In another thread, questions are being asked about the motivations of Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, as he continues to wage his own Mormon-ancestor version of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" against the Federal Government, in the name of God, Family and Cowboy Country. ("Cliven Bundy: Nevada Patriot (?) and his Mormon Family," by poster "UD," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 20 April 2014, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1246532,1246532#msg-1246532)


For the religious record, Bundy claims that "his rights derive from the fact his Mormon ancestors were using the land far before the federal government claimed authority over it. One Elko County rancher, Cliff Gardner, has decided to take his case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that states' rights mean the federal government has no authority over the land where his cattle graze." (For a comprehensive history on this dispute, see "Everything You Need to Know about the Long Fight Between Cliven Bundy and the Federal Government," by James Fuller, "Washington Post," 15 April 2014, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/)
_____


So, I recently did a cartoon on this kook, which resulted in me then engaging in an email discussion with a reader where I attempted to bring him up to speed on certain basics surrounding Cowpoke Bundy's armed stand-off with the Feds over rangeland on which he is presently illegally grazing his cattle without paying for the benefit. Such a deal.

Here's the the elemental realities at work:

Bundy's family has homesteaded the land in dispute since the 1800s--land which is now federally-owned. Others in similar situations have, over time, complied with the law, having worked with the Bureau of Land Management in reaching amicable solutions on use of land resources. In contrast, Bundy has steadfastly failed to demonstrate reasonableness, given that his arguments are based in historic religious nuttiness.

For instance, Bundy has:

1) refused to acknowledge the fact that the land is under lawful BLM jurisdiction; and

2) failed to pay his due grazing fees and has been assessed one million dollars in fines as a result.

In other words, Bundy does not "own" the land. And he does not "own" the water, either. Arrangements have been made with rational ranchers to lease land and water privileges from the BLM. Bundy has not been one of those rational ranchers. To the contrary, he is associating with a variety of gun-waving extremists, some of whom recognize no legitimate government authority any higher than the county–sheriff level.

This dispute goes back to a 1993 flashpoint when the Feds exerted lawful authority over the land in question, in keeping with federal protocols protecting threatened species. Bundy's subsequent, ongoing violation of the law amounts to an illegal and unauthorized intrusion on to federal land. It is Bundy's wingnut supporters whom he is encouraging to mount an armed resistance against legitimate federal authority. This states-"rights" snit with the Feds has been an ongoing assault on Bundy's part against federal law that he is waging in the name of supposed constitutional rights when, in fact, he is engaged in simple tax evasion. Ironically, Bundy brands himself as a supposed "conservative" when, in reality, he is:

1) "moo-ching" off the government by not paying his freight;

2) grazing his cattle on federal lands illegally; and

3) as a result, robbing the taxpayers of revenues he should be lawfully paying the government for use of its land to support his private cattle operations.

The BLM has made a temporary tactical retreat by pulling back in the face of these extremists who have closed public roads and literally taken aim with high-powered rifles at federal agents who are simply trying to enforce the law, per court order.

In the meantime, Bundy continues to:

1) graze for free at taxpayers' expense;

2) rack up a million dollars in fines for deliberately violating the law thus placing him in contempt of judicial orders directing him to stand down; and

3) surround himself with political extremists, some of whom--I kid you not--have openly threatened to use women as human shields against BLM agents if they (the agents) attempt to bring Bundy to justice for his ongoing, flagrant violation of the rule of law; while still others have been scoping their high-powered rifles at BLM enforcement personnel.

Bundy, in sum, is getting free stuff from the big, bad government that he is constantly railing against. Moreover, he has lost every court action pertaining to his case. The courts have already ruled that he is in violation of the law and thus owes back fees and penalties; yet, Bundy refuses to pony up or otherwise comply with his duties as a citizen under the laws of the land. The latest judicial ruling ordered Bundy not to resist the BLM or engage in provocative action that interfered with the government asserting its legitimate control over and management of its federal grazing lands. Bundy has blatantly violated that court order and, once again, is demonstrating contempt for the law.

