Incendiary Images of the Day: Nevada Rancher vs. BLM Confrontation Escalates

Or man in Utah, TTAG contributor and talk show host Bryan Hyde, gave us the latest intel on the Bundy Ranch vs. the Bureau of Land Management standoff. The Bundy family and its supporters are busy removing signs from the government lands that proclaim that the area is temporarily closed by order of the federal government. That is what you call an escalation. As is the caption on the image after the jump, provided by the Bundys. Meanwhile and at the same time, Bundy Ranch supporters had a major scuffle with the BLM over a dump truck exiting federal lands. Turns out the feds are removing fencing and other improvements the family made to government owned property. So the feds are doing the escalation thing, too. Both sides are armed. And if you don’t think this s*it’s getting real, check this out comment on the “Operation Bundy Freedom” Facebook page . . .

Screen Shot 2014-04-10 at 10.16.07 AM

That’s an FBI visit worth of not good, especially on a page asking for militia members to gather in Nevada to defend Mr. Bundy. Like this . . .

Armed tyrannical Federal Government Snipers training high powered sniper rifles at American Family… NUFF SAID… NOW ‘WE’ DO SOMETHING to SAVE OUR FREEDOM from our elected Republican and Democrat usurping Enemies of our Bill of Rights. And, it starts by Saving the Ranch and Lives of the Bundys. Who are now STANDING for our Rights and FREEDOM in our stead.

This is NOT just about the Bundy Ranch, it is about our Ninth and Tenth Amendment LAWs! What the HELL is the “Federal Government” doing in the free and sovereign Country of Nevada? ? ? ? When will our elected Republican and Democrat enemies send their Shock Troops and Storm Troopers to attack us in our home Countries and have their snipers train high powered rifles on our family homes in our home Countries?

THIS IS ‘THE REASON’ FOR The Second Amendment; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Will the REAL Americans PLEASE STAND UP!

Come out to the area ASAP! But ANYTIME, ANY DAY, you can make it over the next WEEK, please do so… Do not worry if you cannot make it on Thursday.

The Bundys are doing little to douse the rising flames of potential armed confrontation. But they are doing something. Here’s that image I referred in the beginning of the post followed by the Oath Keepers’ call to action.

Bundy family paranoia?

Per Ammon Bundy, here are some rules:

First, NO MILITARY CAMMO. This is a protest by rural Americans. Dress accordingly. (from me: Oath Keepers can wear Oath Keepers polos if you have them, or OK T shirts, but please no cammo. Let’s respect the Bundy family request).

No open carry of rifles. Any rifles people may have with them need to stay in the vehicles. When you arrive at the protest rally point, ask for Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, to check in. If he is not there, he will have designated another family rep for you to check in with. DO NOT go past that first rally point/protest site with the flags that the family has set up on private land. Beyond that is the road to their ranch, and no one is to drive to the ranch without express permission and escort by Cliven Bundy or his sons. Please respect their need for security and privacy.

No volunteer is to give any media interviews. Refer all media first and foremost to the Bundy family members present, in particular Cliven Bundy, Ammon, or one of the other sons. And/or refer them to one of the current serving Nevada State legislators who will be there, such as Michele Fiore (she is gathering a coalition of Nevada representatives), or one of the current serving Sheriff’s who will be coming. We are there to support them, and let them handle the media.

If any media ask to interview Oath Keepers, please refer them to me, but I will likely just refer them to the family until we do a press conference once Sheriff Mack arrives – and even then, the focus will be on the coalition of current serving Western State Legislators and Sheriffs that we are helping to gather. They and the family will be the main effort, and we are there as support.

BRING CAMERAS. Film everything. The more cameras, the better.

Bring relevant signs about honoring the oath, respecting property rights and free speech rights. We are there to stand up for rural Americans who are under attack and to pressure the Governor and the Clark County Sheriff to do their duty.

Ammon said volunteers can camp on private property that is on the side of the road at the main protest site the family has set up (the first gathering place you will come to with signs and flags once you get off I-15 at exit 112 and go about two miles). Again, please ask the family members present where to park and where to camp if you want to camp.

Stewart

We’ll keep an eye on this, hoping there’s a peaceful resolution. But clearly, some Americans are spoiling for a fight with Uncle Sam. Not good.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

218 Responses to Incendiary Images of the Day: Nevada Rancher vs. BLM Confrontation Escalates

  1. avatarJolly Roger That says:

    And we all thought that Connecticut was going to be the starting point…

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Not me, check my posts. I said CT milquetoasts would line up and register. Many did. Some didn’t, but they haven’t encountered any push back yet. When they do, they’ll comply promptly, as when the first surburban scofflaw gets arrested and paraded before local T.V. cameras.

      As for these people in Nevada, well, they sure do talk a lot about their property rights and their rights to privacy and security. Yet, the whole issue centers on their apparently illegal use of someone else’s property, namely the Federal government’s land.

      And where do these pseudo patriots get off calling it the “Country of Nevada”, when the Federal government owns over 80% of the land? Throw in the tribal lands beyond that, and Nevadans really ought to brace for a re-imagination of who the trespassers really are. This is not a 2A struggle, and it’s foolish for the people of the gun to cast their lot in with these people.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        Since it is not a post office, courthouse, armory, port or other needful building, it is not legally or Constitutionally the Federal government’s land.

        • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

          Seriously? Going around making up arbitrary, unilateral standards such as THAT, not only is a good way to escalate such situations to the point of people getting hurt, but it’s also the same sort of lawlessness that some accuse the Federal government of committing. There’s no Constitutional or other legal requirement that Federal property must be among only those categories you mentioned. “Needful building.” Good grief.

        • avatarDuke says:

          Gotta agree with Jonathan. This is not the smart place to take this kind of a stand.

      • avatarJake F. says:

        Bundy paid tribute to the Federal government until 1993 despite their trumped-up claim of jurisdiction over sovereign Nevada territory. In 1993 when the Bureau of Land Management unilaterally modified its regulatory structure to include protections for the ‘endangered’ desert tortoise; in doing so, the BLM altered the terms of Bundy’s lawful permits (for which he had duly paid). The alterations put a substantial economic burden on the Bundy Ranch and would have limited the headcount of his cattle herd from over 2,000 heads to less than 200. Thus in 1993, Bundy ceased payment of the permits and continued to graze upon the Bunkerville Allotment. In 1997, the BLM passively recognized Bundy’s property interests in the allotment when they offered him compensation for stockwater rights and range improvements made therein. Bundy refused and in 1998, the U.S. government filed a complaint against him for trespass.

        In accordance with Nevada state law and county ordinance, Bundy and his cattle were permitted to graze on the public land under “Open Range” policy.

    • avatarMark says:

      The only aggression shown so far has been perpetrated by BLM agents. I foretold this when I penned that the violence would be started by the government thugs.
      I find it telling that when the 20 some supporters of the Bundys went out and rounded up some cattle the BLM has rustled they were confronted, however, because the BLM thugs were outnumbered they backed down. Folks out there, and elsewhere, take note of this. Confront them when they are in a smaller group. A defensive war is never won.

      • avataraskeptic says:

        The actions of the BLM are not too dissimilar to the actions of the National Park Police during the shutdown in restricting access to land that the Feds do not control, such as viewing turn-offs from state roads near Mr. Rushmore, and an access drive to a privately owned parking lot.
        They are being quite aggressive in asserting their sovereignty and authority where they only marginally have some, if any.

  2. avatarJT says:

    This is going to end spectacularly for all parties involved.

  3. avatarJim R says:

    Why the hell does this podunk county in the middle of nowhere have a TANK!?

    • avatarSteve in MD says:

      That looks more like an APC.

      • avatarWIll in Oregon says:

        its an old M113 APC… Vietnam vintage the US Army still has about 6000 of them in service

    • avatarCurtis in IL says:

      Because they can.

      Just like this Iowa town of 7,000 can get an MRAP.
      http://www.dailyiowan.com/2014/04/08/Opinions/37365.html

      Free military “surplus” for the taking.
      Too much testosterone, not enough accountability.

    • avatarPaul G. says:

      Because .gov says “go ahead, take one, we’ll make more”.

    • avatarBurnout says:

      Jim, this has been going on for a long time. Even podunk places have the equipment to squash rebellions. It is part of the whole fascism movement our Government has embarked upon. That is why we get so outraged when LEO touts their latest tacticool crap.

      • avatarCol. Angus says:

        I’d be willing to bet that the terms of transfer include some circumstances under which the FedGovies can re-take possession. So, all they’ve done is shift the maintenance burden onto municipalities (mostly staffed with numbnuts LEOs) until such time as they want to make use of their now strategically placed vehicles.

      • avataraskeptic says:

        Wine bottles, gasoline, rags: Some assembly required.

    • avatarRoll says:

      I think thats an 113, anyone confirm?

