't denied due process - it took 20+ years for the government to get all "totalitarian" on him, if we assume his arguments are correct, and if we could perceive an intelligible argument coming from his supporters.

All I'm hearing is "Harry Reid, solar farm, fracking, sovereign citizen, no authority over my land" etc. He doesn't own the land - if his family has been there 100+ years, and the land was important to them, they could have probably bought it at some point over the past 100 years, but they didn't. They bought a small parcel, and rented the rights to the rest, and stopped paying that rent 20+ years ago.. what did he expect?

I absolutely don't support how "our" resources are allocated in this country - the idea that you could *buy* the mineral rights under a mountain for a few pennies an acre and blow it up with impunity is just as absurd as the idea that you can run a 1,000 head cattle ranch without owning enough dirt yourself to support those cattle. Not in favor of either - nor am I in favor of guys with guns arbitrating civil matters.. but after several losses in court, 20+ years of waiting, at some point, a line has to be drawn..

Hangers-on dribbling in from thousands of miles away & inserting themselves into a well-settled civil matter isn't helping.

ChrisC
04-15-2014, 9:37 AM
Guess who used an Executive Order to give the Feds the right to take ownership of that land.

Executive Order 12548 signed by Reagan in 1986 allowed the Feds to take over that land.

Another great move by the GOP's beloved former president.

ERASERHEAD
04-15-2014, 9:37 AM
I started this thread, so I am taking the liberty to offer an additional comment.

I am greatly disappointed by the substance of many, perhaps most, of the responding comments. The original post made it clear that I took no position on the legality of Bundy's claim. It was clear then, and remains clear now, that the issue is complicated, and I (we) don't have the facts necessary to draw definitive conclusions. Instead, the focus of my comments was on the 2nd Amendment: Should there be any doubt that the decision by the Feds to back off came as a result of the fact that Bundy and his supporters were also armed, and just might be prepared to use those weapons?

I expected (or hoped) that the focus of most replies would be on the role of the 2nd Amendment in preserving life and liberty, not only against the predations of criminals and nut-jobs, but also against a too-muscular government.

Instead we have collected a lengthy set of often pointless ramblings about whether or not Bundy was justified to take the position he did and to stand his ground. Many of those comments displayed profound ignorance of the issues, and a disturbing willingness to condemn (or support) Bundy on the basis of knowledge of the circumstances that can only be described, charitably, as incomplete.

It may be true also that Bundy and his supporters are not well-spoken, not good advocates for their own position. But shouldn't we take notice that he has drawn the support of many others, including the governor of his state and the local sheriff. Are they as off-base as many on this site seem to think Bundy is?

My point is not to defend Bundy in his fight against the Feds -- as stated at the outset the issues appear not to be black and white. The point is to offer the observation that the 2nd Amendment provides him the ability to assert his position in the face of otherwise overwhelming odds, assuming he is willing to make the personal sacrifices that may be required.

Assuming that Calguns forum subscribers are gun owners who want to preserve, or re-assert, their 2nd Amendment rights, we need to step up to our responsibilities as advocates for our cause. We're all entitled to our opinions of course, but it would be helpful if some us took the effort to formulate better opinions. If we elevate the dialogue about guns to a higher level we might just convince some people who haven't joined our camp. If we persist with ignorant, knee-jerk ramblings we will merely confirm our opponent's worst suspicions about us.

Interesting thread, and it is no fun watching Calgunners piss'n all over each other.
The 2nd Amendment, with little doubt, prevented another Waco/RubyRidge. The mistake made by the "enforcers" were similar to the two previous events.
The public, on the other hand, did not make the same mistakes, and the outcome was much more positive.
Contrasts: This time, the armed citizenry oversaw the actions of the "enforcers" and did not stay back (for their own safety).
Point: When is it worth deadly force to enforce a law/court ruling/unpaid tax?
It is unfortunate that some here would consider that if Bundy was shot and killed, he had it coming to him. He simply drew his line in the sand and would not get pushed back any more.
Everyone needs to define that line for themselves, and when and if it becomes time, arm yourself and defend that line.
Additional info: http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told?utm_source=share-fb

YubaRiver
04-15-2014, 11:37 AM
Bunch of brave armed citizenry?

"We were actually strategizing to put all the women at the front, if they were going to start shooting, its going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rouge federal officers".

-Sheriff Richard Mack

CombsForce
04-15-2014, 11:39 AM
fiddletown, I have to agree with some of these posts here and say that the government has reached too far again. We all know how our country is set up to run through our government, but we can't forget why it was set up this way. This was a government for the people by the people. Period. By delineating which branch has more or less public influence you only furthur the attention from this very important guideline. I agree that this country's progress was made possible only by taking that which hadn't belonged to them in the first place. This is not a particularly shining example of American progress. By absence of government regulation in Bunkerville alone and for so many years this family legally created their standard of living. It wasn't until recently that the BLM and FS had eyes on the property and therefore an interest. What is that interest? That is the real question because the interest is what justifies the use of force on this family (at least in the governments eyes). After reading this story and various forums on the topic, I'm almost entirely convinced that the BLM and other agencies are in the wrong here. Just my .02 cents.

CNC_Apps_Guy
04-15-2014, 11:49 AM
I'm just glad cooler heads prevailed and it didn't have to hit the fan. Maybe this is just a brief respite but I'll take it. It would be unfortunate that this rancher would be the mouthpiece for less overreaching gobmt.

