• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not so.
Nevada was granted statehood in October 1864. Bundy claims his family has used the land since the 1880s.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Oh hell, when you're in the wrong, admit your mistake, pay the bill and get on with your life.

Some 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]
Click to expand...
Bundy standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, he admits he's not paying the bills, a court tells him to pay the bills, but remains contemptuous.
 
Tettsuo said:
If they take up arms against Americans enforcing the law... yes! The guy's a thief, not a patriot protecting his rights.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing
by KEN COLE on APRIL 14, 2014 ·
By Ralph Maughan and Ken Cole

In 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.
Click to expand...
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing | The Wildlife News
 
Last edited:
AJiveMan said:
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
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges and I would not expect my home to be surrounded 20 years later over it.
 
Tettsuo said:
So what exactly does that have to do with Bundy? Please explain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
humbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where are Al's cattle grazing?
 
humbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...
What Bundy owes is not a tax . It is a user fee.
More like rent than anything else.
 
humbolt said:
Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

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?
 
What 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.
Click to expand...
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing | The Wildlife News
The land in question has ALWAYS been federal land, since we won the war with Mexico.
 
humbolt said:
Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

What doesn't matter is you conflating Sharpton owing taxes to Bundy owing fees and gathering armed folks support his theft.

Sharpton has nothing to do with this situation. You bringing this up amounts to nothing more than a smoke screen.
 
AJiveMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sound strategy and I like how it was designed by you to not provoke violence with the unarmed officers doing the approaching of the armed vigilante mob. .
 
humbolt said:
Doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Of course it matters. Land user fees come under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
A tax would come under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service.
It doesn't matter if you are ignorant of the law, is what you are saying.
.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didnt answer the question. What is libertarian about a centralized govt managing where cows eat grass?
 
AJiveMan said:
Yes it does, the subject is not paying user fees, not taxes. Stop trying to bend sheeet your own way.
Click to expand...

If one owes the government money, it doesn't matter to which entity within the government you owe it to or how you characterize it. You owe it. Stop trying to veil the true issue.
How many cattle does Al Sharpton own?
Click to expand...

Cattle? You're missing the point. Bundy makes his living raising cattle. It's his source of income. Sharpton makes his living at NAN, MSNBC, and other places. It's his source of income.
 
jonny5 said:
You didnt answer the question. What is libertarian about a centralized govt managing where cows eat grass?
Click to expand...

Well it COULD be managing public lands so the land is not abused by 'takers' who don't live in a big city. I'd say a libertarian shouldn't care a great deal how you graze cows on PRIVATE lands, but on public lands that belong to more than one rancher...

If not then why not free range in every public park, forest, grassland, reserve??? And not to make too fine a point of it, why not just let whoever wants to use it do so free of charge... which is what Bundy was doing... 900 cows can eat 13 pounds of dry matter a day- I wish I could get free grazing like that!!!!
 
Buck Ewer said:
Cliven Bundy Has No Claim to Federal Land and Grazing
Click to expand...


He has more claim than the federal govt

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom