Cliven Bundy Situation

[hflier]

All they needed to do was send out a sheriff to arrest him. The tactic was to intimidate and send a message to others and the effort cost way more than he owed in back fee's. Again how can you explain Al Sharpton owing more in back taxes and no action on him and this type of action towards a rancher. I hate cattle on public land also, but I also eat Steak and so I benefit from it as I am sure beef prices would be much higher if this practice where outlawed.

 

[gelton]

Here is a good timeline of events for this fiasco:

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/range-war-timeline-events

Here is a great article on how Nevada ended up with so much federally controlled land (goes all the way back to Lincoln)

http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/about-that-public-land-in-nevada/

Edit: changed link above to more informative article.

 

[hflier]

Those of you that say Bundy is a law breaking fool, remember that when the fed's show up at your house armed to take your guns off of you. If you don't think we are close to that you have been asleep for years. This is about the government using excess force in a civil matter and not cow's. I think they would have been justified in putting a lien on his property or handling it as they do with large dollar tax evaders. Think further, who the hell had the power to authorize this type of armed response, do you think that some low level hack in the government ordered something that had the potential to go so terribly wrong? No way. Each time previously it Waco, Ruby Ridge etc. it was the AG that ordered it and there is no way in hell that gutless Holder would have ordered it without consulting his boss. For crying out loud, we should have sent an armed response like this to Benghazi.

 

[gelton]

Anyone see any problems with this? Granted most of us hunt on public land so there is definitely a need but to me, this is out of hand:

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I watched most, if not all, of the videos of these incidents. Its pretty well documented on video. I did not see any women and children shield activity. There was one dorky sounding guy that put up a video that was saying put the women up front during one heated confrontation. But that was one guy. I think two people got tased, both men, so they were obviously up front. The big show down at the gate looked to be 40-50 cowboys on horses. As far as the very organized militia men, they were all armed, some heavily, and were pointing loaded weapons at federal agents. For or against, that takes big balls so I don't know if the term "coward" applies. And one thing to keep in mind, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people rallied up to support this situation. It's not like Mr. Bundy was guiding every movement and confrontation of every group of these people.

I didn't mean to sound as if every person there is a coward because certainly that is not the case. First off I do not think that it was coordinated enough for every person there to be privy to the details of every plan and second I am certain not everyone there would approve of using women and children as shields. I will say that if this really did happen every man behind the women and children and whoever commanded this sort of tactic are cowards.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

Anyone see any problems with this? Granted most of us hunt on public land so there is definitely a need but to me, this is out of hand:

I dont mind there being that much public land at all, I mind it being federally controlled.

 

[tstowater]

I dont mind there being that much public land at all, I mind it being federally controlled.

There are times that there can be worse things than "federally controlled". At times, state or local control can be worse. Seems that somewhere in this thread is some reference to some questionable activities of the county government where this dispute is located. Do understand, I'm not implying that the Feds are correct here, but do understand the implications of someone else being in charge.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

There are times that there can be worse things than "federally controlled". At times, state or local control can be worse. Seems that somewhere in this thread is some reference to some questionable activities of the county government where this dispute is located. Do understand, I'm not implying that the Feds are correct here, but do understand the implications of someone else being in charge.

It's not a matter of the lesser of two evils or one being worse than the other, it's a matter in my opinion of what is constitutional and what is not.

 

[gelton]

There are times that there can be worse things than "federally controlled". At times, state or local control can be worse. Seems that somewhere in this thread is some reference to some questionable activities of the county government where this dispute is located. Do understand, I'm not implying that the Feds are correct here, but do understand the implications of someone else being in charge.

I can agree with the majority of your statement except that it is based on two assumptions that leave out the third most obvious. You compare land that is either federally controlled or controlled by the county. How about if it were controlled by the people who owned it and worked it for generations? In the map above if you look at Nevada there are very few places that are privately held. This assumes that it was 1. never owned or worked or 2. Taken or purchased through eminent domain. What is left are renters to the government having to pay grazing fees on lands their fathers and grandfathers put to beneficial use.

