Armed stand off in NV

[morfeeis]

Not much in the news about it and that confused the hell out of me. You'd think a couple thousand people saying they are ready for an armed conflict with the BLM would be all over the news. Wasn't to sure what side was in the right as i still don't know all of the info butb this video brought up some data that i had no idea about.

 

[Domination]

Bundy is more in the wrong for using Alex Jones tactics to turn a dispute into a Police State issue to attract support from anti-government organizations.

This explains the situation:

The Background

According to many media outlets, the entirety of the story is that the Federal government is attempting to confiscate Bundy’s cows and fine him an unreasonable amount of money simply because of the presence of an endangered species of turtle in the area where the cows feed. Other outlets provide different versions of the story, with facts and timelines arranged in different order.

The fact is that Bundy’s cows had been grazing on Federal land. This is not disputed by anyone in terms of the location. Because use of public lands for commercial purposes (ranch cattle grazing is commerce), ranchers are required to pay a grazing fee to the BLM. This fee amounts to about $1.35 per animal.

Bundy stopped paying this fee in 1993. Bundy contends that the land is not under the jurisdiction of the BLM or the Federal government, but under the state of Nevada. Thus, he also contends that he owes nothing to the Federal government since he claims that the Feds have no jurisdiction. If he owes anything at all, he says, he owes the money to Nevada or Clark County. Since Nevada is not coming forward to claim their money, Bundy argues that he owes nothing at this time. It should be noted that Bundy says he is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County.

Nevada is not coming forward to collect the money, of course, because the land is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Bundy, however, continues to claim that because his family has worked the land since the 1800s, he has pre-emptive rights including the right to forage. However, pre-emptive rights are the result of a contract agreement, a contract that Bundy has stated he does not have.

Many of Bundy’s supporters also claim that Constitutional rights are being violated in this case because of a clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17), which supposedly restricts the Federal government from buying from states except for the purpose of erecting “forts, magazines, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” However, the land in question belonged to the Federal government before Nevada even became a state, making it impossible to buy land that was not yet even a state. Even so, the interpretation of this particular clause of the Constitution in this manner is tenuous to say the least since it refers to the legislative governance of the stated areas and institutions under the ownership of the Federal government.

In regards to the “turtles,” the claims suggesting that Bundy’s fees were a result of the designation of the desert tortoise as an endangered species are fundamentally untrue. Bundy ceased his payments in 1993. The grazing area was designated as off limits due to the presence of the “turtles” in 1998. Thus, the “turtles” played no part in Bundy’s original resistance to the grazing fee.

However, it is also true that the BLM has euthanized a large number of the same tortoises they claim as being endangered; but the stated purpose of this euthanasia was to protect the sick tortoises from infecting the healthy ones being released back into the wild.

What should be pointed out, however, is that the DTCC (Desert Tortoise Conservation Center) was actually moved to the land where Bundy’s cattle were grazing in 1991 in order to protect the desert tortoise from becoming extinct due to a development in Southern Las Vegas, a money-maker that grossly outweighed any concern for nature in the minds of business and government.

The other side of this story is that since Bundy stopped paying his fee in 1993 and refused to accept a grazing permit, in the eyes of the BLM, there were no ranchers on the public land for five years, since Bundy is the only rancher left in Clark County.

Furthermore, although Bundy’s assertions regarding the idea that the BLM and other interests wanted him off the land should be given due attention, it should be pointed out that his original claim against BLM was that the Federal government did not have jurisdiction over the land.

In fact, Bundy doesn’t believe the Federal government has authority over much of anything. Last year, he told the New York Times, “I've got to protect my property. If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Lastly, it is important to note that the original stated intent of the BLM and associates was to close off the federal land from the Bundy Ranch and remove the trespassing cattle, not to launch an all-out assault on the ranch in Waco fashion.

 

[Soldier Gryphon]

One thing I learned in history class about the federal government and armed ranchers saying the land belongs to them: The federal government always wins.

 

[ZombiesRUCrazy]

sounds like a bunch of red neck douche bags making a scene.

 

[Z A C K]

One thing I learned in history class about the federal government and armed ranchers saying the land belongs to them: The federal government always wins.

