A Straight Look at the Recent Nevada Land Dispute

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: gariac

'Close enough for Government work' may as well hang on their wall as a motto. lol....

The decision comes from the Court tho, and stands as the law of the land, not from a few. They simply get their say if they don't fully agree, as is their right. As it should be.

I suppose this kinda relates for the right of the people to have the guns out there in Nevada. Which they definitely did, as Nevada state law applies, of course. I'll leave off my thoughts of how they exercised those rights, but they definitely had them. (guessing that's how gun control came into the legal thread for this?)

No, it came into the thread with the discussion of the legality of "militias". That brought the Second Amendment into it, and whenever the words "Second Amendment" are uttered, people seem to think the discussion is all about gun control. In this case, it wasn't - it was about the legitimacy of various militias, and armament is only incidental to that discussion, not the focus.

The assertion that the National Guard is the only legitimate "well regulated militia" deligitimizes not only the presence of the alleged militia at the Bundy ranch, but their very existence. If only the national Guard can stake that claim, and they aren't there, then there is no "militia" in existence at the Bundy ranch, regardless of armament issues.

While it opens other avenues of legal approach, it's still an argument of legality, legitimacy at it's core. Gun control is irrelevant in the matter, especially if there is no "militia" there.

Since the National Guard has not been demonstrated to be the "well regulated militia" of the Second Amendment, then I'm afraid that the alleged "militia" on the scene there is legitimate, warts and all, even if they're doing it wrong.

VERY wrong, if recent reports of continued gathering at the ranch are to be believed. I'll save just HOW wrong for another thread, where the tactics and strategies employed is the topic. This thread is only to establish the legalities if I'm reading it right.

a reply to: gariac

answer his inquiry about where it is "settled law"
that the National Guard is "a well regulated militia"
mentioned in the second amendment.

cowboy up or bow out as wrong.

well regulated at the time it was written means well equipped.

a reply to: spirited75

Realize you're not addressing me, but here's one factual answer: The Militia Act of 1903

"This recognized in federal law for the first time the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia -- which had existed in fact for over a century. The old concept of universal adult free male militia obligation inherent in the old Militia Act of 1792 had never become a reality, but federal law had taken no notice of the distinction between men who actually belonged to militia units and men who had never stood a single muster. The new Militia Act of 1903 defined the organized militia as those military organizations, primarily the National Guard, which had been organized and recognized by the states. The unorganized militia consisted of the remainder of the male population liable for militia service should the state someday choose to organize it."

Pg. 12, The American Home Guard: The State Militia in the Twentieth Century, Barry M. Stentiford (Source)

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
according to Bundy, he was grazing his cattle on
the land in question since the late 1800 and
made improvements to the land.

If Bundy was grazing in the late 1800's, then he looks for good being over a hundred. ;-)

All ranchers make improvements. The cattle would die of thirst if watering holes weren't created. Some ranchers will fence off areas where cattle are known to fall to their deaths or get whacked by a car. But ranchers do this under the authority of the BLM (in theory). The BLM will take out an illegal fence, though proving a fence is illegal is harder than it sournds. [I managed to prevent a fence blocking BLM land from being put up in the first place, but that was because I inspect the permit at the BLM office.]

Making improvements to the land doesn't mean you own it.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: gariac

answer his inquiry about where it is "settled law"
that the National Guard is "a well regulated militia"
mentioned in the second amendment.

cowboy up or bow out as wrong.

well regulated at the time it was written means well equipped.

The Second Amendment "… a well-regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State," and "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Legal basis for the National Guard

Enough of this cowboy up nonsense. I'm stating what everyone who ever studied the 2nd amendment using documents not provided by the NRA knows. Now stop polluting this thread with gun nonsense. Start another thread on gun control.

The topic here is Cliven Bundy and his legal standing, or lack thereof.

Fair enough, then. I reckon I'll bow out of this thread and just sit and watch as I've been doing. Rabid is rabid, and I've seen no end of people on both sides of this Bundy issue making claims they can't back up, and running off of emotion and trying to fudge "facts". "What everyone knows" isn't all that well known until one can provide citations to back up that knowledge, and there has been way too little of that going on on both sides of this issue.

Kudos to Wrabbit2000 for bringing out honest facts, and putting his money where his mouth is by posting the citations to back the facts up.

My two questions remain:

What happened to all the other cattle ranchers in Clark County that Bundy became the last one?
Does Bundy have a right to protect his business interests in the event that the BLM has been working in conjunction with other entities to end cattle ranching in Clark County?

There has been mention that Bundy stopped paying the grazing fees because the money collected by the BLM was being used to fund the end cattle ranching. Or to paraphrase the movie Ghostbusters, Bundy chose not to fund the form of his destructor. Is this a possibility? Because the locals seemed very quick to stand with Bundy and seemed very mad at the BLM even before the outside militia groups arrived.

a reply to: Ahabstar

There has been mention that Bundy stopped paying the grazing fees because the money collected by the BLM was being used to fund the end cattle ranching.

