Bunkerville NV escalating.

[Rhoadmar]

Militias Are On Route to Help Cliven Bundy - Face Off With Feds: Will this be the Start of the 2nd American Revolution? : Freedom Outpost I wonder where this is going.

 

[Rookie]

It's going nowhere. IF people show up, and that's a big if, the feds will simply wait and starve them out.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a group of people united, standing against what they believe to be wrong. It could be a wake up call to our government. High hopes and all, I know...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Maybe the protest/confrontation will end up like other protests described in other threads on this forum, fading to nothing, since we all know the only people who can drop whatever they've got going on to go and protest for any length of time are the losers who don't have real jobs.

 

[public servant]

Where is the description box the video talks about? Am I just missing it?

 

[Rhoadmar]

Where is the description box the video talks about? Am I just missing it?

I'm not sure. Everything comes up for me.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Federal Government seizing ?trespassing? cows from hard-working ranchers

 

[poptab]

Or maybe they will get slaughtered like the branch dividians ?!
And no one will give a ****

Who knows anything can happen

 

[Kutnupe14]

Soooo, this about somebody grazing their cattle on govt land?

 

[Lebowski]

Well hell. I lived in Moapa Valley for a while, near the northern tip of Lake Mead (or well, where it would be if it wasn't at 50% capacity). Would go to Mesquite to get groceries, which is just next to Bunkerville and have driven past Bunkerville on the I15 many times. Small world.

I need to read up on the situation more.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Soooo, this about somebody grazing their cattle on govt land?

Much deeper apparently. There was a contract allowing him to do this, contract was changed because of a a turtle, yada yada yada

 

[IndyDave1776]

Soooo, this about somebody grazing their cattle on govt land?

This is about somebody exercising grazing rights his family has possessed for over 100 years on county/state ground commandeered by the feds who have absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.

If you are going to take the position that the government is right because it is the government, then you are on the right track with your question. Otherwise...

 

[Kutnupe14]

And what are these "militias" getting involved for? Just another reason, those movements are filled with loons.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is about somebody exercising grazing rights his family has possessed for over 100 years on county/state ground commandeered by the feds who have absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.

If you are going to take the position that the government is right because it is the government, then you are on the right track with your question. Otherwise...

Does he own the land? If not who does? If the govt owns the land, they are entitled to restrict it's use. If this guy is grazing his cattle, then by default he's benefiting at no cost to himself. In fact, if the govt is maintaining the land, then taxpayers are essentially paying for his use of the land.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Does he own the land? If not who does? If the govt owns the land, they are entitled to restrict it's use. If this guy is grazing his cattle, then by default he's benefiting at no cost to himself. In fact, if the govt is maintaining the land, then taxpayers are essentially paying for his use of the land.

The .gov is NOT entitled to unilaterally change contractual grazing rights. Now that we have addressed that point, please tell me where the Constitution grants the federal government to possess such land, or administer it on behalf of a state or county, which is exactly what it is presently doing whether or not the state/local governments like it or not.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Does he own the land? If not who does? If the govt owns the land, they are entitled to restrict it's use. If this guy is grazing his cattle, then by default he's benefiting at no cost to himself. In fact, if the govt is maintaining the land, then taxpayers are essentially paying for his use of the land.

It is my understanding that he has a contract, (a lease if you will) made improvements at his expense (roads, water, etc).

Lets pretend a tenant has a lease & the landlord comes in & takes their furniture & kicks them out in the street because the landlords pet beagle (nothing against beagles) comes into the yard.

flame suit on.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The .gov is NOT entitled to unilaterally change contractual grazing rights. Now that we have addressed that point, please tell me where the Constitution grants the federal government to possess such land, or administer it on behalf of a state or county, which is exactly what it is presently doing whether or not the state/local governments like it or not.

Mr Bundy argument is that he doesn't have to pay specifically because he doesn't have a contract. And what does the Constitution have to do with this piece of property. If the state of Nevada said it's ok for him to graze his cattle there, that would be a different issue. Has Nevada done such? This guy is acting as if he owns that particular piece of property.
He went to court over this 20 years ago and lost... but if he had won, he'd be using the law to his benefit. He's been given the chance to remove his cattle, but has refused. He's basically the cattle racncher version a welfare, wants something for nothing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Mr Bundy argument is that he doesn't have to pay specifically because he doesn't have a contract. And what does the Constitution have to do with this piece of property. If the state of Nevada said it's ok for him to graze his cattle there, that would be a different issue. Has Nevada done such? This guy is acting as if he owns that particular piece of property.
He went to court over this 20 years ago and lost... but if he had won, he'd be using the law to his benefit. He's been given the chance to remove his cattle, but has refused. He's basically the cattle racncher version a welfare, wants something for nothing.

and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

Is the piece of property in question a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building? No? Then there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to have possession or control of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is the piece of property in question a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building? No? Then there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to have possession or control of it.

...I think that references military installations


Article 4 Sec 3 (2nd part)

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[Kutnupe14]

...That apparently ends the case. It was an original part of the Constitution. So unless Nevada has a claim, the feds have the right of it.

 

[jontheturboguy]

Mr Bundy argument is that he doesn't have to pay specifically because he doesn't have a contract. And what does the Constitution have to do with this piece of property. If the state of Nevada said it's ok for him to graze his cattle there, that would be a different issue. Has Nevada done such? This guy is acting as if he owns that particular piece of property.
He went to court over this 20 years ago and lost... but if he had won, he'd be using the law to his benefit. He's been given the chance to remove his cattle, but has refused. He's basically the cattle racncher version a welfare, wants something for nothing.

I disagree sir.

This is an over reaching government coming in and claiming something that is not theirs. Then after the claim was made, said tyrannical government issuing false statements, interest accumulation, and erroneous fees.

Mr. Bundy gave these BLM boys the two finger salute 20 years ago, and continues to do so.

This would be the equivalent of a violent felon's family informing you that xyz area of your police patrol is now theirs. In order to patrol their area, you must pay a patrol fee. You don't recognize their authority to xyz area.

Mr. Bundy has done the same. He has refused to be a slave and subject to a tyrannical government and refuses to recognize any authority the feds claim they have....

Now that the BLM has illegally invaded the Bundys' properties, stolen livestock, and destroyed several head of the Bundys'' cattle, the BLM is nothing more than treasonous redcoat felonious goons.