cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution


@schnurrbart wrote:
I don't know. They said he only has about 400 head on it right now but maybe he had many more some years. He hasn't been fighting the amount that I have heard, just whether the BLM can charge him at all. He says he owns the land through preemptive something. Can't remember that. One thing for sure--calling in a bunch of highly armed rambo wannbees is NOT the way to go about it!!

If you are a good sheeple the way to do it is do whatever the government tells you to do. Everything belongs to government and you hang your head and except with a smile whatever government says you can have.

Veteran Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

Just because the American public are the owners of America does not mean that you can just do whatever you wish with public lands. If that happened and was allowed, the American public would soon trash everything on the continent.
Veteran Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

Senior Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution


@schnurrbart wrote:
All I can say is; http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/133/supremacy-clause

Well, the government is backing off.

 

snip-

A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-government/story?id=23302610

Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

11 years to pay the lease now they are concerned? .gov must have gotten a better offer, propably some cronyism involved.

Senior Contributor

Re: 2nd Revolution

What I find truley shocking is that gilligan, BA,  thwerty et al havent rented a semi with all their arsenal and made a BEE LINE to Nev. to defend this good down trodden patriot,

 

Unless they are just full of crap and would poop their panties at the first bullet to whiz by their fool heads.

 

Could it be ??????????

Senior Contributor

Re: 2nd Revolution

This case has been going on since the 90s. Mr. Bundy, the rancher, was told decades ago that he was not permitted to use the land for grazing. He continued to do so, defiantly declaring that he did not recognize the government's ownership of the land. Over time, he collected a massive amount of fines for his continued trespassing and private use of public land. So, recently, a court ordered an injunction against Mr. Bundy, who by this point owed nearly $1 million in federal fines. The Bureau of Land Management--which controls and operates the land--determined that if Mr. Bundy would not pay the fines, they would confiscate his cattle, selling them off to pay his fines. Mr. Bundy responded by openly threatening violence against any federal agent who attempted to confiscate his cattle. He has repeatedly declared that he is armed and will use his weapons "if necessary". He has also gained the support of other locals, who are using this as a rallying point for anti-government sentiments, forming armed militias around his property. This prompted the federal agency to send armed agents to monitor the situation, which has become nearly a powder keg waiting to blow.

But in short, this isn't about government overreach. It's actually one dude refusing to follow federal law and threatening violence against federal agents who come to enforce that law.

Senior Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution


@NewAgJudge wrote:

This case has been going on since the 90s. Mr. Bundy, the rancher, was told decades ago that he was not permitted to use the land for grazing. He continued to do so, defiantly declaring that he did not recognize the government's ownership of the land. Over time, he collected a massive amount of fines for his continued trespassing and private use of public land. So, recently, a court ordered an injunction against Mr. Bundy, who by this point owed nearly $1 million in federal fines. The Bureau of Land Management--which controls and operates the land--determined that if Mr. Bundy would not pay the fines, they would confiscate his cattle, selling them off to pay his fines. Mr. Bundy responded by openly threatening violence against any federal agent who attempted to confiscate his cattle. He has repeatedly declared that he is armed and will use his weapons "if necessary". He has also gained the support of other locals, who are using this as a rallying point for anti-government sentiments, forming armed militias around his property. This prompted the federal agency to send armed agents to monitor the situation, which has become nearly a powder keg waiting to blow.

But in short, this isn't about government overreach. It's actually one dude refusing to follow federal law and threatening violence against federal agents who come to enforce that law.


As I said Judge, I don't know enough to take a side. Why was Bundy told he could no longer graze the land? Who told him he could no longer graze the land?

Senior Contributor

Re: 2nd Revolution

 

.

Bundy owns his ranch's land, and was grazing his cattle on land outside of that ranch. He claims he owns that land, but has no documentation to show so, and so the BLM, which manages federally held land in the US, has been in a 20ish year fight with him. The problem is that he has not been paying grazing fees, which are a standard practice for all ranchers in the US wanting to graze on BLM land. After years of not doing anything about it, the BLM is finally barring him from grazing his cattle on these lands.

He is countering by saying the BLM is after his own land in order to give it to special interests, and that he was within his rights to "fire" the BLM. The main controversy goes back to who actually "owns" the land, as the Bundy's are using more sentimental ideals of ownership that the US government (and thus, the BLM) do not recognize.

So if he was that worried about the BLM taking his ranch, he wouldn't have stopped paying his grazing fees that are giving the BLM all the legal room in the world to harass him.

Honored Advisor

Re: 2nd Revolution

Exactly!  I`m neutal here, it`s like if you lent your neighbor a pair of hedgetrimmers in 1993...you causally mention it over the years, but never take him to court or anything....Then!  in 2014 you make a big deal about it sending every law enforcement agency in a 3 state area with guns drawn and confiscating the hedgetrimmers and everything else in the poor guy`s garage.  It`s over reacting big time.  The rancher Bundy may be at some fault, but this is being handled very badly by the feds, given Bundy has told them to "stick it" since `93, there should be some sort of "statute of limitations" kicking in.  Maybe not absolving him of everything, but at least be a part of a peacefull compromise.

 

The thing is, there are Iowa farmers that farmed land that Interstate 35 now goes through, it took up their land it split their farm down the middle in some cases and they have to drive 15 mile out of their way just to now get to the other end of their farm, that`s similar what`s happened between ranchers and the federal BLM..even more so since they only are leasing the land.  Like around here the landlord calls the shots, if he raises the rent, he can do that, if he demands no-till farming he can do that, if he demands you mow his lawn and clear his driveway he can do that.  The BLM is basically a asshoIe landlord, you pay or you don`t get to play.

 

The whole thing is fishy, the timing everything about it.  I imagine over the yrs these agencies have gotten stacked with radical environmentalists that hate individualism and now they have the muscles and they are going to flex them.

 

But before someone jumps on their Harley with their Confederate flag and AK-47 to go and flip off the cops down there.  Here`s a few things to consider: whatever you drive or bring down there for firepower, the federal gov`t with match you tenfold.  Also if you`re in a group of 100 protesters, you might be the only one there that isn`t a FBI informant...alotta "Reverend Sharptons" Smiley Happy  in other words you`d be screwed.

 

My advice to Bundy, if he`s on the up and up is to fight it in court and use the resources of the Farm Bureau.  In Iowa there`s a group called the "Coalition to support Iowa Farmers" they seem to be able to bowl over state local and federal governments to get hog setups in.  Helping a rancher out in the middle of the desert should be a piece of cake for them to help.