This could get Interesting

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/reid-not-second-guessing-blm-s-move-bundy-dispute

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/let-s-be-honest-about-what-bundy-and-not


and if you had doubts about his sanity?  he represented himself in federal court.  thats funny right there
so anyone know whats his place is worth? hes gonna be a couple mill in the hole shortly.

[Balog]

So did every other group of people in the rest of the world.

Poor Anasazi, always getting slaughtered... 

No, but that was sort of my point.

[Ben]

so anyone know whats his place is worth? hes gonna be a couple mill in the hole shortly.

A little more than a couple million, which is another bit about government overreach and fining people into oblivion. I'm pretty sure a private landowner couldn't get this kinda dough for money owed on a lease.

That order from October 2013 says Bundy owes $200 per day per head for every day he fails to move his cattle. That amounts to roughly $640 million in damages owed to the federal government for illegally grazing his cattle.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/

[Brad Johnson]

No not at all. I think Mr. Bundy had all the chances in the world to be compliant (with peaceful resolution) and choose otherwise. No man is above the law, whether you agree with the law or not. I don't want anarchy, I do think about resource usage past my lifetime and how a poor decision today can cause devastation in the future long after I am gone.

To review:
Bundy and his fellow ranchers were paying grazing fees
BLM steps in a to raise grazing fees, citing the ranchers' need to pay for damages to the desert tortoise habitat
Grazing fees are raised to a price point far beyond market rate (i.e., although grazing is "allowed", the fees intentionally set so high that they are economically unfeasible.  This is the very epitome of a de facto ban)
Cattlemen can no longer afford to ranch the land they've ranched for generations, many end up losing multi-generation family ranches
Bundy, trying to fight back, goes to court.  Court sides with BLM.  Twice.  Precedent?  There is no precedent.  BLM authority is so far-reaching and unfettered that their precedent is "Because we said so". (Don't believe me?  Look it up.)
BLM sends in armed military personnel in assault vehicles, sporting riot shields and full combat gear

To summarize..
Ranchers' families have grazed land for generations.  Ranchers are paying grazing fees.
Government raises grazing fees to the a point that ranchers can no longer afford to ranch the land their family has grazed for generations.
Multiple ranchers go out of business, but tries to have his day in court.
Court laughs in his face multiple times.
Soldiers show up in full battle gear to take his possessions.

And you still think the onus to settle amicably rests on Cliven Bundy's shoulders... ?  

Using that logic it's a victim's fault for getting robbed, and it is their responsibility to play nice when the robber tells them they will be back for more.  Sorry, but no.  At some point enough is enough.  Personally I think the man has been a bastion of patience.  Far more than I or a lot of the people I know would have been.

And, for the record.  We are not talking about "the law".  There is no law on any book which specifically makes what Mr. Bundy is doing illegal.  What we are talking about is "the regulation".  Specifically a BLM regulation developed on an arbitrary basis by personnel with questionable motives, emplaced under questionable circumstances, and enforced on a seemingly arbitrary basis.  We talk about this all the time, only instead of "ranchers" and "BLM" we use the terms "gun owners" and "ATF".  Takes on a whole new dimension now, doesn't it?

I don't get it.  I really don't.  We rail against tyranny and government overreach on this very forum on a daily basis.  Yet for some reason people want to throw this man under the bus for standing up against that very thing.  Have we really sunk to the point where we not only turn a blind eye to the tyranny we despise, but also willingly denounce others standing up to it?

Brad

[Angel Eyes]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/let-s-be-honest-about-what-bundy-and-not

From the article (an op-ed piece, not a news item):

“It [the BLM] has a moral responsibility to not let armed thugs and threats of violence seize hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for their own.”

I agree.  It's time the BLM stopped doing that.

[Balog]

Brad: people like resistance to tyranny as a theoretical concept or something the wogs in benighted foreign countries do. Recognizing that they are in fact slaves of a tyrannical fed.gov makes them feel icky, so they have to demonize anyone resisting so they can justify their own acquiescence.

