Another Ruby Ridge in the making?

[montana]

Up date video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

[keystone183]

They wanted him off the land. If they could prove he wasn't paying that could evict him.

That doesn't make sense. If he was sending payments to Bunkerville, why did they start sending back payments? Why would they want him off the land?

[txgunner00]

"Area designated for First Amendment activities" WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This infuriates me the most out of this entire story. ALL of our rights are under attack, not just 2A protected ones. If the government has the power to designate when, where and how you can exercise your rights, do you really have them at all? What is it going to take for people to pull their heads out of the ground?

[cory]

That doesn't make sense. If he was sending payments to Bunkerville, why did they start sending back payments? Why would they want him off the land?

I've read some reports that it has something to do with the Water Rights Bundy has. I imagine in the middle of the desert, water rights are a hot commodity.

"Area designated for First Amendment activities" WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This infuriates me the most out of this entire story. ALL of our rights are under attack, not just 2A protected ones. If the government has the power to designate when, where and how you can exercise your rights, do you really have them at all? What is it going to take for people to pull their heads out of the ground?

I completely agree. My question is where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to take State Land.

[cory]

Up date video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

I don't know how those guys sleep at night.

[keystone183]

Apart from these ridiculous tactics, i don't see what this guy's leg to stand on is? The land isn't his, and if someone tells him to get off....he needs to get off. If he holds water rights, that is another issue, but i don't see those being made an issue?

[LRRPF52]

That doesn't make sense. If he was sending payments to Bunkerville, why did they start sending back payments? Why would they want him off the land?

I spoke with the Bunkerville Constable's office, as well as the desert tortoise environmental protection scientist yesterday. The person that answered the phone in Bunkerville used to have a meat processing business in their family, until the USFDA shut them down. They fought with FDA for years and years until they finally got too old and tired, and just gave up. They have no law enforcement in Bunkersville to protect the people from BLM goons, since they fall under Clark County (Vegas, and Vegas Metro PD-look at a map and see how far away they are).


Bundy's family made payments for 60 years after the BLM was created in 1946, but BLM seems to have claimed the land in question sometime, when it was really Bunkersville city land. BLM started harassing people and closing off Boy Scout and local church camping sites that they had used since the early 1900's, and began telling locals that they could no longer pull off to the side of the road and exit their vehicles even.

I also spoke with Rob Mrowka, who is a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity to hear his side of the story. Basically, once Bundy's money started getting returned to him by Bunkerville, the case was handed over to the courts, and the courts ruled in favor of the BLM, even after being appealed to the Court in San Francisco. Bundy represented himself every time. Once the Federal Appellate Court upheld the ruling against him, he said he wouldn't comply, local and State LE didn't want any part of it, and Bundy was left to continue to let his cattle graze in the area where they had all along.

Rob Mrwoka filed a lawsuit, demanding that the courts be upheld, and the BLM finally responded. Both Bundy and Mrowka say this is a sovereignty issue, and not about the tortoises, but we really wouldn't be at this point if it weren't for the question about who really owns the land- Bunkerville or BLM, and then the tortoise advocacy.

I asked if there was some kind of development planned for the area where the cattle graze, and Mrowka insisted that there was not, since it is a protected area for the desert tortoise. He also said that there are a lot of solar farms being built in Nevada, where they remove the tortoises to other locations after the solar farming company pays dislocation fees for the animals, and there is one on the Moapa Indian Reservation nearby. The only plans that BLM has for Bunkerville Ranch are to erect a monument of some kind.

I personally am not a fan of the BLM, the Federal Government claiming 87% of Nevada's land, and desert tortoises. I grew up seeing desert tortoises out where I'm from in the high desert, but haven't seen one in decades. It would be nice if the Governor of Nevada would back his statements with some force and put these BLM neckbeards in their place.

[LRRPF52]

Apart from these ridiculous tactics, i don't see what this guy's leg to stand on is? The land isn't his, and if someone tells him to get off....he needs to get off. If he holds water rights, that is another issue, but i don't see those being made an issue?