4Patriot
04-15-2014, 11:55 AM
Here's a video that might be of interest to those of you who are following this debate. The author is a lawyer, which doesn't make him right, but it suggests to me that Bundy may have a point that deserves our attention. And, mercifully, this guy is an entertaining pitchman!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAwALTdrMZ8

4Patriot
04-15-2014, 1:46 PM
Here's another video that sheds some light on the Bundy situation, including some actual fact-checking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 2:11 PM
Here's another video that sheds some light on the Bundy situation, including some actual fact-checking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQNah! I'm not going to rely on some anonymous video on YouTube for "fact checking."

cruising7388
04-15-2014, 2:28 PM
I thought this was about grazing cattle on public lands. Where does the 2A come in to play? I've only seen bits and pieces on the news so I'm not to familiar with the issue

I think the demonstrators were cautious not to bring firearms with them to prevent giving the Feds any excuse for exercising lethal force.

bassplayer
04-15-2014, 2:41 PM
squatters dont get "rights" on public lands - adverse possession does not work on government lands (and it shouldn't work on private lands either) - not sure why anyone would think there was a social benefit to encouraging deadbeat behavior.

The family took posession under the law. Now the government has changed the law and is attempting to take their rights under the new law. Anyone see a problem with that?

Dan

MixedMotives
04-15-2014, 2:42 PM
http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/4/15/9mvbn50fndma3151vdk6aav08na6r6

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 2:47 PM
He lives 100 miles from a city of 1 million people who need that water. He is indeed stealing by not paying for his use.


That presumes that the water in question is accessible only in the land in question. Otherwise, what he's using is a renewable resource that costs the government nothing to maintain.

If the source of the water is not on his land, then you could argue, perhaps with some success, that the water itself isn't his and thus whoever does own the source can legitimately charge for it. But that's not what the dispute is about here.

The message you were responding to was strictly in response to a claim that Bundy is a "freeloader". That clearly cannot be the case unless those he is allegedly "freeloading" from are providing him goods or services that cost them real resources to provide.

To claim that he is a "freeloader" in spite of the above would be equivalent to claiming that he is "freeloading" by breathing as, after all, the oxygen he is using is oxygen he is depriving others.

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 2:49 PM
Just for a little more background on the legal side of things:

The Government's motion for summary judgment (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_Dec_2012_in_United_Sta tes_v._Bundy.pdf).


Bundy's response (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217807674/Bundy-II-Def-Response-to-MSJ#) (pro se).


The Court Order (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf) granting judgment to the Government.

It doesn't look like Bundy's cause was helped by his representing himself.

YubaRiver
04-15-2014, 3:05 PM
The Bundy Bunch and the states rights folks behind this would leave Ca gun owners 2nd amendment rights up to the whim of the CA state voters.

Do you really want the Sage Brush rebellion part two to prevail and sell off public lands to private interests?

Hunters, the public owned wildlands are where the wildlife live. Sure we could turn Nevada in Texas and everyone could pay to hunt on private reserves.

4Patriot
04-15-2014, 3:09 PM
Just for a little more background on the legal side of things:

The Government's motion for summary judgment (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_Dec_2012_in_United_Sta tes_v._Bundy.pdf).


Bundy's response (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217807674/Bundy-II-Def-Response-to-MSJ#) (pro se).


The Court Order (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf) granting judgment to the Government.

It doesn't look like Bundy's cause was helped by his representing himself.

As was mentioned before, maybe the Bundys aren't the best spokesmen for their cause, but you gotta dance with the one that brung ya.

banker1
04-15-2014, 3:24 PM
Just for a little more background on the legal side of things:

The Government's motion for summary judgment (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_Dec_2012_in_United_Sta tes_v._Bundy.pdf).


Bundy's response (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217807674/Bundy-II-Def-Response-to-MSJ#) (pro se).


The Court Order (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/United_States_v_Bundy_Court_Order_July_2013.pdf) granting judgment to the Government.

It doesn't look like Bundy's cause was helped by his representing himself.


Especially when you research the Judge and find out he's a long time friend of Harry Reid...I'd think you'd need an Army of high priced Lawyers to fight off the shenanigans there....pro-se is the last thing you would want to do in this situation....

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 3:31 PM
Especially when you research the Judge and find out he's a long time friend of Harry Reid... And here's (http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/bio/lloyddgeorge.aspx) a bit more about Judge George, who was appointed to the Federal Bench by Ronald Reagan.

banker1
04-15-2014, 3:50 PM
And here's (http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/bio/lloyddgeorge.aspx) a bit more about Judge George, who was appointed to the Federal Bench by Ronald Reagan.


Yea, the same Judge who had a complaint of Judicial Misconduct in another Land Case concerning the Shoshone Indians

http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/shoshone/misconduct9th.html


And someone who has been consistently rewarded by Harry Reid whether it's naming a CourtHouse after him or honoring him for being a exceptional host

http://www.openworld.gov/press-releases/senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-welcomed-open-world-host-judge-lloyd-george-capit-0


Smells a little funny to me.....

morfeeis
04-15-2014, 4:10 PM
Nah! I'm not going to rely on some anonymous video on YouTube for "fact checking."
Backed up with hard facts, you would have known that had you watched the video.

LoneYote
04-15-2014, 4:24 PM
Backed up with hard facts, you would have known that had you watched the video.

We all know that nothing on the internet can possibly be true.... unless it is posted by Mainstream media outlets in which case it is 100% true at all times!

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 4:28 PM
Backed up with hard facts, you would have known that had you watched the video.I'll still start with the court papers I posted links to.

tamalpias
04-15-2014, 4:51 PM
I'll still start with the court papers I posted links to.

I think you drank to much of that liberal water in SF taps.

As a business person in San Jose I can say that I have witnessed the land grab by the government of my property. They wanted the land well before the public knew what was being built, then once they can't force you out by calling your property blight they send in every government agency to make sure your business is 100% compliant and ran by the book. I have been audited and seen by every government agency that is in charge of my industry to fine my business out of existence.

You can smell there was ulterior motives in this land grab when they claimed it is about the desert tortoise. What does Bundy paying this fee going to do to improve the desert tortoise's condition? Nothing that is why you have to know they want his land for something that is unannounced.

