Rancher's son says force was necessary to stop cattle seizure
BUNKERVILLE, Nevada
"We were dedicated to opening those gates and peacefully walking through to retrieve those cattle," Ammon Bundy said in an interview. "The presence of weapons was needed in order to intimidate them."
The federal Bureau of Land Management began a roundup of the cattle from the Bundy ranch a week ago, contending he owes more than $1 million in back fees, penalties and other costs for grazing his cattle on public land and has ignored court orders.
Bundy stopped paying monthly grazing fees in 1993. The ranch is about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.
The issue simmered for a week with verbal and physical altercations and reached a boil on Saturday after nearly 1,000 supporters, included armed militamen from several western states, rallied on foot and on horseback with the family.
The four-hour standoff temporarily shut down Interstate 15 and ended when the bureau stopped rounding up cattle citing safety concerns and then agreed to return the cows.
The Clark County sheriff Doug Gillespie had delivered a bureau offer to leave, but keep the cows, and then helped negotiate the eventual end to the standoff, Bundy said.
"When we went up there, they knew we were serious," Ammon Bundy said. "They wanted to go. This thing was building and building and was going to continue."
Bundy said about 350 of the ranch's cows were recovered from bureau holding pens. Some of the animals were injured and a handful of calves, some so new their umbilical cords remained attached, were being bottle fed, he said.
Bureau officials could not be reached immediately for comment on Sunday. In a statement on Saturday, Director Neil Kornze said the bureau ended the cattle gathering because of serious concerns about the safety of employees and the public and would work to resolve the matter administratively and through the courts.
About 100 Bundy supporters, many wearing camouflage and carrying firearms, gathered on Sunday with the family for an informal church service at a makeshift protest command center.
Speakers offered a mix of prayer and religious testimony, denounced the federal government for excessive oversight on several issues, and called for the preservation of individual constitutional rights.
An Arizona state representative in attendance, David Livingston, said the battle over the Bundy cows would serve as a unifying event for lawmakers across 11 western states working on state sovereignty issues.
"This was a major tipping point," Livingston said.
Cliven Bundy, 76, said he had been touched by the supporters who stood by his family over the past week.
"I was really quite humbled to the fact that there are so many good people," Cliven Bundy said.
Federal government stops fight with Nevada rancher over grazing land
The Bureau of Land Management announced Saturday it would no longer enforce an order on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy to prohibit him from using a piece of land for grazing for his cattle. Violence erupted Wednesday when the government began rounding up his cattle due to Bundy’s refusal to comply.
BY Joel Landau
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, April 12, 2014, 2:56 PM
JIM URQUHART/Reuters
The Nevada range war of 2014 is over.The federal government announced Saturday it will no longer enforce a court order to remove about 900 animals from a stretch of land in rural Nevada over a decades-long dispute regarding grazing fees.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze said, according to ABC News.
George Frey/Getty Images
Rancher Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy grimaces as he shows taser marks on his chest on April 11.
The situation escalated quickly on Wednesday when federal agents and members of Bundy's family and his supporters engaged in a violent altercation when the bureau began rounding up Bundy's cattle. The BLM will release about 100 seized cattle.
Ammon Bundy, was shocked twice until he bled, while his 57-year-old sister, Margaret Houston, said she was thrown to the ground by a BLM officer.
Many of Bundy's supporters said the federal government's actions were an overreach on their power.
"The safety of all individuals involved in this matter has been my highest priority," the email said. "Given the circumstances, today's outcome is the best we could have hoped for," he said.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-stops-fight-nevada-rancher-grazing-land-article-1.1754457#ixzz2yru05mB4
Pay your rent and this won't happen. I heard about this first the other morning on talk radio. The man had a long standing contract with the government to rent the land. He didn't pay his rent or let's say didn't pay the proper "landlord." If I rent you a house and you don't like me so pay the rent you owe to my neighbor I am gonna evict you and do it completely legally. You don't owe rent to my neighbor you owe the rent to me. In this case paying the rent to the county is a horrible defense. The county didn't own the land. The government therefore the people does. The most troubling thing here William is that protesters were allowed to roam the fringes of the confrontation armed. That is pure nonsense and those are the people who should have been rounded up not the cows.
ReplyDeleteWith your support of the Federal leviathan you're the one who will wind up in a pen ric.
DeleteBundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
ReplyDeleteWho actually “owns” America’s land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis
Michael Lofti
BenSwann.com
April 13th, 2014
Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
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….
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
ReplyDeleteTo 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– (Emphasis added).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.
Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhat does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.cMyuPExi.dpuf
But you miss the whole point as usual. Bundy rented a portion of the land to graze his cattle. He didn't pay rent he was being evicted. The state of Nevada didn't own the property either. So Nevada constitution citing is just pissing in the wind. The land was owned by the federal government. Now William I don't agree with the way it was handled but you need to either present all the facts or learn all the facts. Bundy wasn't being evicted from his own land. It belonged to some one else, I don't care how long the family rented it. If I rent a house for 50 years and die does that give my family the right to remain there rent free after I am gone? No it does not.