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Because of nutty families like the one in this story, I guess.

      • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

        Nutty? Can you explain what you mean by that?

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          Nutty= What a government thug says a citizen is when the citizen doesn’t bow down and worship at the government thug’s feet.

    • avatarScottlac says:

      Clark county Nevada has a population of about 2,000,000 people. The county seat is a little town you may have heard of called Las Vegas. They have some casinos for revenue.

      • avatarScottlac says:

        2 hours later and my comment is still “awaiting moderation”? Am I not welcome here?

        • avatarjackfrost says:

          Trigger words scottlac, gotta avoid them and lately, any word that is Webster’s seems to be a trigger word thanks to the thought police in the gubmint!

    • avatarScottlac says:

      Do you realize that Clark county has a county seat called “Las Vegas”? It isn’t exactly “podunk”. There are 2 million people in that county.

  4. avatarKingSarc48265 says:

    No way I can make it out there. Is there any way to donate to the Bundy family?

    • avatarCurtis in IL says:

      It’s your money, but you may want to acquire some facts first before you become another “low information donor.” Read ropingdown’s comments from a few days ago.
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/incendiary-image-of-the-day-bureau-of-land-management-sharpshooters-edition/

      • avatarKingSarc48265 says:

        Doesn’t change the fact that the family will have protesters camping out on their property. A few garbage cans with bags will keep the place from looking like woodstock. I don’t care who is right or wrong here, I just refuse to side with a government that has forgotten that they answer to the people.

      • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

        I don’t doubt that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of both sides of the argument but when they posted “First Amendment Zone” signs that was it for me. How dare they.

        I don’t know the full story behind the land rights. Sounds like the family may be in the wrong but maybe not, I only talk about things I know or understand so I’ll keep my mouth shut about that. I do know that “First Amendment Zones” are wrong; that is absolute. The Gov is being a bunch of thug bullies, if some of them get curb stomped while beating/tasing unarmed citizens then so be it.

        • avatarSteeped in Sage says:

          Regarding the comments on the Free Speech Zone. I went in and read the environmental document that discusses the plan to remove the livestock. The rationale to have these areas (and not let everyone run around the range willy nilly) was for safety. Think about it, you don’t want govt. workers and contractors, and enforcement personnel mixing it up with armed miltia while the round up is going on. The entire region, some 1200 square miles is officially closed during this operation. Yet again, rather than a couple of “free speech zones” which does sound sort of Orwellian, why not just give a buffer zone of 200 feet or something along certain stretches of roadway.

          Anyway, if you look at the history of the land, legally it is owned by the US Government. Originally it was the indians, then the Mexicans had it, the US obtained it in the 1840s, and retained most of it when Nevada was made a state. There was no land grab.

          The government did change the lease conditions in the 1990s, and it appears that the Bundy’s are the last holdouts in that portion of Southern Nevada.

        • avatarLuis says:

          Don’t forget, this is the same government that threatened to arrest veterans who visited memorials during the shutdown, some months ago. Why wouldn’t the government establish ‘First Amendment” speech zones? It’s eerily reminiscent of China’s “Walls of Democracy”, that ended when so many Chinese began posting messages on the walls; that the Chinese regime eventually cracked down.

          As I understand it, rancher Bundy was paying fees to the county government, Clark Co. So, it’s not like he’s some squatter or trespasser. The past couple of days, he’s appeared on “Hannity” to tell his side.

          Man, oh man, the Obama regime had better hope and pray that this situation doesn’t end in bloodshed – especially with voters going to the polls in November. The spectacle of Obama turning guns on American citizens, while doing nothing to prevent Mexicans and other Third Worlders from coming here; has many Democrat pols nervous. Throw in Dannell Malloy criminalizing CT gun-owners for not registering their guns, and challenges to New York’s SAFE Act, and you have potentially political tinderbox conditions. All the while, Obama foams at the mouth and shakes his fist over what Putin’s doing in Ukraine.

          May we live in interesting times. But not die in them.

        • avatarSouthernPatriot says:

          The history is telling on this matter. Bundy’s grandfather came to that area of Nevada in 1877 and began to farm and ranch it. He gained preemptive rights to graze there as filed in the court house. He sold his rights to his son and his son sold his rights to his son(Bundy) and we have been brought up to the recent decades. The fees were paid to the local government for years. Some ranchers were accused of over grazing the vast prairie/desert there, so the BLM (Bureau of Land Management, another government alphabet agency) came along and said they would work with the ranchers to help them not over graze the land. The BLM then began to charge a nominal fee to the farmers to cover their costs of maintaining and improving the land. What Bundy began to notice was that the land was not being maintained nor improved. Local ranchers were being pushed out and their lands purchased for pennies on the dollar (with the grazing fees they had previously paid the BLM!). The BLM offered to buy Bundy’s land. Bundy refused, stating it had been in his family since the late 1800s and he intended to pass it on to his children. The BLM became angry with Bundy. They then came back with having to remove him from the land because of the desert tortoise which they claimed was an endangered species. This same tortoise has lived amongst the cattle for 140 years and was not endangered. In fact, the BLM euthenized thousands of desert tortoises because they had overpopulated.

          Underlying all of this was the fact that Sen. Reid and his son Rory wanted a Chinese solar company to erect a factory on 9,000 acres there and oil and natural gas supplies were found next to the area.

  5. avatarMatt Richardson says:

    I know a lot of folks are excited about this. But the way it’s going down gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. This won’t end well for anyone involved and it wouldn’t be a problem int he first place if both sides would stop acting like jackasses.

  6. avatarSouthernPatriot says:

    The local sheriff needs to grow a pair. He should intervene on the behalf of his citizens and their pre-emptive rights rights of use, which began far before the BLM or any other government alphabet agency existed. It is not Bureau land anyway, it is local county land, where the sheriff is in control, but he has abdicated his responsibility to bureaucrats and hired guns.

    • avatarJim Jones says:

      From what I read, he ran cover for Harry Reid and carries the water for the (D) party. Who’s APC do you think that is on that transport truck? Not that the (R) Governor of NV is doing anything about it either.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        The Clark Co. Sheriff is tied in hip-by-jowl with Harry Reid’s “Mormon Mafia” in Clark County.

        If this were happening in many other counties in Nevada, the BLM wouldn’t be feeling all that high and mighty. Clark County, however, is locked up politically by Reid and his spawn (look into how many offices in county government are occupied or influenced by Reid’s offspring…)

        This issue of the ranch/situation being in Clark Co. is also the reason why I know this is about water more than anything else. Reid knows that water sources are the single biggest impediment to future land development in Clark County, and land development deals in Clark County are how Harry Reid became a multi-millionaire since the early 90′s.

        • avatarropingdown says:

          They say you can’t get development permits if you don’t use his sons’ law firm. I don’t know if it is true, but it appears to be true that their “counsel” adds express treatment to an application.

        • avatarSouthernPatriot says:

          How much did Rory and Harry make on the deal to bring the Chinese solar company to occupy 9,000 plus acres? How much are they going to make by exploiting the oil and gas reserves in the property they want to take from the Bundys?

    • avatarHannibal says:

      You say he needs to ‘grow a pair’ but maybe he’s as tired of this family as everyone else!

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        How dare the serfs stand up to the King’s men! Off with their heads! Right Hanny boy?

      • avatarSouthernPatriot says:

        The sheriff is reportedly in the pocket of Harry and Rory Reid and the Mormon Mafia in the area.

  7. avatarDrVino says:

    All this posturing by the BLM over a tortoise…
    …..you know… the species hundreds of which they had in the conservation center….. and then they apparently killed off?…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130825/us-desert-tortoise-threat/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics

    • avatarPaul G. says:

      I have also heard that the primary reason the tortoises are in the area is because of the availability of food, they eat cow poop.

      • avatarMatt Richardson says:

        You heard wrong, they don’t eat cow sh*t…

        And it isn’t about the tortoises, the area being protected land for the tortoises was used by the BLM to expedite the court order.

        • avatarDrVino says:

          Oops, sorry, I forgot to turn on the sarc font in my original comment….

        • avatarMatt Richardson says:

          You were being so sarcastic that you linked an article relating to your post? C’mon…

          If that REALLY is the case, excellent, but you really need to work on how you word your posts. Even re-reading your OP looking for signs of sarcasm, I’m not finding them.

        • avatarPaul G. says:

          But then again, they do eat cow poop.
          https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10776/10049
          http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/cdd_pdfs/dta.pdf

          Maybe he should charge the government for tortoise feed, at typical rates he could rent the land and make a profit, knowing our government.

        • avatarPaul G. says:

          What I mean is that if the cows were not present, the turtles would wander off of the land in question for lack of food. This has been the case elsewhere.