From what we know now it is apparently for a chinese backer of harry reid to set up a solar energy farm. That explanation sounds a lot more plausible than just saving some tortoises. :rolleyes:

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 5:15 PM
...As a business person in San Jose I can say that I have witnessed the land grab by the government of my property. ...Yes, I know. Every business person who has lost out or been disadvantaged by government action has been the victim of some conspiracy. But as I wrote back up in post 44:Through my career I represented heavily regulated businesses having reason to complain about heavy handed governmental regulation. And of course this is really a business dispute. Cattle ranching is Bundy's business.

The businesses I represented were, in general, very successful; and part of their success was understanding and dealing professionally with government regulation. They didn't wring their hands complaining about the injustice of things. The paid me and other lawyers good money to help keep them straight with regulators and handle things in ways to give them reasonably predictable results.

Based on the court papers I linked to, above, Bundy's basic defense to the United States' claim that his cattle were trespassing on land owned by the United States seems to have been that the land doesn't belong to the Unitied States. But he sure seems to have done a very poor, and unconvincing, job of making a case on the point. He clearly was unable to establish to the satisfaction of the judge that there the ownership of the land was in fact subject to a reasonable dispute.

Bundy also apparently admitted that he had been ignoring a 1998 injunction.

Could things have worked out better for Bundy in court if he had a good lawyer instead of representing himself? Quite possibly, but he made the choice to act pro se.

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 5:26 PM
Backed up with hard facts, you would have known that had you watched the video.And speaking of "hard facts", here's Snopes take (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp) on the hard facts.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 6:05 PM
I think Calguns should take on the BLM LOL

Ninety
04-15-2014, 6:10 PM
And speaking of "hard facts", here's Snopes take (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp) on the hard facts.

Well if snopes says it , then it must be true. :rolleyes:

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 6:11 PM
Through my career I represented heavily regulated businesses having reason to complain about heavy handed governmental regulation. And of course this is really a business dispute. Cattle ranching is Bundy's business.


Tell me something: in your career, while representing those businesses, did you ever lose a case before the court?

If you did, do you still maintain that you were correct in any of those cases? Or do you concede that you were wrong and the court was correct after all in all of those cases?

problemchild
04-15-2014, 7:04 PM
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to make their case in court, and they lost.

Nicely written OP, very nice indeed!

To the quote above..............

You really do NOT have all the facts. The Bundy ranch incident is Agenda 21 hard at work. Please review in its entirety Agenda 21 so you at least can speak from an educated position.

Numerous forces are at work in America today.

Agenda 21 is pushing rural people off their lands, ranches and farms.
Agenda 21 is entrenched in our country like a cancer and once you know what it is you will see it everywhere.
Bundy ranch has NOTHING to do with turtles or fees.
Bundy ranch is Agenda 21 and cronyism by Reid & Son trying to line their pockets with MILLIONS of dollars.
Why did 52 of the 53 ranchers have to shut down? Research that and get back to us.
Why does Reid want the land back from Bundy(Oil fracking and Solar) ?
Did you know BLM has NO LEGAL authority other than to write tickets.
Rural America is being dismantled by the democrats, destroying the conservative values, family and way of life. If you do not believe that look at what Obama did to GM (He forced shutdown/closure of ONLY conservative owned dealerships all across America)
Take a drive up north and see all the ranches and farms shut-down because of the EPA and a 2 inch smelt that lives in the aqueducts.
The EPA has declared it OWNS all land with any water source on it and will FORCE you to do what they say with NO recourse in court.

And finally.......... The courts are run by Judges who are paid by the very PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING. Do you see any problem with that? Does not the constitution trump some guy in a black robe paid off by crooked politicians?

You really should start reading more as you are parroting what the Lamestream Media and BLM soundbytes are.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 7:09 PM
Nicely written OP, very nice indeed!

To the quote above..............

You really do NOT have all the facts. The Bundy ranch incident is Agenda 21 hard at work. Please review in its entirety Agenda 21 so you at least can speak from an educated position.

Numerous forces are at work in America today.

Agenda 21 is pushing rural people off their lands, ranches and farms.
Agenda 21 is entrenched in our country like a cancer and once you know what it is you will see it everywhere.
Bundy ranch has NOTHING to do with turtles or fees.
Bundy ranch is Agenda 21 and cronyism by Reid & Son trying to line their pockets with MILLIONS of dollars.
Why did 52 of the 53 ranchers have to shut down? Research that and get back to us.
Why does Reid want the land back from Bundy(Oil fracking and Solar) ?
Did you know BLM has NO LEGAL authority other than to write tickets.
Rural America is being dismantled by the democrats, destroying the conservative values, family and way of life. If you do not believe that look at what Obama did to GM (He forced shutdown/closure of ONLY conservative owned dealerships all across America)
Take a drive up north and see all the ranches and farms shut-down because of the EPA and a 2 inch smelt that lives in the aqueducts.
The EPA has declared it OWNS all land with any water source on it and will FORCE you to do what they say with NO recourse in court.

And finally.......... The courts are run by Judges who are paid by the very PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING. Do you see any problem with that? Does not the constitution trump some guy in a black robe paid off by crooked politicians?

You really should start reading more as you are parroting what the Lamestream Media and BLM soundbytes are.

Not sure how what you posted has anything to do with what Fiddletown posted?

tylersdad
04-15-2014, 7:15 PM
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson

I've read a little bit about this and think Bundy is both partially right and partially wrong. Regardless, it's good for the government to know that they can expect mass disobedience when people feel the government has overstepped their bounds.

I see both sides of the gun rights debate being able to use this as ammunition. The pro side saying that this is exactly why the Founders included a provision in the Bill of Rights for the general populace to be armed. The anti side saying that this is exactly why people should not be armed.

Having read above what one of the authors of the Constitution wrote to another author, which side would be closest to being in the right in the eyes of the Founders?

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 7:37 PM
...You really do NOT have all the facts. The Bundy ranch incident is Agenda 21 hard at work. Please review in its entirety Agenda 21 so you at least can speak from an educated position....Sorry, but you have no facts. All this hand wringing about Agenda 21 is a bunch of empty (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-agenda-21-iclei-sovereignty-un-depopulation.363/), conspiracy theory nonsense (http://www.theunion.com/opinion/4673804-113/agenda-conspiracy-county-easily).