[Brad Johnson]

BLM takes the "seize and impound (cattle)" language in the court order to mean "remove, destroy, or kill anything we don't like".

It just gets better and better... 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/

This is not going to end well.  Nor soon.  Nor peacefully, I'm afraid.

Brad

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

To review:
Bundy and his fellow ranchers were paying grazing fees
BLM steps in a to raise grazing fees, citing the ranchers' need to pay for damages to the desert tortoise habitat
Grazing fees are raised to a price point far beyond market rate (i.e., although grazing is "allowed", the fees intentionally set so high that they are economically unfeasible.  This is the very epitome of a de facto ban)
Cattlemen can no longer afford to ranch the land they've ranched for generations, many end up losing multi-generation family ranches
Bundy, trying to fight back, goes to court.  Court sides with BLM.  Twice.  Precedent?  There is no precedent.  BLM authority is so far-reaching and unfettered that their precedent is "Because we said so". (Don't believe me?  Look it up.)
BLM sends in armed military personnel in assault vehicles, sporting riot shields and full combat gear

To summarize..
Ranchers' families have grazed land for generations.  Ranchers are paying grazing fees.
Government raises grazing fees to the a point that ranchers can no longer afford to ranch the land their family has grazed for generations.
Multiple ranchers go out of business, but tries to have his day in court.
Court laughs in his face multiple times.
Soldiers show up in full battle gear to take his possessions.

And you still think the onus to settle amicably rests on Cliven Bundy's shoulders... ?  

Using that logic it's a victim's fault for getting robbed, and it is their responsibility to play nice when the robber tells them they will be back for more.  Sorry, but no.  At some point enough is enough.  Personally I think the man has been a bastion of patience.  Far more than I or a lot of the people I know would have been.

And, for the record.  We are not talking about "the law".  There is no law on any book which specifically makes what Mr. Bundy is doing illegal.  What we are talking about is "the regulation".  Specifically a BLM regulation developed on an arbitrary basis by personnel with questionable motives, emplaced under questionable circumstances, and enforced on a seemingly arbitrary basis.  We talk about this all the time, only instead of "ranchers" and "BLM" we use the terms "gun owners" and "ATF".  Takes on a whole new dimension now, doesn't it?

I don't get it.  I really don't.  We rail against tyranny and government overreach on this very forum on a daily basis.  Yet for some reason people want to throw this man under the bus for standing up against that very thing.  Have we really sunk to the point where we not only turn a blind eye to the tyranny we despise, but also willingly denounce others standing up to it?

Brad

How much is the fee he refused to pay? And why didn't he pay it,? Your theory diiffers from bundys statements about why

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[charby]

To review:
Bundy and his fellow ranchers were paying grazing fees
BLM steps in a to raise grazing fees, citing the ranchers' need to pay for damages to the desert tortoise habitat
Grazing fees are raised to a price point far beyond market rate (i.e., although grazing is "allowed", the fees intentionally set so high that they are economically unfeasible.  This is the very epitome of a de facto ban)
Cattlemen can no longer afford to ranch the land they've ranched for generations, many end up losing multi-generation family ranches
Bundy, trying to fight back, goes to court.  Court sides with BLM.  Twice.  Precedent?  There is no precedent.  BLM authority is so far-reaching and unfettered that their precedent is "Because we said so". (Don't believe me?  Look it up.)
BLM sends in armed military personnel in assault vehicles, sporting riot shields and full combat gear

To summarize..
Ranchers' families have grazed land for generations.  Ranchers are paying grazing fees.
Government raises grazing fees to the a point that ranchers can no longer afford to ranch the land their family has grazed for generations.
Multiple ranchers go out of business, but tries to have his day in court.
Court laughs in his face multiple times.
Soldiers show up in full battle gear to take his possessions.

And you still think the onus to settle amicably rests on Cliven Bundy's shoulders... ?  

