- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- 2,874
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Stealing? Grass? Pffffft
Yes. It's not his land to profit from. Others pay for that. Check the law.
Stealing? Grass? Pffffft
Glad to know your views on killing American's who in your view, steal, has limits.
Not so.Bundy's family was grazing that land since before Nevada was a state. They started chagrin him rent for land he had been using for years.
Bundy standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSome US Government land in Nevada is managed by BLM, which allows stock grazing in some areas under certain permits and restrictions. Bundy grazed his cattle legally on an area of federal land near Bunkerville prior to 1993, but when grazing rules were changed in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County, he became locked in legal battles with the US government.[4] Bundy has accumulated over $1 million of debt in unpaid grazing fees and admitted that he has refused to pay them.[5]
United States v. Bundy[edit]
US v Bundy Filings:
*June 2012 - Answer
*Dec 2012 - Motion for Summary Judgment
*July 2013 - Court Order
The case of United States v. Bundy played out over many years in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It involved court orders, injunctions, and notices. Bundy argued that the land belongs to the state.[5] The court ruled that the land on which Bundy was grazing his cattle was indeed owned by the federal government, that he had not been paying to use it as he should have been, that Bundy and his cattle were trespassing, and that the government had the right to enforce the injunctions against trespass. The court found that Bundy repeatedly violated the court orders and continued to have his cattle trespass.[5][6]
If they take up arms against Americans enforcing the law... yes! The guy's a thief, not a patriot protecting his rights.
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing | The Wildlife NewsIn the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands.
Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLM over the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution states:
“Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”
If Bundy “owns the land then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes?
It’s not his land.
Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.
Apples and oranges and I would not expect my home to be surrounded 20 years later over it.Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
Stealing? Grass? Pffffft
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, when you visit a National Forest, it's okay to steal the toilet paper and shower heads out of the bathrooms because somebody else paid for it. :screwy
So what exactly does that have to do with Bundy? Please explain.
Apples and oranges and I would not expect my home to be surrounded 20 years later over it.
The really sad thing is that the folks who came out from under their rocks to bring their toys and pound their chest in macho bravado to impress each other now believe they actually faced down the government. This will only encourage such insanity in the future.
Heavens. Out of all the people and entities that owe significant taxes - much more significant than Bundy - they go after Bundy, while the others walk. Sharpton is but one example. There are no armed federal agents surrounding Sharpton in an attempt to collect the taxes he owes. Bundy, however, is given the full knee-cap treatment. A reasonable person should wonder why the discrepancy. An unreasonable person probably doesn't care about such silly stuff as equal treatment under the law.
What Bundy owes is not a tax . It is a user fee.Heavens. Out of all the people and entities that owe significant taxes - much more significant than Bundy - they go after Bundy, while the others walk. Sharpton is but one example. There are no armed federal agents surrounding Sharpton in an attempt to collect the taxes he owes. Bundy, however, is given the full knee-cap treatment. A reasonable person should wonder why the discrepancy. An unreasonable person probably doesn't care about such silly stuff as equal treatment under the law.
Where are Al's cattle grazing?
What Bundy owes is not a tax . It is a user fee.
More like rent than anything else.
What Bundy owes is not a tax . It is a user fee.
More like rent than anything else.
Doesn't matter.
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing | The Wildlife NewsWhat about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon? This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the “Mexican Cession.” All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government.
Doesn't matter.
And those maroons claimed victory too.
If I would have been in charge of the operation confronting those gunnys, I would have told my federal officers to remove their firearms, and lock them away out of sight, and approached the leader/s of the group, and told them to disperse. If they did not, more unarmed federal officers would be called in to arrest them all.
Now, if they'd shot a couple of feds doing their jobs, I would ask for military assistance to take not violent action to arrest, overpowering those gunnys by sheer numbers.
Of course it matters. Land user fees come under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.Doesn't matter.
The BLM, the National Forest Service, and the National Park service were all set up by the elected representatives of the people to take care of the land that belongs to all of us. No one entity controls 90% of any state. Parts of the public land in Nevada are administered by the other two entities as well.
Yes it does, the subject is not paying user fees, not taxes. Stop trying to bend sheeet your own way.
How many cattle does Al Sharpton own?
You didnt answer the question. What is libertarian about a centralized govt managing where cows eat grass?
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.