Tincon
04-15-2014, 7:46 PM
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson

Having read above what one of the authors of the Constitution wrote to another author, which side would be closest to being in the right in the eyes of the Founders?

Why don't you post the entire quote, rather than picking out a soundbite? Jefferson was speaking of the evils of a monarchy; in the same paragraph he mentions that a representative government like ours, where change can be induced, from within "has a great deal of good in it."

Well if snopes says it , then it must be true. :rolleyes:


As opposed to what, anonymous youtube video?

tamalpias
04-15-2014, 7:47 PM
Yes, I know. Every business person who has lost out or been disadvantaged by government action has been the victim of some conspiracy. But as I wrote back up in post 44:

Based on the court papers I linked to, above, Bundy's basic defense to the United States' claim that his cattle were trespassing on land owned by the United States seems to have been that the land doesn't belong to the Unitied States. But he sure seems to have done a very poor, and unconvincing, job of making a case on the point. He clearly was unable to establish to the satisfaction of the judge that there the ownership of the land was in fact subject to a reasonable dispute.

Bundy also apparently admitted that he had been ignoring a 1998 injunction.

Could things have worked out better for Bundy in court if he had a good lawyer instead of representing himself? Quite possibly, but he made the choice to act pro se.
And that too is part of the problem. They will first raise your rates, if you don't like it hire an expensive attorney to fight for your rights and go against their lawyers that have a bottomless pocket paid for by the taxpayers. And you will either go bankrupt paying the fees or lawyers.

As an attorney how many times have you seen somebody innocent but plead to a lesser charge because it is the financially sound thing to do? The court system is designed for those who have money, not the working class.

problemchild
04-15-2014, 7:48 PM
Sorry, but you have no facts. All this hand wringing about Agenda 21 is a bunch of empty (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-agenda-21-iclei-sovereignty-un-depopulation.363/), conspiracy theory nonsense (http://www.theunion.com/opinion/4673804-113/agenda-conspiracy-county-easily).

OK ......... Comming from a Frisco elite such as yourself......

And you know this how? You have spent 1 year investigating it or you read Huffington Post and got your opinion from a 10 second paragraph?

You are just a shill for the communist party. Enjoy your boot licking.

It's not about a solar plant...It's about gorgeous real estate in God's Country.

Bundy vs. BLM: The Plot Unfolds

http://canadafreepress.com/images/member_photos/photo_31.jpg
By Steve Miller (Bio and Archives (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/62453/SteveMiller/31)) Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Comments at bottom of page (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62453#disqus) | Print friendly (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/62453) | Subscribe (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/About-us/) | Email Us

http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/miller041514-1.jpg After surveying the Bundy Ranch and adjacent river side land (real estate), I drove the short distance along Riverside Road to Mesquite to visit my nephew.

During the drive, I recalled that this land has often been used by Hollywood studios as the backdrop in Western movies.

In Mesquite, we waited over an hour for a table at the Casa Blanca steakhouse, then when I tried to get a room for the night was informed they were sold out.

I learned that the hotel and several others are now owned by Chinese investors who are pouring in tens of millions to make their resorts competitive to the Strip.

Bunday’s land and water rights are ten minutes away in what one can only describe as God’s Country—one of the most beautiful spots in Nevada.

I do not believe this dispute is over grazing rights or preserving an endangered species. It’s all about real estate, and I believe the BLM are being used as pawns in a land grab to benefit politically connected developers.

On March 26, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/emotions-run-high-blm-closes-600000-acres-cattle-roundup), “No drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow, in my opinion.”

And, no drop of human blood is worth spilling over someone’s desire to develop beautiful real estate, either.

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 7:57 PM
....You are just a shill for the communist party. Enjoy your boot licking....So you must be a shill for the right-wing wack-jobs. Enjoy your delusions.

As to what this is about, you can read the legal papers I linked to in post 185. And here's what Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp) has to say about it.

tamalpias
04-15-2014, 8:09 PM
FD do you believe the courts is right on every case you have lost?

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 8:09 PM
And that too is part of the problem. They will first raise your rates, if you don't like it hire an expensive attorney to fight for your rights and go against their lawyers that have a bottomless pocket paid for by the taxpayers. And you will either go bankrupt paying the fees or lawyers...Welcome to the challenges of doing business in the real world. Being able to handle those challenges is part of being successful. Every business has to deal with suppliers increasing costs, the costs of governmental regulations, the costs of marketing, labor and benefit expenses, pressure from competitors, the demands of the market place, etc.

We do business in a challenging environment, and we need to make decision about how we deal with those challenges. Making those decisions is what running a business entails. As I wrote in post 26:Our system also offers us broad scope to make our own decisions. But our decisions will have consequences, no matter what the system may be. No system will necessarily spare us the undesirable consequences of poor decisions. Freedom includes the freedom to make decisions which ultimately have undesirable consequences. Freedom includes the freedom to make decisions that mess up our lives. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 8:20 PM
FD do you believe the courts is right on every case you have lost?What the courts are is final on the matters they've addressed in a particular case -- at least once all appeals have been exhausted, and subject to any other collateral attacks on the result the system provides.

People who have been wrongly convicted have pursued available procedures to win exoneration. Court decision which might have been correct under the law at the time, but the results of which were unacceptable, have lead to changes in the law.

An excellent example of that was the case not too long ago of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could still properly be applied by a court to produce a result that many will not like. But the remedy there is with the legislature and not necessarily the court.

banker1
04-15-2014, 8:25 PM
The Snopes link is somewhat incomplete it brushes over the damage mitigation areas and how all that works....and that's a very important aspect of this...and why the turtles came into play in the first place....if I find a complete, plain spoken, non-bias breakdown I'll post it....

taperxz
04-15-2014, 8:29 PM
OK ......... Comming from a Frisco elite such as yourself......