What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.

It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.

Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.

[keystone183]

What I see this being about is who has a bigger stick in laying claims to the land, and changing the rules (their rules) as time progressed. This family has let their cattle graze on the land since the late 1800's, well before FDR pulled the Homestead Act on us. What has happened is that what was once locally-owned land, is now claimed by the Federal Government, who "allowed" this family to let their cattle graze on the land after they had been doing, then charged a fee for it, then said they have exceeded their allotment of cattle per square mile, then said they need to make payments to them, then said they are in non-compliance.

It's an issue of sovereignty and encroachment on individual rights, as well as Federal overstep into rural lands where they have no business, but were moved to act by an environmental/animal rights organization, even though the enforcement agencies just wanted the case to go away because they knew the rulings were morally and ethically wrong, and this family was getting shafted bigtime.

Or you could look at it as unruly peasants, refusing to obey the orders of their Federal overlords, and they should just submit already. It all boils down to how you view individual rights, the 10th Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and the principles the US was founded on.

You won't find a bigger advocate of private property rights than me. Or any individual rights for that matter. Which is why this is an interesting issue. To me it boils down to this. The land is not his. I haven't heard any of the possible owners of this land, besides the feds, take a stand on this. Maybe i have missed them. Seems the BLM has claimed jurisdiction for a long, long time. Have there been no court battles by the town or state in regards to this? I know the feds own most everything west of Texas. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue. But seems like the horse is out of the barn. It should be a simple matter to determine who OWNS the land. I can't imagine this hasn't been done.

[LRRPF52]

Here's a link from Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/n...4-05-2014.html

This seems intended to show that their interests are being enforced by BLM/Federal Agents. See, the cows have been trespassing on land that their ranchers have allowed them to graze on for the past 146 years, but no LE agencies wanted to enforce the BS rulings because they knew they were wrong. The environmentalists finally got the government to do something about it against their will, and the will of the people, since the courts had ruled against local and State's rights.

[keystone183]

Ok, i'm going to admit. I'm not the most educated on these issues. But I'd like to be, so please feel free to do so, or point me in the right direction.

At one time, that (and everything west of the Mississippi, less Texas) was ALL federal land. Who OWNS the land NOW? What actions has that entity taken in regards to their ability to control said land.

Doing something on land that is not yours for 146 years or 2, does not give you the RIGHT to continue doing it. To me, squatters rights are BS, and this isn't even an issue in this case, seemingly.

Please don't read any of this as excusing the actions of the feds here. But i'd like to understand this situation before making judgements.

[bwaites]

You won't find a bigger advocate of private property rights than me. Or any individual rights for that matter. Which is why this is an interesting issue. To me it boils down to this. The land is not his. I haven't heard any of the possible owners of this land, besides the feds, take a stand on this. Maybe i have missed them. Seems the BLM has claimed jurisdiction for a long, long time. Have there been no court battles by the town or state in regards to this? I know the feds own most everything west of Texas. Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue. But seems like the horse is out of the barn. It should be a simple matter to determine who OWNS the land. I can't imagine this hasn't been done.

Actually, the land IS his, as no one else has a greater claim or need for the land. All land held in trust by the Federal Government is owned by the people of the United States, and is to be used by the Federal Government to benefit the greatest number of people. Since it seems no one but the Bundy's want to utilize this land, (It takes something like 100 acres to support 1 cow/calf, so its not exactly prime land!) and the desert tortoise isn't exactly a high land use animal, even the excuse of protecting the land for them is nothing but a smokescreen. Its fascinating that you can relocate desert tortoises, apparently. Plenty of desert in Nevada to move them to! However, no one has actually proven that grazing cattle seems to be an issue with the tortoises. If his family has been grazing cattle there for 100 years and there are still tortoises, doesn't that say something about the fact that grazing and tortoises are NOT mutually exclusive?