        • avatarProfessor says:

          It does seem that this whole problem started in 1993 when the BLM, BECAUSE of the tortoise, reduced his grazing right to just 150 animals, so protection of the tortoise does seem to be at the root of this while mess. I’ve lived my entire life in the West, and millions of acres of land have been removed from multi-use because of some snail, turtle, bird, plant, etc. Seems this rancher just finally got fed up. yes, yes, lots of legal posturing has occurred in 20 years, but the tortoise started it all.

          This just may be the last straw…

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=1589

        “Cliven Bundy, the last cattle rancher in Clark County, reports that when the Kern River pipeline people came through and did a federally mandated tortoise population density study as part of their required Environmental Impact Statement, they found several times more tortoises per acre on the lands where the Bundys have water lines and tanks for their cattle than they found in the hot, dry desert — and literally 10 times the tortoise population density — the highest densities recorded — right here in the Las Vegas valley.

        This isn’t even counterintuitive. Early explorers found precious few tortoises in the dry Mojave desert. The Spaniards found only shells and thought them extinct.

        In the 1920s and ’30s, tortoise populations swelled to artificially high numbers as ranchers ran cattle on these lands, meantime killing off the tortoises’ main predators, the coyote and the raven.”

        • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          This is true for the stupid sage chicken as well.

          I’ve seen the wildlife records for three rural Nevada counties dating from after WWII into the 90′s. The wildlife numbers (both big game and game birds) were highest when the cattle numbers were the highest, because with the high cattle numbers came the ADC (Animal Damage Control) efforts, Compound 1080 and the coyote getters.

          Now you cannot get a wildlife biologist to admit for one millisecond that the exploding predator populations are causing any impact on game numbers. Never mind that red fox numbers have exploded – a non-native predator brought in from the UK for the fox hunters. There are desert and kit foxes that occur naturally in the high desert, but not red foxes. I blew away two of them on one of my fields one winter day – they had dug a den into the middle of one of my pivots, about 300 yards from the road. Glassed them over and said to myself “Self, that *(&(*&^ hole is going to swallow a front axle tire on a tractor really well and expensively come spring when I can’t see it under the hay…”

          So I lined up on the two of them sunning themselves on top of their mound with my .338 and let fly. Drilled both of them with one shot, but the downside was that the pelts were ruined.

          Come the middle of the next hay season, two more of these SOB’s had taken up residence in the same hole I’d just filled in.

          Red foxes are hell on passerine birds like the sage grouse and others. And the wildlife biologists don’t and won’t admit that a) the foxes are there and b) how many sage chickens these stupid non-native predators eat.

          Same deal with the DT’s. No one will admit how many of these species get killed by coyotes, whose numbers have exploded in the last 20 years in the intermountain west.

          When I’ve been out hunting mule deer, down in a hide in the sagebrush on a hillside, I’ve been stalked by a couple coyotes that scented me. I let ‘em get to within 20 feet, then drilled them from end to end with the .338. I can report that a .338 WM will go into a coyote between his eyes and exit below his bunghole and keep going quite a ways downrange. The second one got drilled just as lengthwise, but the bullet when in the bunghole and out just below his mouth. He shoulda learned to zig-zag.

          That’s what good sectional density will do for you.

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      I should have added this originally: The tortoises in that HuffPo article will almost undoubtedly be placed in other rescues. There are hundreds if not thousands of them operating throughout California/Arizona/Nevada who don’t operate in a federal capacity and thus can actually keep a reasonable overhead. Caring for the animals is very inexpensive provided you have the space. The major drawback is the difficulty of releasing the animals back into the wild due to disease that spreads rapidly through human contact.

    • avatarBrian S says:

      I think that’s mostly a distraction

      Some are linking this to fracking now.

      http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_lies_fracking_leases_Bundy_ranch.html

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        Yup. That’s the name of the game. Public Land my azz – it’s all about mineral rights, and always has been with the BLM. They’re a bunch of corporate flunkies.

      • avatarKarlan says:

        Excuse my language, but holy shit! If this is true, then every 80s movie I have ever seen is true!

  8. avatarTexanHawk says:

    Okay.. I may be an anal-retentive bastard (does that have a hyphen?). But that is NOT a “Tank”. That is an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier. A tank is a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops.

    This is just as cringe-worthy to a former Soldier as the improper use of magazine or clip.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank

    • avatarTaylor TX says:

      Or simply, no barrel not a tank :) I think the blanket term “armored vehicle” is probably the safest ha.

  9. avatarbobmcd says:

    Not a tank. An armored personnel carrier (M113 variant of some sort). Its armor can be defeated by a .50 cal, unlike a real tank; most post-WW2 tanks can’t be put down by anything smaller than a 75mm gun or an anti-tank rocket.

    That being said, I still would not want to get into an unfriendly discussion with people that have an APC on their side.

    Sorry to quibble, but this is at least as big of a difference as clip-vs-magazine.

    (Texan Hawk beat me to it by a couple of minutes.)

  10. avatarBurnout says:

    So the fascists finally have their Waco. They have been pining for one, doing everything they can to make one. Now they have one. This will be “interesting”.

  11. avatarDavid says:

    if the local sheriff doesn’t stand up it’s going to be just like Waco a horror story! The country’s at its breaking point at being pissed off at at our government in power right now the tyrants not be! If the sheriff just doesn’t stand up and say hey this isn’t how this is going to go down and you’re treating this man unfairly and that’s it. It is going to be a mess!

  12. avatarTaylor TX says:

    So if this wasnt the opportunity to get to test out some domestic drone strikes….

    This seriously cannot end well.

    • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

      That’s what I was thinking. When are they going to break out the drones? Don’t they have an Air Force base outside Las Vegas where they remote pilot the drones in the middle east?

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        Two bases are in the area: Nellis AFB (Las Vegas) and Croom Lake. Davis Monthan isn’t too far out of the way either. Then there’s Fallon NAS (Navy).

        I’m sure there are tons of nearby drones that CBP owns/uses that are already overflying the area too high up to be seen. Any of the above installations could support drones.

  13. avatarIng says:

    They live in “…the free and sovereign Country of Nevada?” Last I checked, Nevada was a state within the free and sovereign country of the United States of America. Big difference there.

    I’m not giving the feds a pass, but the stupid is strong on both sides of this misbegotten affair.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      I read that and my eyes glazed over. Complete and total fail. Bundy and his supporters are just plain stubborn and just plain stupid. It is not “county” land, it is not “Nevada sovereign territory,” and the ridiculous “legal ” theories that the federal government doesn’t “legally” own the land have been shot down by the courts not just once but twice. [In summary, he contends that the federal government cannot legally own any land that is within the boundaries of a "sovereign" state--which of course means that the federal government can own no land other than D.C. Where he got that crazy idea I have no clue, but it sure as heck is NOT the US Constitution.] He could take this all the way to the Supreme Court and he would lose. He is wrong and in the wrong. I find it inconceivable that anyone can support Bundy and his desire for death by cop.

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        Seemingly lost in the coverage is the fact that this is public land of the United States, currently managed by the BLM and the Park Svc. The Property Clause of the Constitution is the governing authority over the public lands, and this “state sovereignty” issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1976, in a decision titled “Kleppe vs. New Mexico”. for those willing to do a bit of research, here is the citation:
        U.S. Supreme Court
        Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)
        Decided June 17, 1976
        (This case involved the Wild Horse and Burro Act)

        “As applied to this case, the Act is a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Property Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “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.”
        Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. Pp. 426 U. S. 535-547.

        (a) The Clause, in broad terms, empowers Congress to determine what are “needful” rules “respecting” the public lands, and there is no merit to appellees’ narrow reading that the provision grants Congress power only to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. The Clause must be given an expansive reading, for “[t]he power over the public lands thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations,”

        “… appellees have confused Congress’ derivative legislative power from a State pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, with Congress’ powers under the Property Clause. Federal legislation under that Clause necessarily, under the Supremacy Clause, overrides conflicting state laws.”

        “… the [Property] Clause, in broad terms, gives Congress the power to determine what are “needful” rules “respecting” the public lands. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. at 310 U. S. 29-30; Light v. United States, 220 U.S. at 220 U. S. 537; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. at 39 U. S. 537-538. And while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have repeatedly observed that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” United States v. San Francisco, supra at 310 U. S. 29.”

        And that is the bottom line on any cases like this: “And while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have repeatedly observed that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” The property Clause is part of the Constitution – if you don’t like it, amend the Constitution or persuade the Supreme court that it is wrong.

        That does not mean I agree with the BLM’s heavy handed militarized approach to the protestors – it does seem as if they are looking for an excuse to go tactical.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        IANAL, but that statement feels like it aligned closer to the Articles of Confederation than the United States Constitution.