And you know this how? You have spent 1 year investigating it or you read Huffington Post and got your opinion from a 10 second paragraph?

You are just a shill for the communist party. Enjoy your boot licking.

It's not about a solar plant...It's about gorgeous real estate in God's Country.

Bundy vs. BLM: The Plot Unfolds

http://canadafreepress.com/images/member_photos/photo_31.jpg
By Steve Miller (Bio and Archives (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/62453/SteveMiller/31)) Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Comments at bottom of page (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62453#disqus) | Print friendly (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/62453) | Subscribe (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/About-us/) | Email Us

http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/miller041514-1.jpg After surveying the Bundy Ranch and adjacent river side land (real estate), I drove the short distance along Riverside Road to Mesquite to visit my nephew.

During the drive, I recalled that this land has often been used by Hollywood studios as the backdrop in Western movies.

In Mesquite, we waited over an hour for a table at the Casa Blanca steakhouse, then when I tried to get a room for the night was informed they were sold out.

I learned that the hotel and several others are now owned by Chinese investors who are pouring in tens of millions to make their resorts competitive to the Strip.

Bunday’s land and water rights are ten minutes away in what one can only describe as God’s Country—one of the most beautiful spots in Nevada.

I do not believe this dispute is over grazing rights or preserving an endangered species. It’s all about real estate, and I believe the BLM are being used as pawns in a land grab to benefit politically connected developers.

On March 26, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie said (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/emotions-run-high-blm-closes-600000-acres-cattle-roundup), “No drop of human blood is worth spilling over any cow, in my opinion.”

And, no drop of human blood is worth spilling over someone’s desire to develop beautiful real estate, either.

What would you say if I told you I know a private land owner who just a few months prevented BLM from accessing 15,000 acres of BLM land? BLM acknowledged the land owners right and actually surrendered the key to the gate. BLM can now only access via helicopter. Right here in CA.

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 8:32 PM
What the courts are is final on the matters they've addressed in a particular -- at least once all appeals have been exhausted, and subject to any other collateral attacks on the result the system provides.


Finality and correctness are not the same thing.

The question was about correctness, not finality.



It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.
That is the job of the court, to be sure, but again, the question is whether or not the courts are correct.



Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests.
That one may disagree with a court decision does not make the court correct, and that one may agree with a different court decision does not make the court incorrect.

Correctness is independent of those things.




We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could still properly be applied by a court to produce a result that many will not like. But the remedy there is with the legislature and not necessarily the court.Then, pray tell, why are we bothering with all these court cases to get recognition of the 2nd Amendment if all we have to do is fix it through the legislature?

You ignore or belittle the fact that the judiciary is supposed to act as a check against the power of the legislature.

tamalpias
04-15-2014, 8:50 PM
What the courts are is final on the matters they've addressed in a particular case -- at least once all appeals have been exhausted, and subject to any other collateral attacks on the result the system provides.

People who have been wrongly convicted have pursued available procedures to win exoneration. Court decision which might have been correct under the law at the time, but the results of which were unacceptable, have lead to changes in the law.

An excellent example of that was the case not too long ago of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could still properly be applied by a court to produce a result that many will not like. But the remedy there is with the legislature and not necessarily the court.

Are you planning on being a politician to? You seem to dance around a question with a bunch of jargon that has little relevance to the question.

Finality does not = justice or correct. There had many final cases in the court system where the innocent gets executed. There are many incidences where the outcome of a court case was based on corrupt judges. Just because a court says so does not make it right. How many times has a lower court decision been reversed? How many times does the case ends because the defendant ran out of money to appeal? Just because they run out of money does that make them wrong?

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 8:57 PM
Are you planning on being a politician to? ...What I am is retired after a career helping some businesses become extremely successful.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 8:59 PM
What I am is retired after a career helping some businesses become extremely successful.

That's cool!

problemchild
04-15-2014, 9:10 PM
What I am is retired after a career helping some businesses become extremely successful.

Nice story bro.........

Enjoy your borg collective friends, communist wealth spreading and socialized medicine.

tamalpias
04-15-2014, 9:10 PM
What I am is retired after a career helping some businesses become extremely successful.

I am sure those companies are grateful for your services. Doesn't make you right either. :-)

taperxz
04-15-2014, 9:17 PM
Nice story bro.........

Enjoy your borg collective friends, communist wealth spreading and socialized medicine.

Why do you say that? You don't know this person.

SVTPete83
04-15-2014, 9:24 PM
What I am is retired after a career helping some businesses become extremely successful.

This guy needs a cookie!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Tincon
04-15-2014, 9:27 PM
Nice story bro.........

Enjoy your borg collective friends, communist wealth spreading and socialized medicine.

Thank you for bringing even more inanity to this conversation. It's unfortunate that you could not muster an intelligent response, but I'm glad you tried anyway.

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 9:30 PM
Nice story bro.........

Enjoy your borg collective friends, communist wealth spreading and socialized medicine.Actually I am enjoying my material success. Thank you.

Of course your continued reference to me in terms of "collectives" or as a communist are preposterous -- since it should be quite apparent that I'm an ardent capitalist.

I am sure those companies are grateful for your services. Doesn't make you right either. :-)Well, not exactly. But it does sort of suggest that I know what I'm doing.

This guy needs a cookie!...Thank you, but no. I need to watch my weight.

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 9:37 PM
Actually I am enjoying my material success. Thank you.


"Money can't buy you love. But it can buy exotic cars and luxury yachts. Once you've got those covered, you'll be fighting love off with a stick." (http://www.despair.com/love.html)


:D

Trevdev
04-15-2014, 9:45 PM
Lots of debate here. .....all good.

If BLM and these Pats got into it and bodies dropped - what would you do? Would you drive to NV? Would you stay home....wait and see?

Do you want to do something, but your just to old and fat? Because if you are then just stay locked to your keyboard, you can still do some good there. Just kidding.