Using that logic it's a victim's fault for getting robbed, and it is their responsibility to play nice when the robber tells them they will be back for more.  Sorry, but no.  At some point enough is enough.  Personally I think the man has been a bastion of patience.  Far more than I or a lot of the people I know would have been.

And, for the record.  We are not talking about "the law".  There is no law on any book which specifically makes what Mr. Bundy is doing illegal.  What we are talking about is "the regulation".  Specifically a BLM regulation developed on an arbitrary basis by personnel with questionable motives, emplaced under questionable circumstances, and enforced on a seemingly arbitrary basis.  We talk about this all the time, only instead of "ranchers" and "BLM" we use the terms "gun owners" and "ATF".  Takes on a whole new dimension now, doesn't it?

I don't get it.  I really don't.  We rail against tyranny and government overreach on this very forum on a daily basis.  Yet for some reason people want to throw this man under the bus for standing up against that very thing.  Have we really sunk to the point where we not only turn a blind eye to the tyranny we despise, but also willingly denounce others standing up to it?

Brad

Okay lets have a lower fee that doesn't cover the BLM costs so we can subsidize a rancher.

[Balog]

Okay lets have a lower fee that doesn't cover the BLM costs so we can subsidize a rancher.

I'm trying hard to remember your stance on farm subsidies...

[Scout26]

To review:
Bundy and his fellow ranchers were paying grazing fees
BLM steps in a to raise grazing fees, citing the ranchers' need to pay for damages to the desert tortoise habitat
Grazing fees are raised to a price point far beyond market rate (i.e., although grazing is "allowed", the fees intentionally set so high that they are economically unfeasible.  This is the very epitome of a de facto ban)
Cattlemen can no longer afford to ranch the land they've ranched for generations, many end up losing multi-generation family ranches
Bundy, trying to fight back, goes to court.  Court sides with BLM.  Twice.  Precedent?  There is no precedent.  BLM authority is so far-reaching and unfettered that their precedent is "Because we said so". (Don't believe me?  Look it up.)
BLM sends in armed military personnel in assault vehicles, sporting riot shields and full combat gear

To summarize..
Ranchers' families have grazed land for generations.  Ranchers are paying grazing fees.
Government raises grazing fees to the a point that ranchers can no longer afford to ranch the land their family has grazed for generations.
Multiple ranchers go out of business, but tries to have his day in court.
Court laughs in his face multiple times.
Soldiers show up in full battle gear to take his possessions.

And you still think the onus to settle amicably rests on Cliven Bundy's shoulders... ?  

Using that logic it's a victim's fault for getting robbed, and it is their responsibility to play nice when the robber tells them they will be back for more.  Sorry, but no.  At some point enough is enough.  Personally I think the man has been a bastion of patience.  Far more than I or a lot of the people I know would have been.

And, for the record.  We are not talking about "the law".  There is no law on any book which specifically makes what Mr. Bundy is doing illegal.  What we are talking about is "the regulation".  Specifically a BLM regulation developed on an arbitrary basis by personnel with questionable motives, emplaced under questionable circumstances, and enforced on a seemingly arbitrary basis.  We talk about this all the time, only instead of "ranchers" and "BLM" we use the terms "gun owners" and "ATF".  Takes on a whole new dimension now, doesn't it?

I don't get it.  I really don't.  We rail against tyranny and government overreach on this very forum on a daily basis.  Yet for some reason people want to throw this man under the bus for standing up against that very thing.  Have we really sunk to the point where we not only turn a blind eye to the tyranny we despise, but also willingly denounce others standing up to it?

Brad

This.

SO. MUCH. MOTHER. *expletive deleted*ing. THIS.


For those on this board saying that "he broke the law", I'd like to point out that we *might* have a a couple of members from the east coast that either have been, or as of today, possibly committing felonies by not registering certain firearms.   Do you think their stand is principled or should they get a a no-knock-oh-dark-thirty-raid by TPTB?  