Mormon Harry Reid (D-NV) has publicly stated that Bundy is in violation of the law.
_____


Speaking of "Mormon" and with the above as background, here's my doodle on this doofus. (Click here first, then click on the lower-right corner of the cartoon to enlarge: http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/steve-benson/2014/04/18/steve-benson-cliven-bundy-roundup/7857769/)

*****


Where's the beef? They're illegally on Uncle Sam's land, thanks to Brother Bundy's scam.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 10:41PM by steve benson.

All you say here seems pretty straightforward, steve. My only beef, I suppose, is that all the ranchers, neighbors of the Bundy's, have been driven off the land by having their herds cut to the point of unprofitability, and now that the Bundy's are being driven off, the way is open for the sleazy Harry Reid to sell sell sell, to developers and contributors. I don't like that dirtbag Reid one bit.

. . . manage the land, per established federal law.

As the OP notes regarding the federal government's set-aside procedures for designated habitats for threatened native species, other ranchers in the area have made accomodations with the BLM.

But not Bundy, who is a fringe sort, hanging out with gun-totin' "sovereign-rights" kooks who do not recognize government oversight and control above and beyond the state or even county level.

As far as you not liking Reid, sorry, but this is not a personality contest. This is a matter of established law--as virtually ever court decision in this case has found.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 10:22PM by steve benson.

Well, there is this Supreme Court case, from 1845, which may apply to Nevada as it became a state:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/212/case.html

From the decision:

"The United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama, or any of the new States, were formed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of cession executed by them to the United States, and the trust created by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803, with the French Republic ceding Louisiana."

So the court seems to be saying that federal possession of anything in a territory redounds upon a state upon statehood. But I'm not well-versed in law, so I dunno.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> So the court seems to be saying that federal
> possession of anything in a territory redounds
> upon a state upon statehood. But I'm not
> well-versed in law, so I dunno.

As I understand it, the first thirteen states to enter the
Union were a special case, and there was no "federal" lands
within their borders when they became part of the nation.

The lands later obtained from foreign powers were individual
cases, but the cessions were first of all to the USA and
only later were hunks designated as individual unorganized
territories. Those hunks, in turn, became organized territories
as Congress decided -- each with its own provisions.

In no case did the inhabitants of an organized territory
"own" any land until parcels were sold or ceded to individuals,
corporations, or the like.

I may be wrong, but I do not recall any territorial governments
owning land in their own names.

Each state after the first thirteen, entered the Union with
whatever unique provisions were made for that new state.

Nowhere have I ever heard that ALL previously federal-held
lands became state property upon admission.

Or, even more absurd, that the real estate within each
designated county of a new state became "county lands."

Then again, the L.D.S. Church has a reputation for having
the best lawyers in the world. So, if some of them end up
working with Bundy, no doubt he can stick a legal monkey
wrench into the civil justice system for the rest of his life

UD

great info! RFM is the best resource for western states info. I understand the case much better now, tip of my lid to you and UD steve.

How does he feel about "obeying the law of the land?"

Oh give me a range
Where the Mormons are strange
Where the sage and the juniper thrive
Where you'll never see
BLM SUVs
And there's no charge for your cattle drive

this man's property? he paid taxes on it and then, there was a limited extinction event risk species (ie endangered species) found on his property- and through eminent domain he wasn't compensated for it? and the land changed ownership?

Here in central cali farmers live in dread (so I hear) of fairy shrimp being found in "vernal pools" that means rain water in the desert make puddles and in case some of these infernal things unfortunately surface- and you don't plough the land fast enough and someone finds it- they will tell you, you own that land, you pay taxes on it, and uh yeah you can't farm it. no more. never. ever. ever. (this overheard from now dead farmer men's conversating with one another, as in "hey, ___, did you hear, got another one. IT was..." like dread like a horror movie in hushed tones late at night in the smoke whispy air at the farm house table, old men hunched forward leaning in as us women folk did the dinner dishes and served them their coffee. "sugar, Gerald?" I said, walked back to the sink, once I turned my back their night time horror on the farm began again. Almost as worse as it had been after __ got out of the VA after got caught in an out building run himself over with a tractor, took off his leg. He nearly died- hush voices horror on the central cali farm. Oh if I could raise them all from the grave this year no water at all, the things I wish I could them all say.)