This is a serious question because Bunker Hill or Bunkerville is more likely to happen in the next ten years than EMP's, SHTF, Zombies, Yellowstone, HNwhatever , Fukashima or some dumb asteroid.

Congrats folks - you were prepping for something. Just not what you expected.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 9:45 PM
Not sure why some are jumping all over Fiddletown.

I don't agree with his entire analysis. (I understand a little about land and cattle not to mention BLM.)

He is certainly spot on about Bundy screwing himself by representing himself in court though! Bundy is the exact type of person we would all have issues with when it comes to "don't talk to the cops"

problemchild
04-15-2014, 10:02 PM
Not sure why some are jumping all over Fiddletown.

I don't agree with his entire analysis. (I understand a little about land and cattle not to mention BLM.)

He is certainly spot on about Bundy screwing himself by representing himself in court though! Bundy is the exact type of person we would all have issues with when it comes to "don't talk to the cops"

Exactly what the FED wants you to do. Spend every dime you have defending yourself against some illegal ruling put out by the BSLM and then loose anyway because the judge is paid by the people you are fighting.

Fiddlefart is a shill for the progressive (communist) party. The Peoplez Party. Liberalism is a disease and you cannot reason with the infected. The disease makes them think they are always right and NO OTHER opinion is correct, its why liberals have to shout you down if you speak. They cannot tolerate opposite thoughts or opinions. If you start making any headway their mind clamps shut and they yell racism, homophobe, gay hater, ********* or some other deflecting label.

taperxz
04-15-2014, 10:10 PM
Exactly what the FED wants you to do. Spend every dime you have defending yourself against some illegal ruling put out by the BSLM and then loose anyway because the judge is paid by the people you are fighting.

Fiddlefart is a shill for the progressive (communist) party. The Peoplez Party. Liberalism is a disease and you cannot reason with the infected. The disease makes them think they are always right and NO OTHER opinion is correct. If you start making any headway their mind clamps shut and they yell racism, homophobe, gay hater, ********* or some other deflecting label.

How much have you had to drink tonight?

fiddletown
04-15-2014, 10:10 PM
...then loose anyway because the judge is paid by the people you are fighting...More ignorance.

The government does indeed lose in court. Consider Heller, McDonald, Moore, Peruta, Richards and Baker.

And to imagine that a federal judge necessarily has any special attachment to the federal government because he's paid by the government is also preposterous.

Federal judges have life tenure. That means that a federal judge takes no personal risk ruling against the government. The government can't fire him for deciding things in a way they don't like. The government can't cut his pay for deciding a case against the government.

The Founding Fathers wrote that into the Constitution to foster an independent judiciary.

Schuetze
04-15-2014, 10:14 PM
Exactly what the FED wants you to do. Spend every dime you have defending yourself against some illegal ruling put out by the BSLM and then loose anyway because the judge is paid by the people you are fighting.

Fiddlefart is a shill for the progressive (communist) party. The Peoplez Party. Liberalism is a disease and you cannot reason with the infected. The disease makes them think they are always right and NO OTHER opinion is correct, its why liberals have to shout you down if you speak. They cannot tolerate opposite thoughts or opinions. If you start making any headway their mind clamps shut and they yell racism, homophobe, gay hater, ********* or some other deflecting label.

don't you mean the SHEAPLEZ PARTY?! and i could not agree more. it is so painfully obvious that your side is always right and that any other opinion is clearly coming from a diseased liberal communist mind. i am just glad people like you can tolerate opposing viewpoints so well. really makes me feel good about being on your side.

fiddlefart will probably ignore what you said and say that your saying he is "shill for the progressive communist party" is just some deflecting label. what an egghead.

Trevdev
04-15-2014, 10:17 PM
So who here is ready to get shot in the face for a good cause?

Isn't that what we're all talking about, at the "end of the day?" If not then I guess I can check in with this thread next year.

Stop debating the obvious. Figure out where you stand and be a man about it.

tylersdad
04-15-2014, 10:20 PM
Why don't you post the entire quote, rather than picking out a soundbite? Jefferson was speaking of the evils of a monarchy; in the same paragraph he mentions that a representative government like ours, where change can be induced, from within "has a great deal of good in it."



As opposed to what, anonymous youtube video?


Take a closer look. You will see this quote comes after discussing the second form of government--the one that most closely matches ours. This letter was written to Madison in discussing Shays' Rebellion.

He states that even the second form of government has it's evils. Then states that this evil is productive of good.

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.[1] Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787[2]

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 10:21 PM
Federal judges have life tenure. That means that a federal judge takes no personal risk ruling against the government. The government can't fire him for deciding things in a way they don't like. The government can't cut his pay for deciding a case against the government.

The Founding Fathers wrote that into the Constitution to foster an independent judiciary.

That's nice. But someone can't get there unless they're nominated by the politicians. And no sane politician would ever nominate to the bench someone they believed could even possibly side against his legislation.

So the lifetime appointment theoretically helps with respect to creating an independent judiciary, but in practice it does no such thing. And the fact that we are where we are today, struggling mightily to only now have recognized by this same "independent" judiciary the protection of the right to keep and bear arms that has been in the Constitution for over 220 years, is strong evidence that the judiciary is not as "independent" as you seem to claim.

banker1
04-15-2014, 10:25 PM
More ignorance.

The government does indeed lose in court. Consider Heller, McDonald, Moore, Peruta, Richards and Baker.

And to imagine that a federal judge necessarily has any special attachment to the federal government because he's paid by the government is also preposterous.

Federal judges have life tenure. That means that a federal judge takes no personal risk ruling against the government. The government can't fire him for deciding things in a way they don't like. The government can't cut his pay for deciding a case against the government.

The Founding Fathers wrote that into the Constitution to foster an independent judiciary.