Because it's the same GODDAMN THING !!!!

What we had here was an out of control bureaucracy that decided it was the law.  That's why Mr. Bundy lost in court.  Because whatever the BLM said the law was, it was.  No *expletive deleted*ing comment period, no duly elected reps voting on it.  No *expletive deleted*ing nothing.  Just some *expletive deleted*ing bureaucrat deciding that they didn't like ranching and ranchers anymore and we're just going to do away with them.

And I pity those who fail to see that.  
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

 

[Balog]

NY and CT bans are actual laws, not bureaucrat decisions. So anyone not registering/eliminating their illegal guns and mags is actually less justified than Bundy.

[Scout26]

Okay lets have a lower fee that doesn't cover the BLM costs so we can subsidize a rancher.

Show me where in the Constitution the US can own land and act as landlord?



You just don't get it, do you?


And even if,  What "costs" does the BLM have for a bunch of scrub desert?

[charby]

Show me where in the Constitution the US can own land and act as landlord?



You just don't get it, do you?


And even if,  What "costs" does the BLM have for a bunch of scrub desert?

Constitution allows for Legislature to create laws.


Let's put the land up for sale, no whining when Ted Turner and folks like him buy it up and keep all the public out.

[charby]

This.

SO. MUCH. MOTHER. *expletive deleted*. THIS.


For those on this board saying that "he broke the law", I'd like to point out that we *might* have a a couple of members from the east coast that either have been, or as of today, possibly committing felonies by not registering certain firearms.   Do you think their stand is principled or should they get a a no-knock-oh-dark-thirty-raid by TPTB?  

Because it's the same GODDAMN THING !!!!

What we had here was an out of control bureaucracy that decided it was the law.  That's why Mr. Bundy lost in court.  Because whatever the BLM said the law was, it was.  No *expletive deleted* comment period, no duly elected reps voting on it.  No *expletive deleted* nothing.  Just some *expletive deleted* bureaucrat deciding that they didn't like ranching and ranchers anymore and we're just going to do away with them.


 

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (a Law) made it legal for BLM to charge for grazing privileges.

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html

[Scout26]

Constitution allows for Legislature to create laws.


Let's put the land up for sale, no whining when Ted Turner and folks like him buy it up and keep all the public out.

Fine.  Then Ted Turner will have to figure out some way to make it pay, like leasing it out at market rates to local ranchers.


P.S.  If you can convince Ted Turner to by a bunch of desert that barely fit for cows and some turtles, and not much else your one of the best salesmen in the world.

P.S.S.   Why does the .gov have to own it?  Do you actually think the .gov will take better care of the land than a private owner?

[Brad Johnson]

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (a Law) made it legal for BLM to charge for grazing privileges.

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html

Incorrect.  The Taylor Grazing Act established the U.S. Grazing Service.  It's function was to monitor and manage grazing rights on public lands, not to seize land arbitrarily, assess fees beyond market rate to shut out grazing, or seize privately owned stock.

The BLM didn't even exist until 1946, twelve years after the 1934 Taylor Act.  In fact, the BLM had no mandate and no real authority of any kind until the Federal Land Management Act (1976).  At that point they went from relatively small bureau to an office with the singular distinction of bureau oversight being strictly limited to the Executive Branch.  (In other words, no matter how idiotic BLM actions might be, Congress and the House have exactly zero oversight authority.  That is authority is specifically reserved for the POTUS.  If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.)


Since you seem bent on making the government the good guy, defend this one...

Homesteaded, deeded, taxes-current land target for seizure by the BLM.

http://intellihub.com/blm-threatens-henderson-ranch-texas-massive-land-grab/

Brad

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

How did Henderson lose his case? Back when.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Incorrect.  The Taylor Grazing Act established the U.S. Grazing Service.  It's function was to monitor and manage grazing rights on public lands, not to seize land arbitrarily, assess fees beyond market rate to shut out grazing, or seize privately owned stock.