btw I don't care who homesteaded or paid a reality commission on owning some farm property= all I care is who paid taxes on it. Is there a record of taxes paid on established property? or not? the homesteaders usually paid in blood, I here they still risk their lives in Alaska homesteading in all that cold for instance- why some bit of land on the planet is worth risking dying over I will never understand (I've seen people sacrifice all and die over keeping a piece of property in the family before, and it saddens me.) Do you have access to evidence of former property boundaries? tax records? and links would be very interesting.

Do you have links? to the environmental incident in question ?
on the ranch land? what endangered species was it?

This is interesting- nothing noted in any news service this far west.

thanks-

Yet, he belligerently and illegally refuses to pay the national government for his continued use of its federal land, given his extremist views that do not recognize the federal government's long-standing, constitutionally-established and court-affirmed right to acquire land in the name of advancing the public interest. In short, Bundy has no case, period.
_____


"Cliven Bundy is a rancher who has been grazing his cattle on public lands without paying the required fees. He was also grazing on protected land. Cliven Bundy has lost his case against the federal government several times. The federal government finally came in and impounded Cliven Bundy’s livestock.

"Ultimately, an armed gang of thugs came from many parts of the country to support Cliven Bundy. Fox News and other conservatives referred to Cliven Bundy and his thugs as patriots.

"Imagine if these were armed land owners in North Dakota and South Dakota attempting to protect their land against corporations evoking eminent domain on their land. Does anyone believe conservatives would call them patriots? Does anyone doubt the government would go in for the kill?

"Yet, the government backed down from Cliven Bundy and his thugs. The government gave him back his livestock.

"Just because conservatives call Cliven Bundy a patriot does not make him one These guys are not patriots. They do not recognize the United States as their government. They do not respect the rule of law. They disregard the ruling of the courts. Why are they called patriots? They are called patriots because many allow them to get away with it. In not pushing back it becomes a reality for many."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292342/-Krystal-Ball-calls-out-Rancher-Cliven-Bundy-And-His-Gang-Of-Thugs#
_____


"In the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands. Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLM over the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codifiedthis in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution (*and the ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT) state:

“'Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; . . . .'

"If Bundy 'owns the land' then where is the deed? Where are the records he paid property taxes? It’s not his land. Bundy also claims that it his 'right' to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. 'Taylor' was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

"'So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.'

"In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new grazing regulations promulgated by the Department of Interior under former Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt to conform to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and found:

"The words 'so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of this subchapter' and the warning that 'issuance of a permit' creates no 'right, title, interest or estate' make clear that the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute; and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, 'grazing privileges' shall be safeguarded, in light of the Act’s basic purposes. Of course, those purposes include 'stabiliz[ing] the livestock industry,' but they also include 'stop[ping] injury to the public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration,' and 'provid[ing] for th[e] orderly use, improvement, and development' of the public range.

"He has no 'right' to graze it. The federal courts have struck down every challenge Bundy has made about his claims, and has issued not one, but two, court orders to remove his trespass cattle. It’s not his land and he has no right to graze it. The simple truth of the matter is that Bundy is a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement. It also appears that he and his supporters’ use of threats and intimidation likely violated several federal laws. Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection. What about Bundy’s claim that his forebears bought the land he is now accused of trespass grazing upon?

"This land was once Mexican land, and was won by the United States after the Mexican-American War. It is part of what is known as the 'Mexican Cession.' All of Nevada, California, Arizona and most of New Mexico were part of the Cession. Much of this land was privatized under various grants and laws such as the Homestead Act and the Desert Lands Act, plus mining claims. Several million acres were granted to Nevada for state lands, but those lands that were not privatized have always been Mexican lands or United States lands owned by the U.S. government.