This is all true, but a glaring omission in your statement, is the fact that because of those factors he/she could also be corrupt similar to this guy who sold his position on the bench bench for car repairs... http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Judge-expected-to-resign-amid-federal-corruption-5234107.php

The guy in the Bundy situation has a courthouse named after him and he's not even dead yet, is he the only Federal judge to serve in Nevada that is worthy of a Federal Courthouse named after him....

Schuetze
04-15-2014, 10:28 PM
That's nice. But someone can't get there unless they're nominated by the politicians. And no sane politician would ever nominate to the bench someone they believed could even possibly side against his legislation.

So the lifetime appointment theoretically helps with respect to creating an independent judiciary, but in practice it does no such thing. And the fact that we are where we are today, struggling mightily to have recognized the protection of the right to keep and bear arms that has been in the Constitution for over 220 years, is strong evidence that the judiciary is not as "independent" as you seem to claim.

You sound like: The Founding Fathers gave us holy rights! But they were really stupid about the whole judge thing!

Schuetze
04-15-2014, 10:29 PM
This is all true, but a glaring omission in your statement, is the fact that because of those factors he/she could also be corrupt similar to this guy who sold his position on the bench bench for car repairs... http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Judge-expected-to-resign-amid-federal-corruption-5234107.php

The guy in the Bundy situation has a courthouse named after him and he's not even dead yet, is he the only Federal judge to serve in Nevada that is worthy of a Federal Courthouse named after him....

I have here in my hand proof that a judge was corrupt. Therefore! all judges who rule in ways I see unfit, are clearly, corrupt!!!!

banker1
04-15-2014, 10:38 PM
I have here in my hand proof that a judge was corrupt. Therefore! all judges who rule in ways I see unfit, are clearly, corrupt!!!!



Yea, not what I'm saying at all...but if you research the judge, you'll see that him and Reid are real cozy...this guy Bundy has been back and forth on this thing for 20 yrs...then all of a sudden a Judge that Reid has a cozy relationship with files an order and 6 months later Snipers, Dogs and the rest...that doesn't strike you as odd particularly since this same judge has had a Judicial misconduct claim filed against him in a similar land case...

tankarian
04-15-2014, 10:40 PM
“Them son-of-a-*****es will fire the next shot heard round the world. And we will fire the rest.”

jMNaYyu-ci0

kcbrown
04-15-2014, 10:50 PM
You sound like: The Founding Fathers gave us holy rights! But they were really stupid about the whole judge thing!

The founding fathers weren't perfect, and the fact that we are where we are now is indisputable proof of that.

The best of them attempted, via the Bill of Rights, to protect the rights and liberties they'd secured for themselves, but even that was a struggle. Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was not in the original Constitution, but rather was an agreed-to set of amendments to it.

Those who supported the Constitution in its original form actually opposed inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Those are the same wonderful people that got us the Alien and Sedition Acts a scant few years later. It is only because the anti-Federalists had sufficient sway over enough states to block ratification of the Constitution that their opposition acceded to inclusion of the Bill of Rights.


So yes, they (the founders who insisted on a strong federal government) were really stupid about the whole judge thing, because we can see how effective the judiciary has been at acting as a bulwark against the loss of liberty. So effective, in fact, that there is now hardly anything that anyone can do in their life that is not in some way controlled by the government.

If government control of all you do is your idea of liberty, then you can have it.

jjs2
04-15-2014, 11:16 PM
Hmmmmm..........

How many times has the government lost OR the people WON in the FICSA court?
The government judges rubber stamp every single one of the constitution burning court orders and warrants evading our privacy. Just ask Snowden.



More ignorance.

The government does indeed lose in court. Consider Heller, McDonald, Moore, Peruta, Richards and Baker.

And to imagine that a federal judge necessarily has any special attachment to the federal government because he's paid by the government is also preposterous.

Federal judges have life tenure. That means that a federal judge takes no personal risk ruling against the government. The government can't fire him for deciding things in a way they don't like. The government can't cut his pay for deciding a case against the government.

The Founding Fathers wrote that into the Constitution to foster an independent judiciary.

Bruce
04-16-2014, 3:11 AM
Another perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/375799/bundy-vs-blm-visceral-reaction-peter-kirsanow

fiddletown
04-16-2014, 5:50 AM
Another perspective:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/375799/bundy-vs-blm-visceral-reaction-peter-kirsanowPeter Kirsanow in that editorial writes:...The appalling contempt this government has shown toward its citizens and the rule of law is the context in which the Bundy-BLM confrontation is playing out. It’s a context that further diminishes, rather than enhances, Americans’ respect for the rule of law....

But one can also say that the appalling contempt Mr. Bundy shows for the rule of law and his responsibilities under the law, has egregiously and intentionally provoked this extreme response from the government.

From the government's motion for summary judgement linked to in post 185:

Page 7:...Defendant Bundy did not comply with the 1998 Order to remove his livestock from the Bunkerville Allotment by November 30, 1998. As a result, the United States brought a motion to enforce the injunction in 1999 based on evidence of continuing trespass. This Court granted the United States’ motion, ordered Defendant Bundy to remove his livestock as previously directed, and ordered him to pay a modified level of damages to the United States. Bundy I, Docket No. 45, Order dated September 17, 1999.

Defendant Bundy acknowledges he has not complied with the Court’s orders to remove his cattle from the former Bunkerville Allotment. Ex. 4, Excerpts of Bundy Deposition (“Depo.”), pp. 99:20-100:6. Nor did Defendant Bundy ever comply with the order to pay damages. Ex. 2, Rugwell Declaration ¶ 25. ...


Page 10:...The United States has reached out to Defendant Bundy in different ways to try to bring his trespass to a close. As described below, those efforts have included letters, an overture to speak with him in person or by telephone, scheduling a meeting (that was subsequently canceled), contact with him to discuss safety concerns caused by his trespassing livestock, working through local law enforcement personnel, and an offer to provide him the proceeds from the sale of his cattle if impounded. All of these efforts were to no avail. Defendant Bundy refuses to cooperate....