The second issue is why the States keep allowing the federal government to take over land and allow the BLM and forest service to manage it. The States rightfully own that land, they need to grow some cojones and tell the Feds to go home! Google a map of the Federally managed land in the US. A HUGE percentage of it is west of the Mississippi, and most of that is Rocky Mountain states and west. Wonder why that is? Maybe because those States are vast and much of the land was unfarmable?

1.1% of land in Ohio and 1.6% of land in Oklahoma is Federally managed, but 81.1% of Nevada, 53% of Oregon, 66% of Utah, 48% of Wyoming, 42% of Arizona and 49% of California.

Not a single state east of Colorado has more than the 13.5% of New Hampshire, but look at the western states!

[keystone183]

Actually, the land IS his, as no one else has a greater claim or need for the land. All land held in trust by the Federal Government is owned by the people of the United States, and is to be used by the Federal Government to benefit the greatest number of people. Since it seems no one but the Bundy's want to utilize this land, (It takes something like 100 acres to support 1 cow/calf, so its not exactly prime land!) and the desert tortoise isn't exactly a high land use animal, even the excuse of protecting the land for them is nothing but a smokescreen. Its fascinating that you can relocate desert tortoises, apparently. Plenty of desert in Nevada to move them to! However, no one has actually proven that grazing cattle seems to be an issue with the tortoises. If his family has been grazing cattle there for 100 years and there are still tortoises, doesn't that say something about the fact that grazing and tortoises are NOT mutually exclusive?

The second issue is why the States keep allowing the federal government to take over land and allow the BLM and forest service to manage it. The States rightfully own that land, they need to grow some cojones and tell the Feds to go home! Google a map of the Federally managed land in the US. A HUGE percentage of it is west of the Mississippi, and most of that is Rocky Mountain states and west. Wonder why that is? Maybe because those States are vast and much of the land was unfarmable?

1.1% of land in Ohio and 1.6% of land in Oklahoma is Federally managed, but 81.1% of Nevada, 53% of Oregon, 66% of Utah, 48% of Wyoming, 42% of Arizona and 49% of California.

Not a single state east of Colorado has more than the 13.5% of New Hampshire, but look at the western states!

Ok, well, i have furthered my education today. I have learned that the feds (us) DO actually own that land. I have also learned why, and why it is they shouldn't.

So, i guess this guy is looking to be a modern day Rosa Parks. Basically, the West needs to as LR put it, "grow some ball", and take what is theirs.

https://www.zianet.com/web/rebel1a.htm

[bwaites]

Ok, well, i have furthered my education today. I have learned that the feds (us) DO actually own that land. I have also learned why, and why it is they shouldn't.

So, i guess this guy is looking to be a modern day Rosa Parks. Basically, the West needs to as LR put it, "grow some ball", and take what is theirs.

https://www.zianet.com/web/rebel1a.htm

You'll note that I didn't say they OWNED the land, they hold it "in trust" for the people of the United States. In fact, there is little to allow them to even do that, but de facto, that is the case.

Its a sad state of affairs when our own government is fighting someone who has been on that land for generations, has not been accused of malfeasance or neglicence, yet is being forced off the land.

To many judges, not enough common sense!

[BjornF16]

Ok, i'm going to admit. I'm not the most educated on these issues. But I'd like to be, so please feel free to do so, or point me in the right direction.

At one time, that (and everything west of the Mississippi, less Texas) was ALL federal land. Who OWNS the land NOW? What actions has that entity taken in regards to their ability to control said land.

Doing something on land that is not yours for 146 years or 2, does not give you the RIGHT to continue doing it. To me, squatters rights are BS, and this isn't even an issue in this case, seemingly.

Please don't read any of this as excusing the actions of the feds here. But i'd like to understand this situation before making judgements.

Common law entitles all to access public lands. See Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320 (10 S.Ct. 305, 33 L.Ed. 618), 1890