ReplyDeleteThe property clause allows the fed to own uncontrolled land. Another outdated section of the constitution of course but inserted because as the company expanded it kept large tracts of land out of the hands of speculators and placed it into the hands of homesteaders. As for Nevada, Utah, Alaska, the federal government owned the land before the state existed. Do they have to ask permission to own their own land? Yes there is land outside of national parks etc still owned by the government. You know William within 5 miles of my house there are hundreds of acres owned by the city of Raleigh. You know why they own them? Right smack in the center is a water treatment plant. By owning the land upriver for 3 or 4 miles they control the watershed, they control what locally goes into the water. Not a bad idea. Who knows why the government still owns the land but they do and Bundy didn't pay his rent.
Can't you read ric?
DeleteBundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
They should be grandfathered in and Fed should be paying them.
This is about government controlling every aspect of their lives.
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands.
DeleteIn 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
The land management policy of the federal government before 1946 involved on the one hand rapid disposal to miners, ranchers and farmers, and on the other hand reservations for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and military needs. The combination of 1946 of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service into the new Bureau of Land Management was filled with ambiguity. In terms of bureaucracy, there has been a constant tension between the local district rangers, who have typically been oriented toward the mining and ranching interests, and the centralized leadership in Washington that follows presidential guidance. Since the Reagan years of the 1980s, Republicans have emphasized local control giving priority to grazing, mining and petroleum production, while Democrats have emphasized environmentalism.[3]
Here's what going to happen now. The government will tie the Bundy's up in court and bankrupt them.
That's how big brother f____in works. Screw the government, graze your cattle and ignore the "fees."
Public lands are held in trust for all the citizens of the United States. The Bundy's are criminals who, by not paying their debt, are robbing each of us. They should all be convicted and thrown in prison, together with their militia friends.
ReplyDeleteEvery Grazing act was predicated upon PRE EXISITING RIGHTS held by the inhabitants of the various States.
DeleteThese ranchers were not squatters. The government was a johnny come lately regulator looking for "fees" to support their ever growing DC Leviathan.
I don't believe squatter rights applies to public lands. If the Bundy's have been squatting on this land for 140 years then they should pay back rent for that time. I guess you know that illegal aliens are farming pot on national park lands across the west. By your logic, since that land used to belong to Mexico for hundreds of years before it became federal land, the Mexican cartels have a right to farm it.
ReplyDeleteIllegal aliens are not citizens Mick. Citizens shouldn't be tasered over a "fee." Raising cows is not farming pot Mick.
DeleteMick, you are totally blind to what's happening all over this country.
1773-2009
William, I am aware that illegals are not citizens. Raising cattle is a form of farming however and I was drawing an analogy to your suggestion that the right to farm land is somehow related to your ancestors did. Maybe I misunderstood you. I do pretty well keep up with current affairs and I don't consider myself to be misinformed. It's true, I seldom watch television news as I find it to be too narrow and biased. I do read the morning newspapers and read news from Reuters, Bloomberg and BBC, which seem to be fairly unbiased. And, no, I don't subscribe to theories that the government is trying to take away our rights. Being rather on in years, I can see that the opposite is true in a long term perspective. But that's just my opinion.
DeleteThis is all about Harry Reid, casino union money, environmental group money, getting re-elected, holding power over citizens, perpetuating bureaucracy,,,our country is going in the toilet Mick.
DeleteI don't think Harry Reid is involved in this one William. Just more of your hate speech against someone you don't like. Why Harry just because he happens to be from Nevada.
Deletehttp://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-ranch-standoff-bureau-of-land-management-harry-reid-105695.html
DeleteSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid weighed in on the tensions in his state between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management, saying, “It’s not over.”
“I don’t have a response for Harry Reid, but I have a response for every county sheriff across the United States,” Bundy said on Monday. “Disarm the federal bureaucrats.”
Bundy’s sons had harsher words for the Nevada Democrat.
“Well, if he doesn’t have enough moral fiber in his bones at all to see what happened, that we the people got together and made something right, then I don’t think there’s any hope for him and he needs to be kicked out of office,” Aman Bundy said. “Even if he is a Senate majority leader. It doesn’t matter.”
Cliven Bundy’s other son, Ryan, added, “We don’t fear Harry Reid. The people are here to say, ‘We will have our freedom.’”
Two days ago the Federal Government had snipers trained on the citizens of our country over a "fee." Open your dam eyes ric.