      • avatarropingdown says:

        And see United States v. Gardner 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997). The court in Bundy (the underlying case) relied on the 9th Circuit’s Gardner opinion in regard to the question, whether the federal government indeed owned the land in question, since Bundy’s arguments never admitted that ownership, and therefore never challenged the authority of the federal government to institute or enforce particular regulations. (Gardner had tried to argue that the holding in Pollard’s Lessee applied to land acquired by the federal government before statehood…and the court rejected the argument.)

        • avatardschumac says:

          The courts are part of the federal government. What does one expect. There is little that a huge government will allow.. And the courts are stacked with partisans.

      • avatarJoel P. says:

        Mark N.: “the ridiculous “legal ” theories that the federal government doesn’t “legally” own the land have been shot down by the courts not just once but twice.”

        Oh, well, that settles it then. Obamacare is constitutional too. The Supreme Court says so.

        • avatarropingdown says:

          The essence of Obamacare really is not the “tax” one must pay if going uninsured. The essence is that a person can no longer purchase extremely high-deductible policies with coverage tailored to one’s own needs. In other words, Exchange-offered policies are not insurance, they are a welfare pool. In that sense they are a very high tax well in excess of the “penalty” one pays if going uninsured. Roberts is an excellent lawyer, writes a skilled brief, but he and the others were wrong on this.

          I find it utterly without amusement value that I’m paying for most of the insurance for federal and state workers through my taxes, and then must by a gold-plated policy at my own cost. This particularly hits me because I can purchase major surgery, should I need it, in other countries. I would never purchase it here.

        • avatarIdahoPete says:

          And if you don’t like Obamacare or the Federal land laws, ELECT A CONGRESS that will change them, or push for a Constitutional Convention.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Yeah they’re obviously in the Sovereign Citizen movement. People should be very careful before supporting people just because they oppose the government.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        Pay your taxes, Bow before the King’s men. Doff your hat peasant, a cop is walking by.

        • avatarropingdown says:

          Sam Adams thought you should pay your taxes or go to jail. Who are these anarchist Founding Fathers that you and others refer to?

          The United States did come into being through the War for Independence and the subsequent creation of a Constitution as amended. Neither the states, the nation, nor the colonies before, were ever free of law and regulation, nor fond of rebellion. If someone told you it was otherwise, they lied. The ‘revolution’ was a revolt by the landed and merchant classes against subservience to a far-away sovereign newly fond of taxation. It was, you might say, a bourgeois revolution. Most of the Founding Fathers were quite rich. When they wanted to get the tradesmen and laborers enthusiastic about a ‘revolution’ they succeeded. It was intentional. See Adams and Hancock’s histories for more detail. Certainly Jefferson’s involvement did not bring in some new liberty for the ‘common’ man, the slave, or Indian. I say this not to belittle the founders, for they did, relative to the leadership of other colonies around the world, a marvelous job. It just rings false to me when I hear the bells of “Sovereign Citizenship” rung. There was never a time in our history that men (and later, women) were not organized to form government and laws to which each of those people were subject, subject to laws in the best case, subject to the empowered enforcers of those laws in practicality.

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      The States created the Federal government and are superior to it.

      • avatarRonO. says:

        Not really, since 1865. The Southern States had the Constitutional right to secede, and were over-ruled by the Federal Gov’t. It’s been going downhill ever since.

        • avatarropingdown says:

          The Civil War sure did make a point, but what really changed was the creation of General Purposes Corporations, as opposed Limited Charter. That was a gift to Tom Scott and the Pennsylvania Railroad, for running logistics brilliantly during the Civil War. Corporations do not like state lines, and they sure have had their way, haven’t they?

        • avatarneiowa says:

          Round 1 to Mr Lincoln and big govt

      • avatarDonnertparty says:

        I’m not a troll, just someone who takes another conservative view of what is going on here.

        For those of you who think what the federal government is doing about the Bundy case is unconstitutional, consider the Property Clause of the Constitution: “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,” Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. Bundy grazes on federal land. That land belongs to We the People, not to Bundy. And the dude hasn’t paid us rent in 20 years.

        For those of you who think that ranchers are great stewards of the land, take a look at the tens of thousands of square miles of former grasslands in the West that, overgrazed by Bundy and his forefathers, now grow only cactus and creosote bushes.

        • avatardschumac says:

          I agree that they can make rules for the land they own. My take is that they took more land from Nevada and other states than the constitution allowed under sect 1 article 8.

  14. avatarBurnout says:

    And “news” reporting about how he is a mean, white, male, overbearing, woman hating, race hating, child molesting, raping, pillaging, God hating, health care denying, global warming denying, no tax paying, old people hating, xenophobic, radical, scum of the earth radical in 3… 2… 1…

  15. avatarMontana Dan says:

    Is there any way we can create a fund to send an organized militia to them. Like a 5 man/lady team to help them in case the SHTF. I don’t advocate attacking any government body, but I do advocate self defense regardless of whom the aggressor is. The BLM could have picked lawyers and taxes and red tape. Instead they picked guns, lets show them that they can’t do this to US, the American People, whom they owe their allegiance to.

    Anyway, 5 person skilled team, kickstarter or something to send them, just to cover food and travel, BYOG&A.

    Thoughts?

    • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

      A cyber attack on the various agencies computer systems via coordination on the dark net could send a message of support without violence, or escalating confrontation. Anonymous- where are you when the country needs you?

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        In hiding from the three-letter agencies of the world.

        But the Russian Mafia or the PLA might be tricked into doing something, just for spite.

    • avatarCurtis in IL says:

      ” The BLM could have picked lawyers and taxes and red tape. Instead they picked guns,”

      The government used lawyers and the Bundys lost in court. The Bundys have refused to pay grazing fees for twenty years. The Bundys have ignored the red tape, ignored the courts, and grazed their cattle wherever they damn well pleased.

      There’s plenty of stupid on the government side here, but this situation didn’t develop overnight.

      • avatarJeff says:

        why should anyone have to pay a fee for their cattle to eat grass on thousands of acres of PUBLIC land?

        • avatarJohn says:

          Because we’re not seeing a dime from those cattle that are eating our grass.

        • avatarqjonny says:

          So anyone should be able to graze cattle on public land? No over site? No limits? Get real!
          As I stated before, I have witnessed over grazing on BLM land in Wyoming. My favorite trout stream was destroyed by ranchers who pay peanuts to graze more cattle/sheep then the land can support.
          Erosion from over grazing results in a loss of vegetation around creeks and streams and is a major problem in many BLM lands. The semi desert areas of Nevada have their own unique problems to unlimited and unregulated grazing.
          Let’s pick our battles folks. This Bundy is nothing but a free loading squatter. I have no sympathy for him.
          It kills me how a few ranchers think they have the right to do what they want on public lands. What about the rest of us 330 million Americans who wish to enjoy nature? Is it fair for a handful of ranchers to ruin a beautiful trout stream on BLM lands? What about my rights and every other American?
          And for you idiots that think anyone should be able to graze on public lands with no oversight, let the rest of us 330 million Americans buy cattle and start grazing on those lands too!
          Read this court case and you will see that this squatter had his day in court and lost. His cattle are trespassing and being removed. I can think of a million other reasons why we need to defend ourselves from the Govt, but not over this idiot

        • avatarHannibal says:

          because it’s not THEIR land

        • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

          I agree, there has to be a balance somewhere. When money talks, the environment comes second and their is risk of overgrazing. I think it’s beneficial for cattle to be grazing on just about any land, their manure helps fertilize the area and continues natures cycle. Everyone knows that sustainable nature can only happen with animals.

          The Bundy’s are providing the United States with a valuable commodity: beef. I can just hear the bitching from people of how expensive meat has become when we drive more cattle farmers out of business and have to import more. We should have done more to secure the success of our cattle farmers…like let them graze cattle on public, unused and desolate land.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The land is illegally and unconstitutionally “owned” by the Feeberal government. No where in the Constitution are the Feebs given any right to own massive acreage of land.

        • avatarJeff says:

          qjohnny, having spent enough time living near and playing in and around BLM land, it’s definitely not something that just “a few” ranchers take advantage of, and I’m sure you know that being from Wyoming.

          Sorry to hear you have seen lands damaged by grazing.. Personally that is not my experience on most BLM range land I’ve been on, where it seems that grass is a fully renewable resource.

        • avatarneiowa says:

          qjonny Ypu pay thru the nose ot use “our” river and to kill our fish?

    • avatarMack Bolan says:

      It’s been reported that a few militia members representing various state groups are on the ground at the ranch, and that their respective groups are perhaps mobilizing…

      http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/expect-to-see-a-band-of-soldiers-militia-members-arrive-at-nevada-ranch/

      • avatarStacy says:

        Then they’re idiots and are about to hand Obama a free PR victory in his quest to paint rural people, gun owners, and anyone else that doesn’t resemble Pajama Boy as dangerous neo-Nazi domestic terrorists. Thanks a lot.