Now on the flip side of that the majority of Texas is privately held and normally those who own the land turn out to be the best stewards. It does have its drawbacks too though, especially for hunting opportunities. The average price for a decent lease around here is at least $2500, its like buying a new Swaro spotting scope every year.

 

[tstowater]

It's not a matter of the lesser of two evils or one being worse than the other, it's a matter in my opinion of what is constitutional and what is not.

I am an attorney, but not a constitutional scholar, so unless someone is and understands all the impacted Constitutional provisions and other laws involved, it would be difficult at best to say there is a "constituitional" argument. The Constitution is sometimes treated like the Bible, it can be used to "justify" a lot of things. Not looking for an argument, but just a thought provoking process.

Still, my initial statement was aimed at the "big picture", not necessarily the Bundy situation. I've seen enough "local control" fiascos to know that the local people can have agendas and ulterior motives and a more "objective" party without a personal agenda needs to set the rules. That is the purpose of my response. Now, I'm going back to hunting and whether littleBuff is going to get a different job.

 

[JWP58]

Anyone see any problems with this? Granted most of us hunt on public land so there is definitely a need but to me, this is out of hand:

No I don't see a problem with public owned land that is managed by the Bureau of Land Management. I enjoy hunting and recreating on PUBLIC land. I don't want to be raped by an outfitter or property owner just to have access and be able to hunt. Maybe you do or want to...


http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/04/16/ask-rgj-released-nevadas-public-lands/7794823/

"Nevada's Constitution further reflects the enabling act: "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."

 

[mullmann]

Has anyone else heard Bundys interview with the New York Times reporter or his interview that tries to clear up his racial comments he stated in his interview with the New York Times? I found it very entertaining.

scroll down to watch video.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cliven-bundy-racist-comments-slaves-ranch-2014-4

 

[JWP58]

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/04/16/ask-rgj-released-nevadas-public-lands/7794823/

Nevada's Constitution further reflects the enabling act: "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."

Mr. Bundy might want to read his own state's constitution if he's going to keep throwing that catch phrase around. Also it appears the 160 acres that Bundy ACTUALLY owns was purchased in....not the 1870's, but 1940's....lol

"Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946."

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

I think this fella has a lot of folks fooled. I'll give it to him though, he knew what words to throw around to get a rise of certain people...."constitution" "sovereign" "liberty" "rights" "beneficial use" lol lol how about "hoodwinked"? lol

 

[sneaky]

I am an attorney, but not a constitutional scholar, so unless someone is and understands all the impacted Constitutional provisions and other laws involved, it would be difficult at best to say there is a "constituitional" argument. The Constitution is sometimes treated like the Bible, it can be used to "justify" a lot of things. Not looking for an argument, but just a thought provoking process.

Still, my initial statement was aimed at the "big picture", not necessarily the Bundy situation. I've seen enough "local control" fiascos to know that the local people can have agendas and ulterior motives and a more "objective" party without a personal agenda needs to set the rules. That is the purpose of my response. Now, I'm going back to hunting and whether littleBuff is going to get a different job.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

here's a pretty good read on the matter, and how it has evolved over time.

 

[gelton]

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/04/16/ask-rgj-released-nevadas-public-lands/7794823/

Nevada's Constitution further reflects the enabling act: "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."

Mr. Bundy might want to read his own state's constitution if he's going to keep throwing that catch phrase around. Also it appears the 160 acres that Bundy ACTUALLY owns was purchased in....not the 1870's, but 1940's....lol

"Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946."

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

I think this fella has a lot of folks fooled. I'll give it to him though, he knew what words to throw around to get a rise of certain people...."constitution" "sovereign" "liberty" "rights" "beneficial use" lol lol how about "hoodwinked"? lol

The only people who were hoodwinked are those that live in the state of Nevada. Also, if you look back about 8 posts I linked to an article that explains your "bombshell" evidence. It has to do with the Mexican American war and the re election of Abraham Lincoln. So whether the land was stolen for political reasons in 1864, or 1993 or 2014, it still doesn't make it right.