"Before the Taylor Grazing Act, these government lands were called 'the public domain.' They could be privatized, as mentioned, under the Homestead Act and such, but the acreage allowed per homesteader was limited to 160 acres. There were no 158,000 acre homestead privatizations and certainly no 750,000 acre privatizations. Livestock owners ran their livestock freely without a permit on the public domain. They didn’t even need a home base of property (a ranch). The result was disaster because the operator to find green grass and eat it first won out, promoting very bad grazing practices. That was the reason for Taylor Grazing Act — ranchers and others could see the public domain system led to disaster on the ground. Therefore, the more powerful ranchers with “base” private property received grazing permits. This got rid of the landless livestock operators. Taylor Grazing was administered on the ground by the U.S. Grazing Service. Now, ranchers with grazing permits had to pay a grazing fee to use their permits.

"Bundy’s ancestors probably got one of these grazing permits, but they most certainly did not buy the land. That was not possible. The public domain was not for sale and ranchers generally did not want it. After all, if they owned it, they would owe local property tax. In 1946** the Bureau of Land Management was created by executive order of President Truman to replace the Grazing Service. The Service had been defunded in a dispute between the House and the U.S. Senate. The BLM has since been affirmed by law rather than a mere executive order. It is supposed to manage the public lands for multiple uses and for sustained production ('yield') of renewable resources such as grass.

"As before, you need a grazing permit for cattle, sheep, goats or horses to legally graze. It is a privilege, not a right, and this has been firmly stated by the U.S. courts. Hopefully, this explains why Bundy’s assertions are wrong. It is too bad that few citizens are taught public land law or history in high school or college. We think it is vital for everyone to know these things because these are in a real sense your lands, held in trust by the government. Yes we know the government often does a poor job. They did in Bundy’s case by letting this go for 20 years. He should have been gone before the year 2000. End of story."

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2014 11:32PM by steve benson.

Quoting Mr. PaintingintheWIN water law water history lover: "(no names, their descendants are alive, fears for slander)"

"they'd pay folks to go and file claims, small farm claims, and apply for water allotments for those small farms, and whatever limit it was, they'd pay these people to go and file for that amount of land, and then get that allotment of water."

"and so then the biggee farmer would get all that water, by having all those folks that had land be part of the bigger consortium' who were their workers. & change the title.


"So the biggest ranches of the west were made, according to 'Cadillac Desserts'"

(this back to Mrs. PaintingintheWIN now): oh and one book said they'd put up a bird house then go to the claims office and swear or have a witness swear they saw a house on it (the claim number) and have right to it.

Pioneers. Sheesh. heck. ahem. back to the present business, I guess your answer meant that his family did not pay taxes on any of the parcels? and that a specific endangered species did not exist forcing them to vacate the land they'd formerly farmed for profit

paintingintheWIN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> have a witness swear they saw a house on it (the claim
> number) and have right to it....
>

This may be of interest:

There is a large tract of land in Cache valley known as the Church farm. Brigham Young has taken a fancy to this farm, which comprises some
of the best land in the valley, and would like to lay individual claim to it and get a Government title; but as he has now about fifty, yea, even a hundred
times more land in the Territory by pre-emption than the law allows, he employs some of the faithful of his flock to carry out his speculative plans,
which, of course, encounter no opposition, as the will of the pseudo God is law with them. Accordingly, he has had a tract of five miles, running north
and south, and three or four miles from east to west, inclosed in a fence, which has been used as a herd ground by the residents of the valley. To
make the claim valid the Pre-emption law requires the pre-emptor to erect some kind of a building on each section, which is to be occupied for a
specified number of nights. In order to comply with this provision Brigham secures the services of four "brethren," wno put up a frame shanty each
on the corners of four respective sections. In the morning those shanties are removed to other sections by four different men, and the same operation
is continued until the tract of land is pre-empted by venal "brethren," who, after robbing the people of the valley of it, turn it over to the "Lion of the
Lord." Some of them, undoubtedly, are "counseled" to perpetrate this trick, others, not so willing, receive seven and one-half bushels of wheat out
of the tithing office for their pay. But this is not all. The pre-emptors are compelled to go to Salt Lake City and swear to their pre-emotion right before
the Register of the Land Office, and before they leave the city the papers are placed in their master's hands.