Pages 14 to 15:...At his deposition, Defendant Bundy made clear his position that he does not feel bound by and does not intend to comply with federal law or orders that might be issued by this Court to enforce federal law:

Q. Now, let’s go back to the question. Let’s assume the federal authorities have the authorization to present themselves on land, whether you call it your ranch or the former Bunkerville Allotment, or for that matter the new trespass lands, and they’ve got the authorization in hand to remove cattle that belongs to you and they literally, physically, take the steps necessary to accomplish that right there and you're standing by. Are you going to undertake any effort to physically stop that?

A. Yes.

Q. What efforts would that be?
A. Whatever it takes.

Q. Okay. Would that include -- when you say “whatever it takes,” would that include the soliciting, the assistance of neighbors, friends, family, supporters of yours to do whatever it takes in the scenario I just described?

A. Yes.

Ex. 4, Bundy Depo. at 99:1-19. As attested to in his deposition, and in his communications with the United States, Defendant Bundy has indicated that he does not rule out a physical confrontation with the federal government...


Bundy can't reasonably expect that the BLM will simply not enforce the court orders.

...How many times has the government lost OR the people WON in the FICSA court?

The government judges rubber stamp every single one of the constitution burning court orders and warrants evading our privacy. Just ask Snowden...And exactly what does the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or FISA Court, not FICSA Court) have to do with this subject?

Also note, that in practice the government, and indeed most sensible private litigants, tend to thoroughly evaluate their cases before going to court with them. They will not take cases to court that they don't have a very good chance of winning with.

flatbedtruckin
04-16-2014, 8:09 AM
So on the surface layer, it is about protecting an endangered species, and yet paying the fee to retain a grazing permit would have solved the issue... So now BLM is playing the tough guy muscling out the small guy , steeling private property and then selling stolen property at auction...someone mentioned not too long ago ,"government at gunpoint", illegally declaring a defacto martial law and setting up 1st ammendment zones.. this protecting the tortise is a total load of bs..
Digging deeper into this, since the blm has the power to regulate land usage, zoning ect, it would seem that blm has alternate motives in this land grab... energy production... and money... recently a chinese company (ill update with a source as information is currently being discovered) has made a purchase on this land for 10cents on the dollar , for future solar energy production... the easiest way for this to happen, is for an emminate domain situation to occur such as an endangered specied that inhabits that area... Problem is that there have been reports that this tortis's are being killed because they cant care for them or some nonesense like that..so once the land grab is complete, and the tortis's are gone, the land will be reallocated for the better good of who ever allowing for private companys to exploit the land for what ever interest represents the owner / company...
Imagine how much money can be made from solar energy, its a win win for easy money... profits for the investing company and the us govenrment for regulating the land/production solar energy... our government has had a bad history of being influenced by foreign governments and now more and more, by foreign corporations...
the only thing standing in their way is a couple cowboys and some cattle... government says, " no problem, dont worry, we'll take care of that"..

Doheny
04-16-2014, 8:21 AM
Threads started by people whose screen names include "patriot" seldom seem to end well.

Jimi Jah
04-16-2014, 8:33 AM
If those BLM snipers need something else to do, perhaps they could relocate south to the border?

There are real threats down there that need some 'splainin'.

tylersdad
04-16-2014, 9:07 AM
If those BLM snipers need something else to do, perhaps they could relocate south to the border?

There are real threats down there that need some 'splainin'.

I can't fathom why snipers would be deployed to enforce a civil action.

Tincon
04-16-2014, 9:09 AM
I can't fathom why snipers would be deployed to enforce a civil action.

Really? When the people resisting the enforcement of such action are running around with rifles? Big Mystery.

Schuetze
04-16-2014, 9:14 AM
So on the surface layer, it is about protecting an endangered species, and yet paying the fee to retain a grazing permit would have solved the issue... So now BLM is playing the tough guy muscling out the small guy , steeling private property and then selling stolen property at auction...someone mentioned not too long ago ,"government at gunpoint", illegally declaring a defacto martial law and setting up 1st ammendment zones.. this protecting the tortise is a total load of bs..
Digging deeper into this, since the blm has the power to regulate land usage, zoning ect, it would seem that blm has alternate motives in this land grab... energy production... and money... recently a chinese company (ill update with a source as information is currently being discovered) has made a purchase on this land for 10cents on the dollar , for future solar energy production... the easiest way for this to happen, is for an emminate domain situation to occur such as an endangered specied that inhabits that area... Problem is that there have been reports that this tortis's are being killed because they cant care for them or some nonesense like that..so once the land grab is complete, and the tortis's are gone, the land will be reallocated for the better good of who ever allowing for private companys to exploit the land for what ever interest represents the owner / company...
Imagine how much money can be made from solar energy, its a win win for easy money... profits for the investing company and the us govenrment for regulating the land/production solar energy... our government has had a bad history of being influenced by foreign governments and now more and more, by foreign corporations...
the only thing standing in their way is a couple cowboys and some cattle... government says, " no problem, dont worry, we'll take care of that"..


i agree. this is not acceptable. the government is totally inept. as soon as a few armed resistors show up, they step down and release the cows because they don't want anyone getting hurt over this issue. i thought they were there to muscle out the small guy? these anti-bullying campaigns have gone too far, turning the whole nation into wussies...

morfeeis
04-16-2014, 9:46 AM
I'll still start with the court papers I posted links to.
Some see what they believe while others believe what they see.

Schuetze
04-16-2014, 9:51 AM
Some see what they believe while others believe what they see.

so deep. so true. others just do this:

:20:

fiddletown
04-16-2014, 10:03 AM
Some see what they believe while others believe what they see.


How profound. Did you think that up all by yourself or find it in a fortune cookie?

But in fact we are all relying on outside sources of information. Some are better documented and more reliable than others. Argument in court must be supported by evidence, the validity of which is subject multiple levels of challenge. Decisions of one judge may also be subject to the examination of other judges.

And then there's YouTube.