At the end of the day though, I think this ought to be solved by the people who live out west. There are too many of us East of the Rocky Mountains where large tracts of public land doesn't even exist speaking out against a problem that should be solved by local and state politicians. Like I said in an earlier post - growing up out west where 80% of the land is controlled through Washington DC will likely change your perspective on things and if that's how you like it, that's how you'll get it. I, for one, am tired of talking about Cliven Bundy and will be back to talking about hunting.

JWP58 - for an interesting background of how Nevada ended up being Federally owned and controlled -

"Interestingly enough, http://www.nevadaweb.com states that “Nevada Territory was a federal territory, a part of the Union, and President Abraham Lincoln appointed Governor James Warren Nye, a former Police Commissioner in New York City, to ensure that it stayed that way. Governor Nye put down any demonstration in support of the Confederacy, and there were some.”.....

"I recently read a very good article by Steve Miller on http://www.zianet.com entitled Nevada: The Permanent Colony which dealt with the Sagebrush Rebellion I mentioned in my last article. Mr. Miller made several observations worth noting. If you can find this article on the Internet I’d recommend reading it. Mr. Miller noted that Nevada Territory had too few people to meet requirements for statehood. This made no difference whatever. Union and pro-Lincoln activists set up constitutional conventions anyway to try to get Nevada into the Union in 1863. That attempt failed, so they came back again in 1864–so typical of the socialist agenda–if you lose, keep coming back and back until you wear down the opposition. At this point, I’d ask–if they didn’t have enough population to qualify, are they really, technically a state? They weren’t admitted under the required conditions.

Mr. Miller stated: :”Also, Lincoln needed two more loyal Unionist votes in the U.S. Senate, where the Thirteenth Amendment waited to be passed. Nevada’s admission would give him the three-fourths majority needed for a measure largely designed to help break the South…So Nevada had become a state, but it was only in a negligible sense. For all practical purposes, Nevada remained essentially a territory ruled by those who dominated the federal government.”....

“As part of the enabling legislation, Congress imposed conditions on the state that the Supreme Court, 19 years before, had already declared illegal, citing the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that new states should have ‘equal footing’ with the original thirteen. Under Nevada’s 1864 enabling act conditions, the people of the territory had to ‘forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory,’ and turn them over to the federal government.” A great deal–but for who? Certainly not the people of Nevada.

Miller’s narrative continued: “But in 1845 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pollard vs. Hagan, a case dealing with the admission of Alabama to the Union under almost identical language, had held that such conditions were in violation of the U.S. Constitution and therefore void.” The Court said: “We think the proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes…As soon as new states were formed out of the territory, ‘the power of the United States over these lands and property was to cease’.”

 

[JWP58]

Yes that great and all, but facts are facts. If he wants to point to the constitution, so can the opposition.......

But you know its the poor ol' rancher against the world...lol. Right.

 

[boom]

Wow. Got complicated. Politicians jumping off the ship.

 

[Darren Best]

The video making the rounds on the internet was cleverly edited to make him sound like a racist.

Here is the full unedited version.

http://thepcmdgazette.com/news/hoax-exposed/

 

[5MilesBack]

Wow. Got complicated. Politicians jumping off the ship.

Of course........that's what politicians do. They're in, they're out, they're on the fence, they're straddling the fence, they're back in, they're back out.........etc. They're all weasels.

 

[idcuda]

Anyone see any problems with this? Granted most of us hunt on public land so there is definitely a need but to me, this is out of hand:

Nope, looks about right to me; the more red, the better. I've lived most of my life in Pennsylvania, and now I'm in Idaho. If the Idaho map ever looks like the PA map, I'll probably be finding some place else to live.

Sometimes status-quo is perfectly fine (eg, blm land, national forests, etc). When they start handing all of that federal land over to the state, I have a feeling it's going to be used for profit. Which would generally mean less access and less hunting. I love my conservative state, but I have no confidence in their ability to do what's best for the land.