The BLM didn't even exist until 1946, twelve years after the 1934 Taylor Act.  In fact, the BLM had no mandate and no real authority of any kind until the Federal Land Management Act (1976).  At that point they went from relatively small bureau to an office with the singular distinction of bureau oversight being strictly limited to the Executive Branch.  (In other words, no matter how idiotic BLM actions might be, Congress and the House have exactly zero oversight authority.  That is authority is specifically reserved for the POTUS.  If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.)


Since you seem bent on making the government the good guy, defend this one...

Homesteaded, deeded, taxes-current land target for seizure by the BLM.

http://intellihub.com/blm-threatens-henderson-ranch-texas-massive-land-grab/

Brad

The courts seem to disagree with you.  Driving home the point about why folks need a real estate professional to advise them on stuff like this. And why going to represent yourself in federal court is unwise. In this case extremely so. I would love to find transcript of bundy in court

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Brad Johnson]

How did Henderson lose his case? Back when.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

Don't know.  Don't care.  This is homesteaded, deed-recognized, taxes-current, privately-owned property.  Go ahead and justify the BLM seizing it.  I dare you.


As for what the courts have, or haven't said, about the Taylor Grazing act since it's passing, I honestly don't give a rat fart.  The reasons for Agency establishment, and its authority as established at the time, are part of the chartering documents.  How the courts later interpreted the Act is an irrelevancy with regard to the agency and it's authority as established at the time the Act was incepted.

Brad

[Scout26]

And that, boys and girls is how they do it.  

The entire might and power of the fed.gov (along with the ability to make the law as you go along), against one, maybe a handful of folks.

And those that resist are "kooks and nuts", because it's all for the greater good comrade, those were dangerous individuals, wanting to stand up and threaten to shoot poor innocent LE officers who are only enforcing the law.

Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . ."We've waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted."

"You seem to be pleased about it."

"Don't I have good reason to be?"

"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."

"Well, what do you think they're for?"

Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

[Nick1911]

A seemingly well cited summation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

The BLM stated on their website "Cattle have been in trespass on public lands in southern Nevada for more than two decades. This is unfair to the thousands of other ranchers who graze livestock in compliance with federal laws and regulations throughout the West. The Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. An impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is now being conducted as a last resort."

An issue of "fairness"?

Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally.

So the BLM shut out all legal grazing of this land?  I'd note that I wouldn't want much invested in an industry that could be shut down by regulatory action alone -- however, like most of us, I'm sure I am in one. 

This does smell very much like the arbitrary regulatory action taken by other agencies, EPA, ATF, DEA, etc.

[charby]

Don't know.  Don't care.  This is homesteaded, deed-recognized, taxes-current, privately-owned property.  Go ahead and justify the BLM seizing it.  I dare you.


As for what the courts have, or haven't said, about the Taylor Grazing act since it's passing, I honestly don't give a rat fart.  The reasons for establishment, and their authority as it was established at the time, are part of the chartering documents.  How the courts interpreted it at a later time is an irrelevancy with regard to what the facts where at the time of the act, and the agencies involved.

Brad

So your saying that public land should be open to whomever wants to use it for no matter what reason for however they want to us it, even if 50 different people want to use it for the same exact reason on the same location?

[charby]

I'm trying hard to remember your stance on farm subsidies...

I said that subsidies were enacted to create a guaranteed food supply. To guarantee a minimum price so that farmers/producers/planters will grow food.

Most of Nevada is not ideal perennial cattle country, Nebraska makes a lot more sense for grazing.

[Brad Johnson]

So your saying that public land ...

Didn't bother read the linked story, did you? 

Had you done so, you would know that it is a link to a separate story involving a BLM land grab of homesteaded, deed-recognized, taxes-current, privately-owned property.  (Which, I believe, I mentioned as such in the sentence immediately prior to the link, and which shows up clearly in the quote you used. ...  Yep, just checked.  I did.)

Brad