  16. avatarPahtun6 says:

    Saw this last night and posted a comment on a different article. I really don’t think it was nessescary to call 911 for the lady who was thrown down, cancer patient or not.

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      It wasn’t medically necessary, no. She’ll have some bruised and scraped up knees. Even at 56(?), she’ll survive. That said; he specifically stated that he wanted to get a paramedic out there so that the injuries would be officially documented.

      Why is THAT your nit to pick out of the whole video?

  17. avatarTim McNabb says:

    I have been expecting for months that there would be a flashpoint. I am not sure this is a particularly good cause – it seems Bundy has been pretty recalcitrant about paying fees to use public land (I have to pay a fee for state and local parks to camp, fish and whatnot).

    Alas, if it is not this, it will be something else. We are probably due another Concord.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I have to pay a fee for state and local parks to camp, fish and whatnot

      Of course. Because after all, it’s the King’s land and the King’s deer and the King’s fish. And it’s the King’s air that you’re breathing, too.

  18. avatarcogline says:

    I see a lot of no-knock raids in their future.

  19. avatarMaineuh says:

    Either this sparks a mini-revolution or the Bundys have their own reality TV show in three years. Either way, it’s just fuggin nuts.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      I’m going with the reality show in 3… 2…

      Alex’s boys are already on scene. Hijinks are sure to ensue.

  20. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    A couple points:

    “But clearly, some Americans are spoiling for a fight with Uncle Sam.”
    NO! Some Americans are no longer willing to roll over at Uncle Sam’s aggressive and violent provacations.

    “Turns out the feds are removing fencing and other improvements the family made to government owned property.”
    If a thief steals from you, then buys property with the stolen funds, does he really own that property?

    • avatarMark N. says:

      I am not sure I get your point. Bundy is the thief. He is trying to steal federally owned land by squatting on it and building fences. And no, that will never ripen into ownership under either federal or state law.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Taxation is theft by threat of force under color of law. Everything “federally owned” was bought with stolen money. Government has no legitimate moral claim to any “government property.”

        • avatarIan T says:

          Oh god, taxes are theft? This is the kind of comment that makes us all look crazy. Taxes are required for any civilization to work, we have known this for thousands of years. Don’t like it? Remove yourself from society and all of it’s benefits.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Ah, I see that you are a proud member o the Anarchist Crowd. Thankfully, you are one of a very small minority. A government is far from perfect, but it is needful. And he wasn’t refusing to pay “taxes” he was refusing to pay rent for the use of property he does not own. There is no historical precedent for your contention that a government cannot own property–in fact, the history is directly to the contrary as far back as we can trace it.

        • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

          Taxes are a necessary evil but the rate at which we’re taxed now is oppressive. Whether or not you think we should be taxed, Henry Bowman is right: current taxation is theft with the threat of violence at the end of a gun. Don’t pay your local property tax, a police officer or constable, with a firearm, will eventually come to your house and remove you….at the point of a gun if necessary.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Ian and Mark, I’m not an anarchist, I’m a voluntaryist. Since theft is taking something that doesn’t belong to you (through force, fraud, or coercion) against the will of the owner, how is taxation NOT theft? Because they wrote a law?

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        Please provide Article and Section of the Constitution where the Feebs are give the privileged of owning vast acreage of land? The other than the small seat of government the only authorization they have is for roads, port and shipyards, and other needful buildings.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      If you leave your car parked on my lawn and I have it towed, I haven’t ‘stolen’ anything.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        True. But if you bought your property using money you stole from me, you don’t really own it. I do and I’d have every right to park my car there.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Where do you get the idea that Bundy had his money stolen that was used for the purchase of the property? The US “stole” it from Mexico as a war prize in 1846, Mexico “stole” it from Spain when Mexico declared independence, and Spain in turn “stole” it from the Indians who used to live there. Bundy came on to the seen long after that. He has no legal claim to the land.

        • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

          I think a proper analogy would be from 2013 when the parks department (I think it was them) closed the WWII and other monuments and preventing the public, including WWII vets, access to the monuments. The government doesn’t own the monuments or memorials, they belong to the public. We allow the government to administer them, not hold them hostage from us so they can continue to squeeze more hard earned dollars from the people.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Mark, I agree that the Bundy’s probably don’t have a LEGAL claim, but legal has nothing to do with moral. I also agree that there is a centuries long convoluted “claim” of ownership through various governments what would be impossible to determine true ownership.
          However, at it’s simplest form, property is legitimately obtained by mixing your labor with unclaimed natural resources, I’d say Bundy has more of a claim than any government entity at the current end of a long line of thieving government entities.
          Additionally, since his money (as well as all the other taxpayers money) is used to maintain those lands, how does he not have a right to use the lands (which is money pays for)?

  21. avatarSkyler says:

    It’s a bit hard to sympathize with someone who is sponging off of public lands.

    • avatarJason says:

      Yeah, how dare he continue to sponge of land his family has used since the 1870′s…

      • avatarMark N. says:

        “Use” does not equal ownership. How dare he use property he does not own without paying the rent that is being charged. If it was your property, you’d kick him off too, no matter how long he’d been your tenant.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The Feebs are not Constitutionally authorized to own the land either.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Yeah, how dare he continue to sponge of land his family has used since the 1870′s…

          Squatter’s Rights? Ralph?

      • avatarHannibal says:

        All the more reason they should have to pay fees, they’ve been sponging for generations.

      • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

        Well, there is the concept of an ‘easement’- not a lawyer but it would seem to apply in this case. I wonder if it was ever argued on that basis and shot down. That is, the fact his family has historically grazed cattle on the land for XXX number of years without the government asserting the right to charge grazing fees established an easement. I’m guessing it was argued on shot down, the goverment asserted the right but simply didn’t assess them previously.

        If this has been in court for 20 years, there should be a pretty good record of the legal arguments.

        • avatarSkyler says:

          I think you are thinking of “adverse possession” which is when if you use someone else’s land “open and notoriously” for a certain length of time, then you can claim it as yours. I don’t think adverse possession applies to the government, but if it does, he didn’t make a claim before they ousted him. Which makes it too late.

          Perhaps he paid fees or had a license of some sort to graze there, and that can be considered a form of limited ownership, much like a renter, but the terms can be changed if done so lawfully. It appears the law has been followed but the rancher just doesn’t want to be subject to the law. Too bad for him.

          I’m no fan of the government, but I’m also not an anarchist. Unless a law is immoral, it should be followed because WE make the laws. These laws are unwise, but they are not immoral.

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          From wikipedia (so take with a grain of salt):

          Easements by prescription, also called prescriptive easements, are implied easements granted after the dominant estate has used the property in a hostile, continuous and open manner for a statutorily prescribed number of years. Prescriptive easements differ from adverse possession by not requiring exclusivity.

          I do have a problem with the government ignoring a large body of law and class of criminals, i.e. immigration; then enforce laws about folks illegally using land. Seems to be detrimental to respect for and execution of the rule of law…

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          From wikipedia (so take with a grain of salt):

          Easements by prescription, also called prescriptive easements, are implied easements granted after the dominant estate has used the property in a hostile, continuous and open manner for a statutorily prescribed number of years. Prescriptive easements differ from adverse possession by not requiring exclusivity.

          I do have a problem with the government ignoring a large body of law and class of criminals, i.e. immigration; then enforce laws about folks illegally using land. Seems to be detrimental to respect for the rule of law…

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          HELP! HELP! I’M BEING REPRESSED!

        • avatarSkyler says:

          Yes, I forgot about the prescriptive easement, which is a variation on adverse possession. The key is that the dominant estate has to use of the property has to be “open and notorious.” That means without permission and not hidden. Since the rancher had permission, then there is no prescriptive easement, even if such did apply to government property (and I can’t swear to it, but I don’t think it does).

    • avatarEat at Joe's says:

      statist bootlicker commie
      always an excuse

    • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

      At what point did they become public lands? How come the feds own/run them and not the state, or the county? How long ago did folks roll over accepting that as a ‘tolerable evil’?

      In all honesty, I’m not up to speed on the legalities of how the government(s) acquire/own property.

      • avatarSkyler says:

        They were public lands as long as his family’s been grazing their animals there.

        And it doesn’t even matter if it is public lands because the federal government has been granted power by our elected officials to protect endangered species. I don’t like that and I suppose you don’t like that either. But that is the law and it is a law made by WE THE PEOPLE. If you don’t want to obey a law, then get the law changed or suffer the consequences.

        There are plenty of people suffering because of out of control federal agencies. But threatening to shoot people is not the way to change the laws and I won’t support it.

        I don’t care if his “family” has been sponging off of land he doesn’t own for generations. He doesn’t own it. And apparently he has erected fences on land he doesn’t own. No pity.

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          I’m actually on the fence on the specific case–I haven’t done the research. My question is more towards the broader issue of the how/when/why the feds took ownership/responsibility for lands instead of the states.

