Skip to comments.Armed Fed Agents and Snipers? Nevada Rancher Is Taking on the Govít in a Battle at Breaking Point
Posted on 04/09/2014 8:28:06 AM PDT by xzins
Armed federal agents deployed last week to northeast Clark County, Nev., for what can only be described as a major escalation in a decades-long standoff between a local cattle rancher and the U.S. government.
.Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county, stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding that he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management.
The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.
I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights, he said, explaining that among them is the right to forage.
Who is the trespasser here? Who is the trespasser on this land? Is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Or is it Cliven Bundy who is trespassing on Clark County, Nevada, land? Whos the trespasser?
Claiming that all other options have been exhausted, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. National Park Service responded to Bundys inflexibility on the issue by calling on federal agents and contract cowboys to restrict access to the public land and to confiscate Bundys trespass cattle.
.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 stated on its website about the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
See total story at “The Blaze”
No comparison at all.
Will the government be as tough on Cliven Bundy as they are on Vlad Putin?
Within your rights and shot to death by cops is quick becoming a familiar feature of life and early death in the Untied States.
Dude needs to stand down and go with his life. He is going to be victimized. Better to cut losses and live. This is not ground worth dying for.
Save it for another day.
From a Las Vegas station;
Some locals show up;
I said the gov would fire upon American citizens. I take it back. It has already happened.
But it looks like they are ready to do it again. There will be a flimsy excuse, which the media will do its best to promote.
I don’t think the Fed should own anything except their own buildings and military installations. Indian reservations should be honored as set-asides.
What did Jefferson do with the Louisianna Purchase?
While I beleive the use of such level of force is not warrented, the rancher is the source of the problem here.
It is not his land and he has not paid the fees to use the land. In other words, he is squatting on the land with his cattle.
I fail to see where the rancher has a legal leg to stand on.
If he is correct that his family has used that land since the 1800’s, then he has standing, the same as right of way.
That would be the
That's the same clause that's used in things like Prop-8 going to the USSC: F—k You!
That's the same clause that's used to justify federal agencies running guns to drug cartels: F—k You!
That's the same clause that's used to allow the president to modift at-will the Affordable Care Act: F—k You!
That's the same clause that's used to allow congress to refuse to pass a budget, as required by law, for years on-end w/o consequence: F—k You!
and so forth.
Seriously, at this point in time it'd be easier to list what actions the federal government takes that are condoned by the Constitution.
So...where do you draw your line?
Maybe not for you, but it appears to be for him.
He’s on his own...They kill him and or throw him in a cage, and seize everything he’s ever owned...
USG gone full *wild*, who can stop the beast?
No, he doesn’t.
His family has used this land with permission of the rightful owner, under an agreement and with payment of a fee since the days of open range ended.
Cliven Bundy refused to sign a new agreement for use of the land twenty years ago, because he disagreed with the new terms and higher grazing fee.
If you use someone else’s land under an agreement requiring payment for use, and then decide you want to keep using it without an agreement or payment, you have no right to do so, whether the land owner is a private citizen or the federal government.
This graphic explains why Texas if it were a country will soon be the 8th largest producer of oil and gas in the world and other states west aren’t.
I am curious as to why the conservatives have not gathered in large numbers and simply walked through the “barriers” on the roads. Allowing the Fedzilla “Armed & Dangerous” to act away from the public’s eye is an invitation to another Waco.
Once before, the Shovel Brigade opened a road “closed” by abusive bureaucrats. IF the Armed & Rangerous are not planning murder, why close off the roads?
"I would strongly discourage you all from hitching your cart to this particular horse. While I have all manner of criticisms of the BLM and certainly of thuggish FEDGOV tactics, it is essential that one pick ones battles very carefully, and this is NOT a good battle to pick. The guy in question has been grazing his cattle at essentially zero feed cost for upwards of twenty years (well, THAT makes the cattle business easier, doesnt it!) because he stopped paying the BLM any lease charges. Again, we can debate all manner of things including the ridiculous rules about closing land to grazing in order to protect lizards or prairie chickens or whatever the fake endangered species du jour is, and certainly we can debate the existence of the BLM itself, but there is no free lunch; everyone else pays to graze. This guy is claiming, as I understand it, some grandfathered right to the land through the Mormon cult (again, BIG red flag), but I dont buy it. This situation stinks all around to my refined sniffer, and I would NOT die on this hill. Since so many have asked, that is my read. Just be careful with this one."
