[Amendment10]

"Not lease, not let.. but own?"

There is another question to ask if the feds claim to own the land.

More specifically, if the feds claim to own the land, then did the feds purchase the land on the basis of either the Constitutions Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the 5th Amendments eminent domain clause?

Otherwise, if the feds negotiated control of the land when Nevada became a state, then there questions on the constitutionality of such a practice.

[frankenMonkey]

I think it's important to keep separate the private land from the public land.

According to the article, "The Bundy family purchased their 160-acre ranch in Bunkerville to make a fresh start, taking advantage of the opportunities southern Nevada offered in the 1950s."

So I would assume that the Bundys acknowledge their ownership of their private land, and the chain of title from previous owners.

The public lands where he grazes are a completely different subject, and a very complex one. Subject to much disagreement.

[Lurking Libertarian]

More specifically, if the feds claim to own the land, then did the feds purchase the land on the basis of either the Constitutions Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the 5th Amendments eminent domain clause? Otherwise, if the feds negotiated control of the land when Nevada became a state, then there questions on the constitutionality of such a practice.

Most lands in the far west are owned under Article IV, section 3, clause 2.

I don't recall the citation currently, but I believe the Supreme Court held back in the 1970s that the Article I, sec. 8 provisions apply if the federal government is taking property in a place that is already a state, but that Article 4 applies if the federal government owned land in a territory before that territory became a state.