Yep, something tells me the rancher is going to be out some cash.

 

[sharkboy1200]

From what I've read over since this has become a development is that the guy is crazy and in the wrong. He's been given his chances and resorted to using armed force to resist. Time WACO it up Obama or whoever is in charge of that kind of thing.

 

[Domination]

The guy is trying to play the victim game. He's crying about the government conducting a Waco-style incursion, when he is really the one instigating it by inviting anti-government armed militias to defend his "rights". I read earlier that the militias are building barricades around his home to fend off possible raids.

 

[Tommygun.]

"Waco-ing it up" may be a bit overkill.

If indeed the man is serious about all the threats, instead, blockade, isolate, drain of resources, wait it out. If nothing comes of it, then at least the place is isolated, they're kept out of federal land, the fee is technically no longer necessary. Dealing with people with this kind of...zeal, should be delicate.

Of course if even one shot is fired, then sure, swat raid and all that. at this point it's still an unhinged man with very anti gubment views and probably a decent number of guns.

Though this all depends on if this is even worth the resources that would take in the first place. It's sort of a...dumb situation.

 

[Domination]

Not only that, he isn't willing to have talks with BLM in private. He prefers any communication with them in front of the "people" as he calls it. Why involve the people into private matters? He's in debt with the government, plain and simple.

 

[Z A C K]

The guy is trying to play the victim game. He's crying about the government conducting a Waco-style incursion, when he is really the one instigating it by inviting anti-government armed militias to defend his "rights". I read earlier that the militias are building barricades around his home to fend off possible raids.

If guns go blazing I'm guessing the "militia" and the "barricades" are going to do very little to stop a SWAT team or whoever is called in.

 

[horns]

He's in the wrong. They've been through the courts for years. He's had a bunch of warnings and chances to fix the situation.

The government did the right thing by letting his cattle go. It was not necessary to rile up crazy anti-government and militia people by giving them an actual reason to kill. Which I suspect some were hoping for.

 

[Viktor]

Don't know much behind it but what little I did I instantly thought he was one of those "gubment out to get me" types and wanted to resist thinking he was above the law. After reading up on it, yep looks like that about sums it up.

 

[horns]

Speaking crazy anti-government people, this former sheriff had a plan to put women at the front of the crowd in case there was gun fire from the federal government. Stay classy.

 

[sharkboy1200]

You gather all the photos and footage captured and can make a nice Cypress Hill music video.

 

[morfeeis]

Just wondering; how many of you took the time to watch the video and research what is really going on in NV? While i can say with a clear mind that Bundy should have done things differently and that his sovereign citizen talk hurts his cause more than anything. I also see a huge problem with 42 out of 43 ranchers being forced out of the area that is slated for development that has a local senator's name all over it. It also worries we that the proof that ties him to it was removed from the BLM's website (but found elsewhere).

I would also call BS on protecting some turtle that the blm was killing off a while back due to lack of funding.

I'd also call bs on taxing someone to graze on land that is absolutely useless to almost everyone else, this fact is very clear to anyone who has driven to NV.

 

[morfeeis]

Speaking crazy anti-government people, this former sheriff had a plan to put women at the front of the crowd in case there was gun fire from the federal government. Stay classy.

Aren't you all for equal rights, if women are the same as men what's the big deal. beside those women made up their own minds to march. Also wouldn't that show that he wanted peace, he took every step to make sure there was no shooting?

 

[Z A C K]

The government is evil! AHHhhhh

 

[horns]

Just wondering; how many of you took the time to watch the video and research what is really going on in NV? While i can say with a clear mind that Bundy should have done things differently and that his sovereign citizen talk hurts his cause more than anything. I also see a huge problem with 42 out of 43 ranchers being forced out of the area that is slated for development that has a local senator's name all over it. It also worries we that the proof that ties him to it was removed from the BLM's website (but found elsewhere).

I would also call BS on protecting some turtle that the blm was killing off a while back due to lack of funding.

I'd also call bs on taxing someone to graze on land that is absolutely useless to almost everyone else, this fact is very clear to anyone who has driven to NV.