This is by one of the many tricks Brigham has resorted to in order to acquire possession of all the valuable lands in the Territory, and his
acres may now be counted by thousands. He has always plenty of villainous dupes to do his bidding, and carry out his plans, for without
perfect submission to the Prophet there is little hope for salvation.

"Utah Weekly Reporter," June 12, 1869.

I suspect the Judge who ruled against Bundy's claims and ordered Bundy to comply with the law would disagree with Bundy's effort to invoke the Church:

"Judge Lloyd D. George was appointed United States District Judge for the District of Nevada by President Ronald Reagan in May 1984. He served as Chief United States District Judge from 1992 to 1997, and assumed senior status in December 1997.
Judge George was a pilot in the United States Air Force. He received his bachelor of science degree in 1955 from Brigham Young University, and his J.D. degree in 1961 from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall). Upon graduating, he returned to Las Vegas where he built a successful private practice.

"He has authored articles on the administration of the federal judiciary, ethics and insolvency. He has won many awards, including the Brigham Young University Alumni Distinguished Service Award, the Notre Dame Club’s John C. Mowbray Humanitarian of the Year Award, and the Boy Scouts of America Silver Beaver Award.

"At the commencement at BYU in 2001, Judge George was the recipient of the Presidential Citation. In 2005, he received the Jensen Public Service Award from Boalt Hall, University of California."

To clarify, Bundy owns a ranch out there and a certain amount of property. What he is doing is 'leasing' nearby federal lands, outside of his property to graze his cattle so he can raise and sell more cattle than his own property could support. This is commonplace in the cattle world. This has nothing to do with eminent domain, and as far as I know, the land in question has always been owned by the government since its purchase from Mexico in 1848.

The problem here is that there are certain fees, taxes and regulations (like how many cattle can be grazed in that particular area based on resources and other factors to prevent over-grazing and the destruction of habitat/other species) associated with using that land, and Bundy is refusing to abide by them, arguing that these rules are somehow unconstitutional. (Which is strange to me because Article IV, Section 3 explicitly states that Congress and the federal government have the authority to set rules and regulations regarding land owned by the United States)

Basically he has been renting property for his private business, but has refused to pay the rent because he doesn't like his landlord. The landlord tried to evict him, but he rallied a bunch of his goons, and by show of force and threat of violence stopped the eviction. (for now)

I guess if all of our ancestors would have never stood up to the law, we would still be subjects of England. Sometimes a hard stand gets more attention than trying to go through the 'proper' channels.
I'm not saying he is totally without fault, but what about a gov't that responds in the manner they did? I guess the small town equivalent would be to send six swat team members to a house to try to get a parking ticket paid.

downsouth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> what about a gov't that responds in the manner
> they did?
...

They gave him twenty years to comply. If they give him
any more leeway, he'll be dead the next time a warning
is sent his way.

If he was in the right, then all he had to do was send
out his lawyers to document that fact.

I wonder why they weren't there at the gates?

UD

As I similarly noted in another forum, this one was an easy call.

Bundy's a so-called "conservative" feeding at the trough of Big Government in a scheme to get the Feds to give him free stuff that he hasn't earned, owned or paid for. Where have we heard that line before? :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 02:41AM by steve benson.

Great cartoon- I love your work!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 02:53AM by steve benson.

Basically, if you are a belligerent dimwit, conservative America loves you. See: Palin, Sarah



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 01:11AM by ladell.

This may also be of interest:


"I've lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements," Bundy said.

Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt.

Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.

The Bureau of Land Management was created 1946, the same year Cliven was born.

"My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here," Bundy said.


Google it....


So -- in 1954 or thereafter, the Bundy bunch dug a ditch,
hauled in a water trough and maybe cleared away some brush
so that their cattle could drink federal water in comfort.

"Beneficial use," eh?

Think I'll go spray-paint some pretty pictures on the
rock faces at Yosemite and claim the park land for my own.


UD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 02:20AM by dalebroadhurst.

Time to eliminate the luxuries of water, power, fuel, county roads, vehicle, and firearm license's. Is there anything else?

