Nevada cattle standoff

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

Does this rancher own the land?


That's all I really need to know. If it's a "no", then I don't really care how long he's been squatting on it and using it for free. Sorry your government handout ran out. Thanks a lot, Obama.

Well you don't own any land in America(which is bullshit).

The man's family has been grazing cattle on that land since the infancy of Nevada's statehood. Half a century before the Bureau of Land Management came into existence. Call him a squatter all you want, he was there first.

If the Bureau of Creepy Crawlers and their enforcers of men with rifle's and helicopters show up to your house tomorrow and want to remove you because there are a threatened species of worms(keep in mind they killed hundreds of worms last year) in your back yard... how is that right? You've been there for x amount of years. If you pay em a little hush money, you can stay and do as you please. Don't pay and you're fucked. They don't give a shit about the worms, they just want your money. They even let 30k people run Tough Mudder's twice a year in your back yard but you and your dog are a problem because you aren't a tax incentive.

[ExistenceNow]

So, he had title to that land at some point and they pulled imminent domain?


If "the man" wants to show up to my rightfully owned land and take it over (via imminent domain), they have to pay me fair market value for it.

[hmich176]

He doesn't own the land. It's on public property that was never converted into private ownership. His family held a grazing allotment which allowed them to use the land. These allotments were converted into permits, which the BLM manages. The BLM put limits on cattle grazing back in 93 (for various reasons including protecting the desert tortoise), and this guy didn't like it. He stopped making payment on the permit as a way to express his displeasure with the limits. His permit was subsequently cancelled.

The "he was there first" argument holds no weight. He doesn't have the right to continue using the land the United States government purchased in 1848 from Mexico, and he lost that right in 1993 when he stopped making payment for the permit.

[DaveHead36]

If this whole thing is about who was here first, we are ALL screwed and the indians are about to get all their land back. n/r

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by hmich176

He doesn't own the land. It's on public property that was never converted into private ownership. His family held a grazing allotment which allowed them to use the land. These allotments were converted into permits, which the BLM manages. The BLM put limits on cattle grazing back in 93 (for various reasons including protecting the desert tortoise), and this guy didn't like it. He stopped making payment on the permit as a way to express his displeasure with the limits. His permit was subsequently cancelled.

The "he was there first" argument holds no weight. He doesn't have the right to continue using the land the United States government purchased in 1848 from Mexico, and he lost that right in 1993 when he stopped making payment for the permit.

Wow. an argument based in fact. Jeepkid any response?

hmichnumbers, you a lawyer? Nice job with this summary.

[Climb2safety]

The governor and one Senator are backing the ranchers and militia members are sterting to arrive.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04...-nevada-ranch/

Someone is gonna get kilt.

[jcc522]

any updates on this?

[Climb2safety]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...e=domesticNews

The Feds withdrew and the militia claimed victory

[lrhyde]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Well you don't own any land in America(which is bullshit).

The man's family has been grazing cattle on that land since the infancy of Nevada's statehood. Half a century before the Bureau of Land Management came into existence. Call him a squatter all you want, he was there first.

If the Bureau of Creepy Crawlers and their enforcers of men with rifle's and helicopters show up to your house tomorrow and want to remove you because there are a threatened species of worms(keep in mind they killed hundreds of worms last year) in your back yard... how is that right? You've been there for x amount of years. If you pay em a little hush money, you can stay and do as you please. Don't pay and you're fucked. They don't give a shit about the worms, they just want your money. They even let 30k people run Tough Mudder's twice a year in your back yard but you and your dog are a problem because you aren't a tax incentive.

And the Native Americans were here before him, what's your point? Should we all just pack up and go back to Europe?

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by jcc522

any updates on this?

yeah, your opinion is STILL wrong

The "he was there first" view is lame

And Alex Jones is a fucking fool that is going to get people killed.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by hmich176

He doesn't own the land. It's on public property that was never converted into private ownership. His family held a grazing allotment which allowed them to use the land. These allotments were converted into permits, which the BLM manages. The BLM put limits on cattle grazing back in 93 (for various reasons including protecting the desert tortoise), and this guy didn't like it. He stopped making payment on the permit as a way to express his displeasure with the limits. His permit was subsequently cancelled.

The "he was there first" argument holds no weight. He doesn't have the right to continue using the land the United States government purchased in 1848 from Mexico, and he lost that right in 1993 when he stopped making payment for the permit.

Originally Posted by jcc522

any updates on this?

yeah, you didn't respond to this...

Originally Posted by dre2142

yeah, your opinion is STILL wrong

The "he was there first" view is lame

And Alex Jones is a fucking fool that is going to get people killed.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by dre2142

yeah, your opinion is STILL wrong

The "he was there first" view is lame

And Alex Jones is a fucking fool that is going to get people killed.

lol. Think about mate. Since the dawn of time. Since the big bang or God's 7th day, whatever you believe in... this land hasn't been developed. Nothing has come of it. It was just a waste land until Bundy's family started using it to graze cattle in the late 1800s. His family improved it. Heard of homesteading? The Feds only possible claim to the land is some cats in DC signing a piece of paper. They feds gave exactly 0 fucks about it until Harry Reid decided he wanted to get dat Chinese money. Feds raise taxes on land that hasn't been developed since the dawn of time. Feds complain about a couple hundred head of cattle on 250 square miles that hasn't been developed since the beginning of time. Feds threaten violence and steal cattle over land they haven't given a shit about. Feds cite turtles as the reason when they euthanized hundreds of them last year. Get real. The whole thing is a fucking joke.