Bundy owed rent and he knew it. In fact for a time he paid the rent. Then he started reading how for Nevada to become a state all unclaimed land had to be given to the federal government so that the land had clear title. He disagreed with that so quit paying rent except to Clark County Nevada and the State of Nevada both of whom refused his payments because it wasn't their land, it was the federal govt's. So he feels the state of Nevada fucked itself. Big deal he still owes the rent. Just more small business welfare shit that people like you William are more then happy to overlook. But it's a crying shame when an individual needs public assistance. More hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteFor once even Glenn Beck got it right. Why? Because he owns a ranch that pays BLM grazing fees.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/14/nevada-rancher-i-did-not-graze-my-cattle-on-united-states-property/
According to author Julia T. Wood, "men go into women's spaces more than women enter men's spaces" (Wood 2007, p. 144). With this in mind, we can understand that men typically have a stronger sense of ownership and are more likely to challenge others' boundaries. People respond to invasion of territory in different ways depending on what their comfort norms are. Wood (2007) presents three common responses:
DeleteWhen someone moves too close for comfort, you might step away, giving up your territory. This reaction is typical of feminine people.
When people have to fit into close spaces, they often look down as a submissive way of showing that they are not trying to invade others' territories.
When someone moves too close, you might refuse to give up your territory. This reaction is typical of masculine people.
This reaction is typical of unpatriotic idiots.
DeleteA patriot supports the constitution not some group of poorly led yahoo's. Instead of protecting some turtle in the desert send these taser armed BLM agents to the Mexican border where they might do some good.
DeleteLeave Navada's citizen ranchers alone.
And in supporting the constitution a patriot would be for the preservation of this great union. You are not.
Delete"Philosophically, the Declaration stressed two themes: individual rights and THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION."
Delete"The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, LIMITING THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory."
Go fuck yourself ric. We're not going to be run over by a bunch DC central planners and their turtle.
ReplyDeleteLittle Big Horn will look like child's play if the Feds press this. They know it and they caved. Enough ranches have already been put out of business by these environmentalists and their DC toadies.
Really William the little bighorn? You are ate up with it.
ReplyDeleteDon't call me ric when they come to NC and pen up your livelihood.
DeleteAnd they set up a first amendment area in your restaurant.
DeleteHa ha William. My restaurant is already a free speech zone. You as usual don't know what you are talking about. One of the most democratic companies in America.
DeleteThe Nevada cattle standoff and the First Amendment
Delete"An old-fashioned standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and federal officials seems to be over now, but the event has started even more talk about the use of “First Amendment zones” at public protests."
"For now, the issue heads back to the federal court system, as two debates continue about states’ rights and the BLM’s role in the region.
The third debate, which became very heated, was the use of “free speech” or “First Amendment” zones to contain protesters at the scene.
One strong opponent of the zones was Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval.
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” Sandoval said in a statement last week. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
As protesters funneled into the area, they started protesting about the free-speech protest zones.
Tod Story, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, told a Nevada newspaper that the First Amendment zones impeded free speech. “We don’t like the idea of people being cordoned off or corralled and told where they can and cannot express themselves,” Story said."
"The free-speech zone is also involved in two current Supreme Court cases. In the case of McCullen v. Coakley, the Court is considering a Massachusetts law that bars protests within 35 feet of an abortion facility.
The Court also heard the case of Wood v. Moss last month, which is about how protests are managed as related to presidential public appearances and visits.
At the heart of the issue are prior Court rulings about the time, place and manner of protests, if there is a narrow reason for blocking them, if they are content-neutral, and if restrictions leave open other avenues of communication.
For now, the BLM said this weekend that it will pursue it case against Cliven Bundy “administratively and judicially.” But the Bundy case is not the only disagreement in the Western states over land use, and the appearance of First Amendment Zones at other future protests could return as a point of contention."
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
They put the proles in a pen and take pictures of them behind orange fences. All part of the propaganda machine of those in power to make average citizens look like criminals.
DeleteSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid slammed supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, calling them “domestic terrorists.”
ReplyDelete“These people, who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said Thursday at an event hosted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/cliven-bundy-nevada-ranch-harry-reid-105811.html#ixzz2zFVxk9n0
And I kinda agree William. This is what troubles me over the whole situation. I watched this on a news program the other night. What is wrong with this picture is the armed and fatigued tea partiers just itching for a battle. You know William there is always talk about American exceptionalism. We had that at one time. But your people running around in fatigues and carrying the biggest gun that they legally can makes us just like any other third world country. Part of our exceptionalism was the founded in the ability to calmly and peacefully settle our small differences without resorting to violence or the threat of. Yes in the past during the Civil War and the formation of the unions we saw outbreaks of violence but not by armed fatigued citizens. That my friend more then anything else shows the glaring wrong of the tea party supporters. This is America the most advanced civilization ever. Put your guns away and it's time to talk, same as it has always been in our great country. You call yourselves patriots, but all you perceive is the destruction of our great nation. Ridiculous.
DeleteWhen the courts are stacked against you. When the BLM has two hundred agents including SWAT teams collecting your property. When the BLM has snipers training their weapons on you. When the BLM has attack dogs threatening you. When the BLM uses Tasers to make their point against citizens.
DeleteJust who are the terrorists in this picture?
It disgusts me especially the tea baggers in fatigues.
DeleteGet used to it ric. It's just the beginning.
Delete1773-2009