Whose land is it?
Land and lively hood that goes back that far isn't a throwaway commodity. Homeland is often worth dying for. A man has to make a stand somewhere, I'll respect his decision and courage.
I’m offended by the roped off “first amendment area”
It’s belonged to the federal government since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
What did Jefferson do with the Louisianna Purchase?
Who came west and fought the Indian and the drought, the long trails, the wolves and the bears? Whose family has been working on the land for over a hundred years?
Who owns the land and who is the problem?
Bundy responds that had the BLM erected the proper fencing, his cattle wouldnt be in trespass.The failure of the BLM to fence this land adds a new aspect to this story, although I need to consider to what extent Nevada state laws apply to federal property.
Nevada law is a fence out law that requires adjoin property owners, in this case the BLM, to maintain a fence that prevents cattle or other stock from encroaching in unwanted areas.
If the U.S. had properly maintained its fence, my cattle would hot have strayed or drifted off my property, Bundy said.
Bundy's quote contradict his other statements regarding the disputed land belonging to the State of Nevada, or being part of his property. "If the U.S. had properly maintained its fence" indicates ownership of the land by the federal government.
I’ve dealt with prescriptive rights and adverse possession but never pre-emptive rights. Certainly he is not so delusional to think that his self described rights preempt those of the federal government.
However he may have a case if he can prove the Feds didn’t enforce their right to contract for this access. Again this would be based upon some sort of documentation on his part or him not receiving any documentation from the feds stating their rights and his need to contract or face consequences (highly unlikely)...
Bundy is part of the problem, because he elected not to renew his grazing contract on this property twenty years ago. As part of his argument, he has stated on different occasions that the land belongs to (a) the State of Nevada, (b) his ranch, or (c) the BLM, whichever owner suited his argument at the time.
Bundy is part of the problem because he ignored court orders to remove his cattle after refusing to sign a new grazing agreement.
The BLM is part of the problem, because it didn't fence its land once it decided to prohibit all grazing on the land, some five years after Bundy refused to sign a new gazing agreement, and some three years or so after Bundy was first ordered by a federal court to remove his cattle from the land.
Maybe I’m just being skeptical, but this seems like a false flag set up to smoke out the not-smart. US Pravda is carrying the story without their usual censorship and sniping. It has a weak moral justification that the avg lo-info would not understand. instead of “they’re coming for your guns!”, it’s “they’re coming for your cows!”
Note the white older guy who hates government theme. aka, how they portray Tea Party every chance they get.
Ann is spot on.
I am not a believer in symbolic last stands. I’d rather live, and scalp the whoresons who robbed me on another day.
They will murder him. Sure as Lon Horiuchi is an over educated murderer.
If he is correct that his family has used that land since the 1800s, then he has standing, the same as right of way.
That used to be true. The Supreme Court has made takings arbitrary now.
So...where do you draw your line?
Person, not property. If people were circling the fedcoats as the feds circled me... Calculation might be different.
Great map on pre and post Civil War fed behavior.
Simon Kenton was claiming land in Ohio and Kentucky into the 1800’s using tomahawk claims.
You mark it, and it’s yours.
Not much. It certainly wasn't sold off and the vast majority of it remained federal land for over 50 years until the Homestead Act of 1862 allowed people to claim land. Even then, though, there was a lot of land no one wanted--like the vast chunks of the west with no water. When the western lands were organized as territories and then granted statehood, the land that belonged to the federal government remained in the hands of the federal government.
Homesteading remained possible well into the 20th Century, but there's a reason no one ever claimed a lot of that land.
Jefferson was still involved in settling the northwest territory. Louisiana was a future vision except for immediate control of the Mississippi and getting the British out of Ore/Wash
The feds sent survey parties into Ohio, etc, settled the boundary claims of the eastern states who were extending fa into the west.
After the surveys the feds could sell off the land resulting in a solvent federal government.
I think this method of selling off land kept the income tax at bay for a century, when the states were all settled.