Originally Posted by hmich176

He doesn't own the land. It's on public property that was never converted into private ownership. His family held a grazing allotment which allowed them to use the land. These allotments were converted into permits, which the BLM manages. The BLM put limits on cattle grazing back in 93 (for various reasons including protecting the desert tortoise), and this guy didn't like it. He stopped making payment on the permit as a way to express his displeasure with the limits. His permit was subsequently cancelled.

The "he was there first" argument holds no weight. He doesn't have the right to continue using the land the United States government purchased in 1848 from Mexico, and he lost that right in 1993 when he stopped making payment for the permit.

lol nope. Homesteading. Prescriptive rights. Look it up.

[jcc522]

It doesn't matter anyway. The feds tried to bully their way into getting the land. Armed patriots said fuck off and they did, for now. So much for "armed hillbillies couldn't beat the government". Unfortunately, if they really want to, they'll just do a raid(read: kill or capture) in the middle of the night a week of two from now when this cools off.

[scrock25]

I'm with JeepKid on this one... why does the gubmint have to raise a stink about this nonsense now? To that end, it seems petty and childish to steal the guys cattle (livelihood).

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by jcc522

They feds gave exactly 0 fucks about it until Harry Reid decided he wanted to get dat Chinese money.

I first came to the conclusion that you didnt know what you were talking about when you claimed he owned the land....

then I read the above and it confirmed my thoughts.

For you to believe the above doesnt surprise me in the least. Dont always believe shit you see on Facebook dude. When even BREITBART is laughing at this stupid conspiracy theory, you know its bullshit. The land is no where near where the solar plant was planned to go, and the entire deal was scrapped last year anyways. So for you to cite this as a reason is ludicrous and ignorant.

And then to say that the feds havent cared about it until now further proves you have no idea what youre talking about.....they have been battling this guy in the courts for 20+ years....the right way. When you owe the government money, they seize property or garnish wages.

[unccrombie]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

So, he had title to that land at some point and they pulled imminent domain?


If "the man" wants to show up to my rightfully owned land and take it over (via imminent domain), they have to pay me fair market value for it.

Eminent...

[dmbigeyedphish]

I don't know what I expected

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by dmbigeyedphish

I don't know what I expected

Oh shit

Sup dude?!?!?

[dmbigeyedphish]

Originally Posted by scrock25

Oh shit

Sup dude?!?!?

Livin the MUTHAFUCKIN dream

Also thread title is misleading.

How's life

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by dmbigeyedphish

Livin the MUTHAFUCKIN dream

Also thread title is misleading.

How's life

Life is good... good seeing you around.

[cazzie34]

Prescriptive rights, maybe. Depends on what the government was doing the last 20 years. If they knew he was grazing but didn't do anything (but still opposed) then he probably does have prescriptive rights.

[dmbigeyedphish]

Originally Posted by scrock25

Life is good... good seeing you around.

Thanks man. Lotta chat threads up in ants now haha

[Lcsulla]

He entered into a contract to use that land nearly 20 years ago before BLM was created so I say federal over reach. The 'militia' so to speak are jackasses but they are simply reacting. Funny, I don't think this standoff was started by BLM, I think it was the worthless IRS who pushed the issue this far.

[ExistenceNow]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

He entered into a contract to use that land nearly 20 years ago before BLM was created so I say federal over reach. The 'militia' so to speak are jackasses but they are simply reacting. Funny, I don't think this standoff was started by BLM, I think it was the worthless IRS who pushed the issue this far.

I think for this argument to be valid, he would have had to never have paid BLM for his permit rights. Once he started paying BLM, he entered into a contract with them, which he broke when he stopped making said payments.

[Lcsulla]

BLM/IRS are thieves with badges IMO.

[jcc522]

http://110.imagebam.com/download/aBT...17/xYpIa02.jpg

[ji/\/\ithing]

Originally Posted by jcc522

http://110.imagebam.com/download/aBT...17/xYpIa02.jpg

not sure if troll, tinfoil hat wearer, or freshman year poli-sci major...

[cazzie34]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/ .

TL;dnr: The Nevada Constitution specifically states that it has "paramount allegiance" to the Federal Government. It was written 20 years before Bundy's family started grazing on the land.

Article 1 Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

"But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by scrock25

I'm with JeepKid on this one... why does the gubmint have to raise a stink about this nonsense now? To that end, it seems petty and childish to steal the guys cattle (livelihood).

They've tried for 20 years through judicial and administrative procedures to get Mr. Bundy to pay the permit fees he is required to pay. Seems pretty reasonable.

[Julia Roberts]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-stand/360587/ .

TL;dnr: The Nevada Constitution specifically states that it has "paramount allegiance" to the Federal Government. It was written 20 years before Bundy's family started grazing on the land.

Article 1 Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

"But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority."

Clearly this is referring to Seccession and the Civil War, not grazing rights.

While you may be perfectly happy to see feds roll in and get into a shootout with some rednecks over misplaced cattle, I am glad they decided against it.