Your video has major flaws.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

Who would have thunk?

Aren't you all for equal rights, if women are the same as men what's the big deal. beside those women made up their own minds to march. Also wouldn't that show that he wanted peace, he took every step to make sure there was no shooting?

Using women as human shields is equal rights? Derp, what?

 

[morfeeis]

Your video has major flaws.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

Who would have thunk?



Using women as human shields is equal rights? Derp, what?

It was on the BLM's own website how can it be wrong? But hey you believe snoops over BLMs own stated plans and association.

This isn't some far fetched idea, it's something that has happened in this area before and looks to still continue.

In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case, U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media.

“the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Or we could listen to a lawyer over snoops, someone who knows the law.


as to the woman, first time you've ever used a fox link to support a story. Any other time you'd just say they are biased and disregard what they have to say.funny how things change.So if men and women are equal what's the difference between men or women being on the front line? they weren't shields they were marching up front as the women said they wanted to in accordance with the plan.


I'll say again, while i don't think the Bundys are in the right after looking at it from different angles the government and the BLM damn sure isn't too.

 

[morfeeis]

The government is evil! AHHhhhh

You would have said the same thing a year or so ago if i told you the federal government was reading your email, your text and tracking your phone records, what about using the IRS to shut people up? i'll don my hat proudly....

 

[Z A C K]

You would have said the same thing a year or so ago if i told you the federal government was reading your email, your text and tracking your phone records, what about using the IRS to shut people up? i'll don my hat proudly....

I would have said, and still do say, they're not reading anything interesting.

 

[horns]

You just can't win when someone doesn't even bother to read what you're posting. Especially after they ask you to watch an 11 minute video and "research what is really going on."

Why bother reading a well sourced article from a neutral party when I can find another politically slanted Youtube video that supports my claims? And as my points become weaker I can highlight some unrelated example as proof that it's a conspiracy!1!!!

 

[morfeeis]

You just can't win when someone doesn't even bother to read what you're posting. Especially after they ask you to watch an 11 minute video and "research what is really going on."

Why bother reading a well sourced article from a neutral party when I can find another politically slanted Youtube video that supports my claims? And as my points become weaker I can highlight some unrelated example as proof that it's a conspiracy!1!!!

i'll just say you're right and be done with it. Who cares about proof you have snoopes.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000654
maybe you'll like the exact same case without the sovereign citizen approach....

 

[morfeeis]

I would have said, and still do say, they're not reading anything interesting.

It's not about the content but the action itself. The 4th.... blah blah tin foil... blah blah blah rights.....

 

[Jarrod]

Time to Warthog those rednecks.

 

[rankandfile]

Aren't you all for equal rights, if women are the same as men what's the big deal. beside those women made up their own minds to march. Also wouldn't that show that he wanted peace, he took every step to make sure there was no shooting?

problem is is that Bundy is claiming he is for the "sovereign state of Nevada" and yet Nevada laws proclaims that everyone of its state citizens are bound to the laws of the US government and the laws of the constitution.
long story short the guy is a nut job

 

[Bodhi]

Bundy should have gone the breach of contract route. The BLM broke their contract by changing the fees and rules. As for this whole situation, Bundy may be a redneck but this whole situation is about government over reach. If you can't see that then there's no reason to complain when they eventually find some way to intrude on your life.

 

[morfeeis]

Time to Warthog those rednecks.

Posse Comitatus

 

[Bodhi]

Some of the comments and ignorance in this thread make my brain hurt and convince me that the government has already won in creating peaceful slaves.

 

[ZombiesRUCrazy]

if you visit the BLM website, the grazing fee is calculated on a yearly basis. I guarantee if there was a contract, it was an yearly contract or a clause for the fee to be adjusted yearly.

So the dude stopped paying in 1993, when the grazing fee was $1.85, it is currently $1.35.

The dude is simply in the wrong. He was using public land for his own personal gain without paying the grazing fee.

There is no overstepping. It's just a jackass being a jackass.

I mean by the dudes logic that the land belongs to Nevada and it's not federal land, that would mean that the gov't has no control over the military bases around the country built on state land and any joe schmoe should be able to walk on to the base freely.