According to the Court record on this, the BLM sent him a routine request for renewel of his 10 year grazing permits at a time coinciding but unrelated to the Desert Tortoise getting protected status. (The BLM doesn't make that call, anyway). Bundy's reply was to BLM and talked about the decision of the tortoise being the end of Ranching in Clark County, among other things.

Of course, this is the same tortoise that ended the Barstow to Vegas cross country runs which were quite a sport until then..and part of why that critter is as well known (and ..the subject of very very mixed feelings among many). The Government HAS used it for downright stupid extremes of protection over vast tracts of open desert.

The area around Mesquite (Bunkerville/Gold Butte and other spots) have leases and permits of different kinds dotted all over them though. So there is no blanket protections, to be sure. The map from the Nevada Water District in my Ops allows you to add layers for all the different permit/lease types to show on closer zoom of the maps. It gives numbers to each, as needed with the first letters designated type of permit the spot is.

So, on one hand in reading the papers, I can see his reaction about the Tortoise. Especially when coupled with it being Nevada's "State Reptile" and the double whammy of protection that applied. Perhaps he DID think it could shut down the lands back then. It didn't though. Nothing close...and that fight was never with BLM, who he stopped paying the grazing fees to.

Really, the court is kinda confused over the crossing of issues as much as I am. Of course, saying you're a citizen of a U.S. State while not a citizen of the U.S. is also a bit crazy...but it's, literally, one of the arguments outlined by him in court. Denied, naturally.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
My two questions remain:

What happened to all the other cattle ranchers in Clark County that Bundy became the last one?
Does Bundy have a right to protect his business interests in the event that the BLM has been working in conjunction with other entities to end cattle ranching in Clark County?

There has been mention that Bundy stopped paying the grazing fees because the money collected by the BLM was being used to fund the end cattle ranching. Or to paraphrase the movie Ghostbusters, Bundy chose not to fund the form of his destructor. Is this a possibility? Because the locals seemed very quick to stand with Bundy and seemed very mad at the BLM even before the outside militia groups arrived.

Are you positive there are no grazing permits left in Clark County? Check this out:
Bundy got cranky and didn't renew his permit

t was the tortoise that kicked off the saga in 1993, when the BLM modified the terms of Bundy’s Bunkerville grazing allotment to protect the animal after it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Bundy refused to comply with the new terms, so the BLM cancelled his permit to no effect. In 1997, Clark County purchased all active grazing permits in the area in accordance with the new federal Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and the county’s own Desert Conservation Program, offering Bundy compensation for water rights and range improvements on his former allotment. Bundy rejected the offer. In 1999, the Nevada District Court permanently banned Bundy from grazing cattle in the area, ordering him to remove them or face a $200 penalty per cow per day. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. Between 2008 and 2011, the BLM cancelled Bundy’s remaining range improvement authorizations. In 2011 Bundy ignored several court orders, including a notice of impoundment. Over the next two years, the BLM aerially counted first 903, then 729, then 600, then 750 head of cattle, nearly all suspected to belong to Bundy, on land closed to grazing.

The BLM made some sort of mitigation offer, and Bundy didn't agree to it. The problem is it is BLM land and they have all the cards. Bundy dealt from a weak position, but wasn't smart enough to realize this. Thus Clark County bought the Bundy rights because Bundy didn't renew them. [Clark Country = smart. Bundy = idiot.] It isn't clear to me that Clark County bought every grazing permit. We do know they bought the Bundy rights.

Most turtle mitigation is done by building tunnels (pipes) for them to cross areas with traffic. You can see these along route 95 in Clark County. There is also a type of fencing to keep the turtles from crossing the road, encouraging the use of the tunnels.

Well it has started. First they need to disarm the militia:
I-team investigates the crazies

At least some of the militia members who pointed weapons at police officers during the confrontation may have wanted a violent outcome and tried to incite one.

Bundy, who has grown accustomed to media attention over the past few months, said he would only talk to Gillespie on stage in front of his crowd. Once there, he ordered the sheriff to go out and disarm every fed he could find. "And report back in an hour. Disarm everyone working at a federal park," Bundy told the sheriff. "I mean, the hair was up on the back of my neck. There was the so-called militia surrounding the stage. There was a lot of firepower out there and it made me nervous. anything could happen," Lombardo said. Gillspie and Lombardo say they offered to provide Bundy with legal counsel---free. He turned it down and later urged the crowd to go after his cattle.

So in other non-news, the militias have set up road blocks and armed check points, forcing the residents to go through them to get to their homes. They are demanding local residents show their Driver's License or IDs.



Nevada Militia Sets Up Armed Checkpoints, Demands to See Drivers' I.D.

Congressman: Bundy Militia Has Set Up Road 'Checkpoints' In Nevada

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

That's starting to sound like a 3rd world nation.

If the militia would like to turn the general public against them in a hard way, things like this will do it on the express route, IMO.

Checkpoints? Sheesh...

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Actually worse than a 3rd world nation. Hezbollah handed their checkpoints to the army. When Hezbollah is more civilized than so called American Patriots, you really have to wonder.

And yes, I did cough up a lung when Cliven Bundy was compared to George Washington.

Guess I won't be going to Overton to do any photography. This militia must be bad for business.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

A couple problems with your video, first; its old. April the 12th. Second, it does not show any roadblocks being set up by militia as has been claimed recently.