They can't stay holed up on that ranch forever. Eventually you have to go about the life of living. I wouldn't think waving guns at the state and federal law enforcers will work for very long.

There are clearly two virtually insane parties to this event.

Cliven Bundy's position seems entirely untenable in the face of his court losses. He can garner all the popular support he wishes from whatever legitimate or fringe groups his cause may attract, but it ultimately appears he is on the losing end of this and should have to pay the fees.

The more troubling insane party is the BLM. Since when do we encourage our government to arrive prepared to use deadly force to collect a debt? This entire event likely would have garnered a paragraph or two in a local paper if the BLM approached their debt collection the same way as the IRS usually does: File a lien of Bundy's property and take steps to civilly collect the moneys owed. Bundy's continued refusals would have resulted in an auctioning of his property from the courthouse steps. When was the last time an IRS auction of a debtor's property garnered national news?

Honestly, it seems all of us should be far more outraged over a government that feels it is perfectly appropriate to take up arms against citizens to collect a monetary debt. This should never have happened.

We as a country face very little threat from individuals like Cliven Bundy. On the other hand, a gun-happy government prepared to take deadly force against its citizens for non-violent offenses is a huge threat.

I feel no outrage against George Washington for riding at the head of a 13,000 man army to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. If private citizens wish to bear arms against those tasked by court order to ensure law and order is enforced, I have no outrage when the government representatives carry arms.

michaelm (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel no outrage against George Washington for
> riding at the head of a 13,000 man army to
> suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. If private
> citizens wish to bear arms against those tasked by
> court order to ensure law and order is enforced, I
> have no outrage when the government
> representatives carry arms.


Quite a stretch there. I must have missed the part where Bundy gathered 500 armed men to attack the home of the local BLM manager . . .

But welcome to the 21st century. Exactly how long do you think Bundy could have lasted once the BLM froze all his bank accounts and started advertising an auction date for his land? Not a shot fired -- not even a show of force -- and he is completely paralyzed. Sadly, General Washington had no Central Bank to call upon for enforcement.

"Honestly, it seems all of us should be far more outraged over a government that feels it is perfectly appropriate to take up arms against citizens to collect a monetary debt."

No, it is not a stretch. I wish to belong to a nation whose government is willing and able to suppress violent resistance to its laws.

If private citizens wish to bear arms against those tasked by court order to ensure law and order is enforced, I have no outrage when the government representatives carry arms.

Fuck the militias.

A bit more background info: the ex-sheriff, Richard Mack, who suggested women as human shields, and who Bundy seems to be hanging with (which should say something right there: why would you allow someone to stick around and be front and center in your "noble cause" if they suggest that tactic?)...anyway, said ex-sheriff has some pretty interesting political connections as well as connections to the militia movement (he helped Randy Weaver pen a book).
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_mack_1

I believe he is LDS as well. As a non-Mormon, just what is going on here? (there seems to be a backstory, that I'm not at all educated on, anyone want to help an ignorant gentile?)

And I believe Mr. Bundy himself has some connections as well -- at least his rhetoric is certainly taken straight from the militia movement playbook.
And I believe he has a history of threatening violence, so there's that, which would explain why law enforcement did have some pretty heavy duty backup.

I used to consider myself a Republican/conservative...but this is not something I support. In short, if they keep this up, then my party has left me (to paraphrase a famous quote).
Imho, they are supporting someone who has walked up to the line of sedition and saluted it...uhm, no thanks.

The 1864 enabling legislation by US Congress required a clause that the state disclaim ownership of public land.
"Third.  That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that [they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that] lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the Congress of the United States."

The State Constitution was ratified with that clause intact, but in 1993 through 1996, the state voted to remove that phrase from the constitution(that [they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States]). The state constitution no longer includes that phrase. In essence, Nevada no longer recognizes the authority of the US over "public Land". This does not include lands designated by Congress as National Forests, National Parks, etc., but does include all other public land (lands administered by BLM).

The court rulings rely on a 9th Circuit Court ruling against another rancher (Gardner...) but that ruling was based on Gardner using National Forest land. Bundy is using BLM (Public) land not designated by Congress for other uses.

This matters.