You mark it, and its yours.
Which is why Kentucky lands became such a nightmare of overlapping claims, provoking endless court battles. Daniel Boone ended up spending more time in court than he did at home and in the end lost everything, prompting him to move to the Spanish territories in Missouri.
This is some interesting stuff. (Thanks for getting me looking...:>) The following was all buttressed in the Northwest Ordinance which recognized those claims.
THE IRISH IN IOWA
Claim and Cabin
For many days the ox-drawn prairie schooner moved slowly, slowly westward. Progress, always slow and tedious, was impeded now and again by swollen streams or wide expanses of almost impassable prairie slews. At last, as the shadows of evening lengthened behind the travelers, the weary oxen ceased to strain at the yoke, and the great canvas-covered wagon came to a final halt. The pioneer had arrived. yet his adventures, hardships, and privations were not at an end. The conquest of the prairie lay before him.
First of all he had to determine the boundaries of his homestead. This was done not by the surveyor’s chain, but by “stepping off” certain distances from a given point. Approximately fifteen hundred paces each way was considered to include three hundred and twenty acres “more or less”-the amount designated as a legal claim. The boundaries were marked by driving stakes in the prairie or by blazing trees if the claim was located in the timber. Many of the boundary lines were crooked and not infrequently they encroached upon other claims. But it was understood among the settlers that when the lands were surveyed and entered all inequalities would be adjusted.
Paradoxical as it may seem, in a land without courts or judges, justice prevailed. By honorable adherence to the rights of others, claims staked out in good faith were as secure as property held by law. The Golden Rule governed the rights of the squatters. Local extralegal protection became so general and the claim associations of the settlers were so powerful that it was extremely hazardous for a speculator or a stranger to bid upon a claim which was protected by a “pre-emption right.”
To break five acres of ground was recognized in many communities as sufficient evidence of ownership to hold a claim for a period of six months. To build a cabin “eight logs high with a roof” was considered as the equivalent of plowing an additional five acres and was sufficient to hold the claim another six months. If a newcomer arrived and complied with these “by-laws” of the neighborhood, his rights were almost as much respected as if he had occupied the land by virtue of a government patent.
In June, 1838, Congress established land offices at Dubuque and Burlington and offered to sell the public domain in Iowa for $1.25 an acre. Settlers who had pre-empted claims hastened to purchase the homesteads they had already established, and woe to the outsider who bid on the claim of a squatter.
The first homes in a new settlement were necessarily very simple. In the prairie country where wood was scarce and sod was plentiful, the earliest houses were mere sod huts. The materials were obtained by taking a breaking plow into the lowland where the sod was heavy and plowing in a furrow sixteen to eighteen inches in width. The sod thus obtained was cut into sections about two feet long, which were then laid like brick. The roof was made of large rafters covered with prairie hay or grass, and this in turn was covered with strips of sod.
If a pioneer selected a claim of timber land, as the earliest settlers invariably did, he forthwith began the construction of a log cabin. Most of the work he did himself, though perhaps the neighbors were called over for a “house raising” when the logs had been cut and dragged to the site. The walls were of selected logs, formed straight and true by nature, cut to a length measured off not with a carpenter’s rule but by a notch cut in two sides, the logs were then “saddled”, “notched”, and fitted at each end, with the ax in skillful hands. The walls, mounted with a roof made of clapboards, “rived off” from the butt-end of a tree that had been permitted broad, thin pieces of boards to be thus obtained. These clapboards, laid to overlap, were held in place by poles laid across at proper intervals. The logs of which the walls were constructed were so skillfully fitted that only small spaces were left between and these were filled or “daubed” with clay, often mixed with straw or rushes to hold it together.
Doors were formed of clapboards riven in the same manner as those for the roof and spiked with wooden pins to a dove-tailed frame, and then the whole was hung to the jambs by thongs of deer hide or by wooden hinges. The door was fastened shut by a wooden latch which could be raised from the outside by pulling a leather string. For security at night the latch string was drawn in, but for friends and neighbors and even strangers, the “latch string was always hanging out” as a token of friendship and hospitality.
The large open fireplace occupied one end of the cabin. This fireplace and chimney was constructed with smaller logs framed together in the same manner as the walls were made and lined inside for a fire-box with large flat stones set upright, while the chimney was plastered inside and out with clay.