Until there is proof, it could still very well be propaganda.

Link to Letter on Scribd






As for my position on the accusations:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: gariac
G, you could go in the Valley Of Fire entrance then up Hwy 169, that should keep you clear of the CF.

a reply to: gariac

Okay, now lets not go too far either direction with the extremes. I don't care for Bundy, as I've come to "know" him by his court statements and positions taken quite publicly now for nearly a quarter of a century against the BLM. However... Having said that... I also have no reason to think the people out there aren't decent Americans participating for the right reasons.

Are they doing the right thing? Well.. That is the 64 billion dollar question.

I won't disparage their motivations though.

I certainly won't compare them with the terrorists of Hezbollah. Those kinda folks still owe our nation for a few things. Like 2 US Embassies and a Marine Barracks....Oh and a CIA Station Chief if we want to get all inside baseball about scores and the nature of that group. Bad comparison, IMO ... Especially since Hezbollah is known to operate in Northern Mexico for economic smuggling and other money producing things that send money back home for 'the cause'. Too close for comfort in this specific example, where that's concerned.

I agree with ya on some things, and I absolutely do not support the cause the Militia is behind on this one. Not this time, place or case.

Still... They're fellow Americans, and I can't forget or dislike beyond a point for that, unless people start getting hurt, anyway. (then we have prisons for those examples)

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

My point is Hezbollah gave up their checkpoints, which makes them more reasonable than the Praetorian Guard and the Oath Keepers.

The militias surrounding Bundy are domestic terrorists in every sense of the word. Remember, Terry Nichols and Tim McVey were sovereign.
FBI on soverign citizens

So yeah, blowing up the Murrah Building is as bad as blowing up a Marine barracks. Well maybe worse, since the marines were on foreign soil, while the sovereign citizens killed American men, women, and children on American soil. I got to see inside photographs of the Murrah building from the urban rescue team. At the time and maybe today, they were not to be viewed by the general public, though clearance wasn't exactly difficult. It was hell on earth in parts, and totally undisturbed in other locations. [Jackets still on a free standing hook.] The photos were not released to the public because law enforcement didn't want to aid the domestic terrorists in making better bombs.

When the militias say they are concerned about being "droned", it is because they know they are terrorists, and terrorists are often on the wrong side of a Hellfire.

Apparently there is trouble in paradise. Those Oath Keepers can't be trusted. They abandoned the drone kill zone. ;-)

a reply to: gariac

I take some serious issue with what you are saying, but not for the reasons you might believe.

First, the words Hezb Allah (The Party of God) is nothing more than buzz words used to provoke people's ire or fear, as the case may be here inside the United States. I don't do buzz words. I do truth.

Always remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and by the shi'a Hezb Allah is loved. A member of Hezb Allah would find a hot meal and a warm bed in a kind home almost anywhere in the world - to the honor of the home owner.

So sure, your buzz word might work against some individuals... but it's morally reprehensible. Fact is all one needs quite frankly, the truth.

I take issue with those who try to use others' emotion's in order to provoke something that does not need provoked. War is something we don't need in this country.... we don't need the utter destruction you see in places like Beirut on American soil...

And my stand is against those who would see us reduced to that. There are right and proper channels for everything and we need to be using those channels. War is a LAST resort, and people on both extreme's of this issue appear to be salivating after it.





As a side note, it was to the detriment of the shi'a that Hezb Allah took down their checkpoints, and the shi'a are begging those same checkpoints still for their safety... so its a different issue just as night is from day. You should have said, Hezb Allah caved and gave up the safety of the people, against the will of the people, at the behest of the state.

But don't get me started on that. It's a much different issue when you are dealing with suicide bombers and trying to protect people from them. Bundy's damn cows are no comparison.

a reply to: gariac

That video was some funny stuff!

1) These people may talk Ranger-talk, (leave no man behind, drive on to the objective though you be the last man standing, etc.), but they are most definitely NOT Rangers. Way too much slap-n-tickle going on, smokin' and jokin' like they're back on the block. As I've observed before, they seem to just be a group of boys (and, evidently, girls) playing army.

2) WTF? a "battlefield"? Where's the battle? Why are they standing around in a knot for one grenade to get them all if it's a "battlefield"?

WTF?

3) Military command structure does NOT "vote". They make decisions, and issue orders. Voting is not in the remit for military command structures. "We'll do this and that to the enemy if you guys want to" is not a command phrase.

4) "Drive on to the objective"? What IS the objective? Why are they not driving on, but standing around in a circle-jerk instead if they've got an objective?

Yup, that was some funny stuff!

BLM ain't got nothing to fear here, nor does anyone else. Give me and 4 of my closest friends a basic combat load and drop us out where the cows are for a week, and we'll solve the problem for you for a fraction of the cost that has already been spent on this circus. A year from now there would be nothing but bleaching cow bones (and, apparently, tortoises) in that desert, and the "militias" would have long since packed up their RV's and grills and gone home, leaving no man (or even any bodies) behind.

It's not like I've never worked a government contract before. Hey, BLM - call me!