          I do think the feds (as in waco) have gone in with far too much fire power to enforce an order. Like Waco, by going in so heavy-handed they may make the situation far worse. Politicians call it optics- pictures of snipers, gaggles of armed men etc. etc. Really, would this individual rancher and his famly start shooting or get violent if a hand ful of contractors and one or two sheriffs showed up to enforce the order? I doubt there’d be the reaction and gathering of folks that the quasi-military actions have provoked.

        • avatarB says:

          Nevada gave the US all land that wasn’t owned when they got statehood. Its kind of insane, more of the state is owned by the feds than the state or citizens.

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          The only grant of power the Federal government has is in the Constitution. I can’t find any thing about endangered species in it.

        • avatarDan says:

          With regard to the creation of the EPA congress CANNOT granted that power to the federal government by legislation. New powers can only be granted to the federal government by the amendment process which requires the approval of 3/4ths of the states. The feds, and the federal courts have been ignoring this for a hundred years.

          Consider the 18th amendment which banned alcohol. It was universally recognized that the federal government did not have the power to do so, under the commerce clause or any other cover of the constitution, absent an amendment to the constitution. Today, without the benefit of an amendment the feds conduct a massive (phony) war on drugs and criminalize marijuana. There was no change to the constitution authorizing this but the feds and the courts keep pretending that what they do is lawful.

          Not one federal regulation regarding the environment is a n exercise of legitimate, lawful, authority.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The land was ceded to the United States by Mexico, subject to any existing ownership interests. Any land not owned by an individual became land owned by the federal government, just as it had been owned by the Mexican government before that. The legal underpinnings of this doctrine goe back well over a thousand years, to feudal Englan (at the least) where the Sovereign (king) owned all the land, and then blessed his select nobles with various estates. Those estates were, originally, at will, and could be revoked at any time by the King–and indeed often were. There were, in legal terminology, no heritable estates in land. Over time, and as the power of the Barons grew and the King diminished, private ownership in land became recognized, and lands could be passed down from generation to generation. Of course, all lands not held in private hands was lands owed by the Sovereign. As power passed from the king to parliamentary governments, some of these lands were deemed “public” lands, which really meant no more than that they were not privately owned but owned by the government. These same rules applied under Mexican, Spanish, and French law. When these folks got here, all lands were claimed “in the name of the king,” and then the king had the right to sell, lese or gift various estates to various nobles, and the nobles would in turn grant or sell off that land to settlers. This was true in all of the original 13 colonies, as well as the French territories (later held by Spain) along the Mississippi and the Spanish territories encompassing the west. Ultimately the United States Government purchased those lands (e.g., the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, and the acquisition of the western territories from Mexico. These territories were subsequently organized into states, but the federal government retained its ownership of millions of acres of land, and still does to this day, that were not sold to the newly organize states or to individuals.

        The land comprising the modern state was inhabited by Native Americans of the Paiute, Shoshone, and Washoe tribes prior to European contact. It was subsequently claimed by Spain as a part of Alta California until the Mexican War of Independence brought it under Mexican control. The United States gained the territory in 1848 following its victory in the Mexican-American War, and the area was eventually incorporated as part of Utah Territory in 1850. The discovery of silver at the Comstock Lode in 1859 led to a population boom that was an impetus to the creation of Nevada Territory out of western Utah Territory in 1861. Nevada became the 36th state on October 31, 1864, as the second of two states added to the Union during the Civil War (the first being West Virginia) The mere fact that Nevada became a “sovereign” state in 1864 does not mean that it acceded to all of the lands within the borders of the state, contrary to Bundy’s contrary belief; instead, those lands not privately owned or specifically transferred to the State remained in the ownership of the federal government.

        • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

          Thank you for the explanation.

        • avatarDeadeye says:

          Yes. Now how about those “First Amendment Zones” ?

        • avatarropingdown says:

          I see an opportunity here. How about they create limited 16th amendment zones? Put them out in the desert somewhere…or in the Everglades.

  22. avatarPg says:

    I thinks it’s safe for anyone who’s still in denial and still thinks we live in a free country to come out of the closet and accept reality. The American experiment with liberty and freedom was based on the principle of property rights; without property rights none other exist.

    • avatarCurtis in IL says:

      Property rights indeed. Mr. Bundy owns some, and if he had kept his cattle there, he wouldn’t be in anyone’s crosshairs today.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        Exactly. And exactly why he lost in court. It ain’t his propity, never was, never will be (unless he buys it).

        • avatarFuque says:

          And even then he doesnt really own it..Like everybody else.. If you think you own your property.. Just stop paying taxes on it and find out who really owns it.

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Here we have the low-information poster who reads the first paragraph and not much else. This family should have purchased more land and they’d be fine; instead they depend on other people’s land. And wanted to never pay for it. And assumed it would always be available. And now they want to cloak themselves in the flag of liberty for what were some very short-sighted business decisions.

      • avatarB says:

        I don’t even care about Bundy, I care about those 1st amendment zones being enforced by BLM. Frankly that by itself seems more worthy of a dust up than some guys cattle.

    • avatarKCK says:

      And it may be argued that all land should be homesteaded Like the Oklahoma land rush to be claimed by citizens and ceded to the occupiers and that the Feds should only own property to locate federal facilities.
      But that is a very long row to hoe.

  23. avatarAnon says:

    The government will shoot first and hide the evidence. . . . . . . . .just like the missing door at Waco (it would have identified which way the bullets were moving).

    The site was destroyed so there is no evidence and some folks are saying there were no autopsies of the ATF people killed because the bullets came into their backs and exited from the front.

    This will not end well for anyone . . . . .too many Rambos with itchy trigger fingers.

    My guess is tear gas followed by noise, then a claim the Feds were shot at, then murderous fire, then a quick site demolition with all evidence removed.

    Bet they want to rehire that murderer from the FBI who killed a woman holding a baby. Am sure he can get leave from his post FBI retirement.

    • avatarJason says:

      That murderer’s unrepentant partner now works for Troy Industries, although he will probably be happy to come out of retirement for one last “incident”

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Even if we assume all of that is true, this family sure worked to put themselves in that position.

  24. avatarPahtun6 says:

    Matt Richardson, they had it on tape, I’d say that’s enough, but I just think it’s a waste of time to get it documented. There’s a lot more that could be nit picked about the BLM and how they clearly don’t now when to use force are when not to. There was one guy saying they had sucked a dog on him and it seemed to me that BLM was trying to not do that. Thankfully nobody was shot. There are many people on here who believe that the BLM is in the wrong. When in fact Bundy has been in the wrong for many years. If you haven’t already I suggest you read ropingdowns comments on the in incindiary image of the day, he has posted a link to the actual court case I believe a well.
    There are those of who think funding “teams” to support the bundys should an armed confrontation start, realize that the Bundys aren’t the good guys, I am not condoning what was in my opinion a slight over use of force yesterday. Frankly this whole situation just sucks. Again, read ropingdowns comments.

    The sovereign country of Nevada doesn’t exist. They are a state, an that is what’s wrong with milita members in this day in age. They say dumb stuff like that, plus some other activities that I won’t get into.

    • avatarEat at Joe's says:

      you’re just so suave and informed from your armchair Mr. Statist
      the FFs would have laughed at you Mr. paranoid CCW.

      • avatarHannibal says:

        Good argument. Neener neener!

      • avatarropingdown says:

        The Founding Fathers were no votaries of country folk who undertook to oppose the enforcement of laws relating to property and taxation. Witness Sam Adams, acting in the face of “Shay’s Rebellion,” (courtesy of Wikipedia):

        “The Boston elites were mortified at this resistance. Governor Bowdoin commanded the legislature to “vindicate the insulted dignity of government.” Samuel Adams claimed that foreigners (“British emissaries”) were instigating treason among the commoners, and he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a resolution suspending habeas corpus in order to permit the authorities to keep people in jail without trial. Adams even proposed a new legal distinction: that rebellion in a republic, unlike in a monarchy, should be punished by execution.”

      • avatarropingdown says:

        “Why would I be paranoid? After all, I’ve got a gun.”

  25. avatarchris g says:

    The problem seems to be that the government didn’t negotiate with the individual ilke they would a sovereign state, large corporation or individual of power. In those instances there would have been some give and take. Instead the state, by its nature, sees the individual as someone for whom there should be no give and take: ostensibly because of equality under the rule of law, but probably because the individual, especially a lone un-armed one, is powerless.

    Native American land claims were one sided with weak tribes. Sovereign territory disputes were one sided with weak nations. Weak individuals are generally not protected by government, especially not a technocratic one devolved from its revolutionary intent.