Thus shelter and warmth was provided, with fire for cooking as well. As soon as possible the floor of earth was covered with puncheons, hewn flat and smooth on one side, then set into the earth floor, and skillfully joined with the ax. A puncheon table was pinned to the logs on one side near the fireplace. In a corner of the cabin a large on-legged bed was built. The chairs, or rather stools, were homemade and had but three legs. A fourth leg was unnecessary, for only three could touch the uneven surface of the puncheon floor at one time.
An improvised three-sided barn or shed was erected for the protection of livestock. This was constructed by driving two rows of posts into the ground, stuffing hay between them and likewise covering the roof with hay. At first cattle, horses, and swine ran at large so that fences had to be built to keep the stock out instead of in. These early rail fences were not straight but zig-zag, constructed of rails ten or twelve feet long and laid with ends overlapping. At every intersection stakes were driven obliquely into the ground., the upper ends crossing near the top of the fence. In the forks formed by the supporting stakes, the top rails or “riders’ were laid. These stake and rider fences were said to be “hog tight, horse high and bull strong.”
In the yard surrounding the pioneer cabin a few rude implements-perhaps a plow, a heavy wagon, a grain cradle, an ox yoke, and a grindstone may have been seen. Yonder picturesque well sweep and watering trough might indicate also the presence of an oaken bucket.
Cabin rightsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search It has been suggested that Tomahawk rights be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2013.
At an early period in the settlement of the American Frontier, pioneers asserted their claims to parts of wild lands by blazing trees around the desired boundary, and later comers customarily recognized the claims: tomahawk rights, they were called.
Building a cabin and raising a crop, however small, of grain of any kind, led to “cabin rights,” which were recognized not only by custom but also by law. The laws of the colonies and states varied in their requirements of the settler. In Virginia the occupant was entitled to 400 acres (1.6 km2) of land and to a preemption right to 1,000 acres (4 km2) more adjoining, to be secured in either case by a land-office warrant, the basis of a later patent or grant from colonial or state authorities.
References1.Jump up ^ Albigence Waldo Putnam -History of Middle Tennessee 1859 - Page 62 “Grants known as “cabin-rights” were in that day offered for sale, as land-scrip or warrants are in this. These were bestowed under an act of much liberality passed by the State of Virginia.”
Dictionary of American History by James Truslow Adams, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940
Same with Simon Kenton. Most historians, though, don’t doubt the honesty of either man in regard to what he did or didn’t claim.
The Cabin Rights were less disputable.
By the letter of the law, sounds like this rancher is on land he doesn’t own and hasn’t paid to use.
Having said that, his FedGov opponents are a Communist cabal led by an illegal alien with forged ID and seven (7) stolen SSNs, so f**k them.
Moslem Brotherhood thought they could waltz in here, take over and send the Ostapo after citizens? Eventually they will regret their moslem hubris.
As more folks WAKE UP and realize we have moslem infiltrators in the WH, this tide will turn hard.
Going after that rancher with a usurped govt is about as legit as ‘Achmed from Islamabad’ picking up his disposable phone, dialing the rancher and demanding he vacate the land.
I’m concerned that his cattle are doing what those cattle did for generations...that man says back into the 1800’s
The same problem is also why Abraham Lincoln's father left Kentucky. He bought a piece of land, but it turned out the man he brought it from hadn't paid the guy HE got it from. More court battles that dragged on for years, ending with the Lincolns evicted.
It reminds me of the Mark Twain line about the town that had one lawyer and he was starving. Then another lawyer moved to town and now they're both rich.
I’m also concerned that the Feds have come with guns, snipers, helicopters, etc. as if this should be a shooting match.
What’s that all about?
The land issues are really secondary to that concern.
Hussein needs Martial Law ASAP.
He tried 100 things. He tried closing the WW2 Memorial for no reason.
Nothing triggered an armed citizen uprising.
This rancher standoff looks like yet another attempt.
Don’t give him the violence he needs.
Arpaio supposedly has the goods on Soebarkah. Let it come out.
If we weren’t at such a critical juncture I’d tell the rancher ‘send them all to hell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.