    • avatarNotoriousAPP says:

      +1

    • avatarropingdown says:

      I don’t know about “weak,” but I’m certain “poor” doesn’t get much. “Rich,” on the other hand, is like a soothing vapor that lightens the feds’ hearts and charms their imaginations. If Earl Holding wanted a nice big piece of BLM land to increase access and development for a ski area, he’d just give the feds another piece of sufficient value. What else when into the deals I can only imagine. I suspect if Bundy were a rich Mormon, uh, “latter day economic saint,” he’d be allowed a few more cattle there, a thousand maybe. He’d still have to pay the $2 per head, though.

  26. avatarRalph says:

    I fully expect that, when all is said and done, there will be no shooting, no injuries and probably few arrests.

    There are just too many people watching now for the government to start murdering people. The G has learned it’s lesson from Waco — don’t murder people when the cameras are rolling. It looks bad.

    Meanwhile, back in the USSR Russia, the old KGB guy is wondering whether there really is a difference between his government and ours.

  27. avatarMack Bolan says:

    I find it refreshing that there are still Americans in this great country that are willing to stand by their principals. Law and public opinion be damned.

    Sometimes doing what is right doesn’t mean it’s legal. When the AG of the United States refuses follow the laws of the land, the people sure as hell reserve the right to do the same.

    People>Government

  28. avatarPashtun6 says:

    Eat at Joes, I’m sorry but I’m not sure what your point is. If carrying a firearm makes me paranoid then that’s fine with me. I’ve carried a firearms everyday for 11 years, first as an LEO and now as a consultant in the private sector.

    Id say I’m viewing the Bundy Debacle fairly objectively. But of course i do enjoy me some tyranny in the morning. /sarc

  29. avatarGyufygy says:

    This thread and the ones related to it have been rather fascinating to read. A lot of lawyerly types on here have written numerous comments on this website showing that they do not reflexively back the government in any way, shape, or form and frequently tear down the government’s action with far greater precision and wit than 99% of the posters on here. However, as soon as they read up on the case, reviewing the actual evidence and the case law instead of PR bullshit and rumor, and point out that due process was not only followed every inch of the way but also delayed for 20 years, they’re called bootlicking communists. When the people who actually put in the effort to read the details, to translate the legalese, to go beyond the headlines and the noise and find out what actually happened, point out that the rancher might have misrepresented the facts, perhaps we should listen instead of calling them paid government stooges. Don’t fall for Confirmation Bias the way antigunners do.

  30. avatarKirk says:

    Who’s the BLM bureaucrat authorizing this use of force?

    Names, please.

  31. avatarPashtun6 says:

    http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/expect-to-see-a-band-of-soldiers-militia-members-arrive-at-nevada-ranch/

    Yeah because the only thing this situation is missing is a bunch of guys who failed the ASVAB running around out in the desert.

  32. avatarstyrgwillidar says:

    Yep. The government itself has been undermining the idea of equality and the rule of law. For example,

    if the rancher is illegally occupying and remaining on the land– how is that different than an illegal immigrant coming into the country and staying, with the government not just disinterested in enforcing it– but actively aiding and abetting it (sanctuary cities, declining to deport, refusing to ask or permit asking about citizenship, etc. etc. etc.

    Amnesty for the illegal immigrant, amnesty for the rancher illegally intruding on federal lands

  33. avatarjwm says:

    “Starting point”, “Flash point.” Bullshit. There’s not going to be a civil war. Lot of people posting comments here that are anti gov but that’s all they’re doing, commenting.

    We know exactly where this is happening. How many of those hard core gov haters are travelling to Nevada right now?

    Nowadays, you want to see real men standing firm for a cause you have to travel to Mexico.

    • avatarropingdown says:

      I think ‘real men’ vote, and lobby, and thus protect their right to own what guns they deem sufficient, and to carry one if they are law-abiding and inclined to carry. The Mexicans did none of that. When the administration raped the Mexican constitution in 1971, the “real men” of Mexico did nothing. Now they are paying the price, but only after endless cartel-sponsored rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, liquifications of bodies in lye, hanging of children by the neck from bridges. It took these “real men” awhile, and it is a small subset that have risen to the occasion. I surely wish them well. Mostly their active “real men” just head for the U.S. border. “Give me Liberty or Give Me…oh, never mind, I’ll just commit an ‘act of love,’ illegally enter the U.S., get free medical care and schooling for my anchor baby, and cut lawns in Greenwich, CT.”

  34. avatarHannibal says:

    Both sides are not ‘escalating’ per the article, the family is continuing to try and start crap up. The government would be escalating if they went onto the family’s ranch and started ripping down signs and wrecking stuff.

  35. avatarmirgc says:

    Just as an FYI regarding the picture of the m113 (ie. “the tank”), there are no Jefferson counties in or in close proximity to Nevada. There are about 26 counties named “Jefferson” around the country. So not sure why this picture is getting associated with this. Besides, I don’t think a county sheriff from out of state would be lending their equipment or assistance to the federal BLM for actions in another state.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County

  36. avatarAsdf says:

    It isn’t the Bundy’s land. They should stop being a-holes and comply with the will of the land holder.

    If this was happening on privately held land, it would be different, but being federal land in the first place makes this family look like chest beating idiots.

  37. avatarpeirsonb says:

    There isn’t much funny about this situation, but I have to get this off my chest….

    COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

  38. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    We have been following closely.
    One thing I do know is this kerfuffle started out of the fact that Nevada is an open range state. The county was in an agreement with the Bundy’s for grazing fees.
    Now move to the present. The BLM is flexing their proverbial muscle, but not to well. The Nevada gov has weighed in and so has Rand Paul, and others. It is gaining media attention which means anything they do will be front and center.
    Now escalation? Militia groups and Oath Keepers from Nevada, California, and Arizona are mobilizing. Credible reports from source have groups from the East Coast driving there now. How this will end? Not a clue, but is this going to be a stand off? You betcha..

  39. avatarKCK says:

    Bundy et al are starting to sound like that youtube “Sovereign Man” all capital letters name refer to non-existent people so no jurisdiction feeding himself no hunting license black helicopters guy.

  40. avatarYngvar says:

    “The grass of freedom must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of hapless tortoises”. Not Jefferson and not the Jefferson County Sheriff.

  41. avatarJoshuaS says:

    it amuses me that people think the 9th and 10th amendment mean much of anything….too vague. And fit into exactly why some of the drafters of the Constitution opposed a bill of rights….it tends the other way.

  42. avatarShaunL. says:

    I may have some of this wrong but as I see it….
    1. Not his land through any documentation
    2. He was told to vacate
    3. Not only did he refuse, he EXPANDED onto even more land that was not his
    4. Giant turtles are awesome
    5. Cows could be considered an invasive species on turtle territory(extermination?)
    6. He already LOST in court TWICE and seems to be trying to escalate the potential for confrontation
    7. The feds STILL have not “raided” his actual property

    Have I missed anything?

    • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

      Well, he could claim the cows are illegal aliens entitled to not just stay on the land, but get free health care … you know, separating the cow families would be cruel, and the cows and the rancher didn’t commit any really serious crimes…

  43. avatarRalph says:

    In jolly old England, all the land belonged to the King. That’s the basis of the American concept of “eminent domain,” which is the underlying right of the government to own everything that it can get its grubby hands on.

    If somebody owns the grabbed property, then the G is supposed to pay for it — and sometimes they do. If nobody has clear title, then the G can grab it for free. Which is why the G owns most of Nevada.

    • avatarropingdown says:

      The west had its own version of eminent domain from the 1860′s onward: If you were eminent, you got some domain. Who can forget the history of the Johnson County War? By the 1880′s rich east coast interests already were funding very large cattle outfits, gangs of thugs with guns were hired up from (hmm) Texas to kill anyone on Big Cattle’s hit list, and when locals banded together (200 of them against the Wyoming Stock Growers Association), the WSGA just called the President in Washington to get some cavalry help, quick.

      Looking at Bundy’s place (on Google Earth) in the Virgin River Valley, his family was fortunate. They were not surrounded by big cattle operators, so they didn’t get lynched.

  44. avatarValleyForge77 says:

    Man, it sure is getting hot over there in NV. Pretty sure turning it into a ‘shooting war’ aint gonna be good for either side. Either way, it aint my fight. And it aint got nothing to do with the 2ndA, so not even sure why I’m reading this on TTAG.

    • avatarropingdown says:

      “No man is an island..” On the other hand, I did wonder last night why, sitting just three or four miles from Southwest Philly, where they’re shooting each other this week, last week, heck most weeks…why I wasn’t paying more attention to that. I concluded I prefer Westerns to Gansta Rap films.

  45. avatarSherlock03 says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it isn’t the farmers land and he hasn’t paid a fee to use the public place in years despite other farmers doing so.

  46. avatarOut_Fang_Thief says:

    This is exactly what the fascist state-dreaming democrats(like Obama) are hoping for: Chaos. Enough chaos that will allow then to hammer anyone who defies the federal godvernment(Fedgod), and the use of force WILL be used. Ruby Ridge and Waco all happened with a democrat president. Further adding to this mess is the AG Holder DoSJ (Dept.of Social Justice) and his promoting of a lawless Fedgod. All they need is a flimsy, justifiable excuse to shoot any unarmed Americans not complying with federal orders.

    About the Oath Keepers. Any OK’s that still wear a badge and a uniform, will soon have to make a choice. Bite the hand that feeds them, or shake the hand that feeds them. Keep their job and feed their family, or be out of a job looking for work in a down economy to feed their family. This is the way that all statists come to power. Join US, or starve with THEM. The bad news is, we’re the THEM in this scenario. If you weren’t already aware, THEM, are always expendable.

    Government is coercion and force. Anyone who says differently, is lying to you, or is part of the government, or both. Who in their right mind could have thought that one day, these awful words would escape their lips? “At least my Army (Navy, Air Force, Marine) veteran father isn’t alive to see this happening in America.” I don’t know how anyone else feels, but I would give almost anything to have even one more day with my dad….but not if his last memory in life was the America that he fought to protect, was being taken-over from within, by the same evil Leftist ideologies they fought and defeated, to keep America free. Never in my worst nightmares have I ever dreamed that one day, I would dare to say, that I was thankful that my father had died when he did. That’s how bad it is.

  47. avatarFuque says:

    Nobody owns their property.. If you think you own your property..stop paying your property tax and Find out
    what happens.. every home, farm and ranch dweller is Just a tenant to the Government… and thats the Bottom line . they can do whatever the hell they want. Until that part of the equation changes.

  48. avatarJoseph G says:

    The old saying “where there smoke there fire” I think applies to the Bundy situation. He may be in the wrong according to the “law” but something for all of you defending the government on this…there used to be 52 ranchers down in that part of Nevada. Now there is one. That to me speaks volumes about this situation. It might be water, or fracking, or the lowly tortoise but I think it’s mostly about the government wanting control and Mr Bundy is an old ornery cuss that those of us who grow up in the West know well. There isn’t enough of them anymore in the West or across the country.
    I used to think the BLM was the most upright organization in the mire of Washington. No more..

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      I used to think the same about the US Forest Service, but over the last couple of decades they’ve become just another statist bureaucracy.

  49. avatarbenny says:

    Dick measuring much?

    I’m with Ralph. I hope and think that no one will fire a shot

  50. avatarAnonymous says:

    We just need some civilians to tackle and taze some cops. Click click click click click click click – “how does that feel? How does that feel? You like it? click click click click click click.

  51. avatarjackfrost says:

    Col angus, this numbnuts LEO says you can kiss my (__Y__)! I happen to be an LEO and have been for a very long time and I have been a damned good one. I abide by the law and I enforce the law with equality regardless of the stupidity of the violator(such as the stupidity you display) and having served not only my home community as an LEO since 1982, I have also proudly served my nation on active duty in the military and I have earned my stripes. And if you can’t get behind your local LEO’s and support them, then please, feel free(and highly encouraged) to stand in front of them! Next time you get shot, don’t call 911, call your local liberal politician(you know, the oDummy kind) and let them protect you and see how long you live. I venture to say they won’t be there for you like you think and your last line of defense IS your local law enforcement officers! Your local LEOs are not the ones you need to fear, you need to fear the brown shirts who are on the front at the Bundy ranch and are going to be at your front door next.

  52. avatarGrumpy in Kali says:

    Morons are elevating this situation and encouraging a confrontation. Low end breeders.

    Driving the ATV into the path of the truck was rather moronic. Interfering what the BLM is doing will get you into trouble. Willingly KICKING a police K9 is just asking to have your teeth kicked in.

    I love the heffer walking up to the K9 officer waiving her finger towards him and yelling I’m pregnant keep your dog away from me.

  53. avatarGrumpy in Kali says:

    “I’m getting it all on tape.”

    “This is America.”

    This is f*cked up!”

    BLM is removing illegally placed items on Federal land. The Bundy family and their cohorts are pushing the Feds into an armed confrontation.

    Knowingly disregarding the rules the Feds told him two decades ago and continuing to do whatever he felt like does not give Bundy any right to what he is doing. Whining about it and getting low enders all riled up to try to force BLM to shoot them is downright moronic. Then again, it is Nevada….

  54. avatarFoRealz? says:

    Mean old Federales moving in on this poor simple rancher and forcing him off his land and stealing his cattle. Hot damn! It sounds like a Western I probably watched as a kid.

    But, the more I read the background to this, the more I think that this whole thing is a bunch of horse shit. Or cow shit as the case may be. Seems like he was skating on thin legal/claim ice with use of land he does not own, that he stopped paying to use decades ago, no matter his claimed reason. Till he lost, then lost again, and the court got tired of it.

    There’s a lot of full retard going on regarding vast conspiracies. It’s simple: He lost in court. Court issued an order. Everyone knows, no matter where on this planet you live, that if you tell a judge to go F himself regarding a court order, guys with guns will show up and say “Judge says he’s serious. He meant that shit.”

    (Or he could have just complied with the court order while he appealed – there is always that.)

    Yeah, yeah I know, “Well damn your eyes FoRealz, you illegitimate COMMIE m-f-er, what if a court gave you an order to put your neighbors into them thar FEMA death camps???!!! What then smart fella?” Um, okay. Meanwhile back on planet Earth…

    If you don’t like the court’s decision you appeal to a higher court until you get the injunction or the answer you want, or you run out of higher courts to appeal to. If the final appeal says, no, then you’re shit out of luck.

    That’s the way the system works, according to our laws. You’re supposed to be free in ‘Merica but this ain’t no free for all Road Warrior situation where you can just do whatever the F-all you want or whatever it is that you take it into your head you have a “right” to do. [Yes I know about the 9th amendment.] You want anarchy? Move to Somalia.

    Is it retarded that they sent 200 guys, snipers, dogs, helicopters, APCs and various other stuff to deal with this small group of people and this ho-hum situation? Sure is. Derp is as derp does.

  55. avatarropingdown says:

    Kidding aside, I’m very glad to have lots of water on the farm, water in my suburbia, and, hell, water up and down for hundreds of miles. Problem? There’s just too damn many people. Worse than cows, without a doubt.

    • avatarB says:

      If only some government bureau could come up with a solution to that people problem, amirite? Finally fix that, huh?

  56. avatarKen says:

    To quote Jonathon H. …”Seriously? Going around making up arbitrary, unilateral standards such as THAT, not only is a good way to escalate such situations”….. Suggest you read the Constitution Jon. Hint….Article 1, Sec 8.

    • avatarPeter says:

      Doesn’t Article IV, Section 3 Clause 2 give the Feds power to own and make laws around Federal Land?

      • avatarIdahoPete says:

        Yep, It’s called the Property Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “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.” Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. And to quote the Supreme Court in Kleppe vs New Mexico, “… while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have repeatedly observed that “[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.”

  57. avatarRichard says:

    The real question should be why does the Federal Government continue to own and “occupy” millions of acres of land? The feds should be required to divest themselves at public aucton almost all federally owned land. Of course, they can keep military bases, national parks, lands with exceptional monetary or cultural value, land in cities such as Post Offices and Federal Buildings, etc. However, the vast expanses of public land now under federal control need to be sold to the public and put to productive use.

  58. avatardschumac says:

    I read all these comments with interest. I did not see any reference to the UN Agenda 21. Look folks, our government,in collusion with the UN, is in process of running all of us into the major cities and declaring all lands off limits. They use “endangered species”, wetlands, wild lands and just plain too expensive to stay. All, do a search on Agenda 21. You will get UN websites that will tell you what the world’s powers are planning to do. If you actually get out there and read their goals, it may set your hair on fire. those tortoises actually thrive with cattle around. One of your posters even had a website that describes tortoises and cattle co-existing well. When cattle are removed from areas, the population of tortoises drops. They do eat “poop”…

  59. avatardschumac says:

    Several have asked or commented on all the lands the Federal government took from (mostly) the western states. I think Texas was the last state that kept all of it’s lands. Alaska, I think is 90 percent “owned” by the feds. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution enumerates the allowed functions of the US government includes the following on ownership of lands: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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;”
    Does anyone find in this miles and miles of raw land? The answer is no. So, those who say that the federal government under the constitution does not “own” that land is correct. But it is hard to argue with the almost absolute power Washington has taken from the people.

  60. avatarDiamondback says:

    Looks to me more like the Feds are “spoiling for a fight” against the American people.

    Time they get it.

  61. avataraskeptic says:

    Too bad the DHS can’t display the degree of diligence along the border that the BLM can over trespassing-by-cattle on Open Range. At least there’s a fence (mostly) along the border.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.