Skip to comments.Militias head to Nevada rancher’s standoff with feds: We’re not ‘afraid to shoot’
Posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundys decades-long battle against the federal government over grazing rights has heated to the point where militia groups have joined in and taken up spots against the feds whove circled his land and talk is, theyre not afraid to open fire.
A spokesman for the one of the militia groups said as much to local 8 News Now: Im not afraid to shoot, he said.
Margaret Houston, Mr. Bundys sister and a cancer survivor, said at a town hall gathering this week that the situation was like a war zone and that she felt like I was not in the United States, The Daily Mail reported. The Las Vegas Review-Journal described it this way: Serious bloodshed was narrowly avoided, in a story about how dogs were unleashed on a woman who was pregnant while the ranchers son was hit with a taser.
On Tuesday, armed Bureau of Land Management agents stormed Mr. Bundys property, escalating a court dispute thats wound for two decades over the ranchers refusal to pay for grazing fees.
Now militia groups are on the scene, promising to help the Bundys keep up the fight.
This is what we do, we provide armed response, Jim Lordy, with Operation Mutual Aid, told the local broadcast station. They have guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government.
Mr. Lordy also said many more militia groups are coming to the site to join in the Bundy family defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I have mixed emotions about this. It’s a lease, the rancher is in default. Not overly complex.
BUT, the BLM are a bunch of asshats. I’ve dealt with them trying to push me around in NM, on land I OWN. They made various claims, lost in court, and still acted like assholes, doing the same thing. (A long story I won’t go into here.)
Wouldn’t be surprised if this is the straw that starts pushing people over the edge.
Bundy declared himself a citizen of Nevada and NOT the USA:
“Bundy appears to argue in his Motion to Dismiss (#4) that the Complaint (#1) should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction since Article IV of the Constitution cannot be imposed upon him. Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States, and he also quotes religious texts. [*6] Bundy also brings in the Property Clause, the Commerce Clause and International Treaty laws. None of these statutes, laws or other citations is relevant to the jurisdictional issue...”
He also claims the federal government cannot own land, although the US Constitution says it CAN own land, and that Congress makes the rules on what to do with that land.
“Bundy claims this decision concerning the Desert Tortoise, if fully implemented, would lead to the end of ranching in Clark County, and his ranching days would be over. Reply (#7), p. 5. The decision from the BLM does not inform [*8] Bundy he can no longer graze livestock due to the protection of the Desert Tortoise, but instead reminds Bundy that his grazing permit would end at the end of the next month, February 1993, and the new permit application was attached to the decision.”
One of my closest friends is a rancher who buys grazing permits in 3 states to keep his cattle and sheep on. He pays for his grazing, but then, he considers himself to be a US citizen...
Why doesn’t Sandoval do something? Kent University was going to be a footnote in history next to what this standoff is turning into.
Where the hell are the people who are supposed to be adults in this? Surely they don’t think this ranch should be the start of another civil war. Or maybe they do.
Actually, he's the last rancher on BLM land in Nevada. The BLM has been driving ranchers off for decades.
This is basically what the UN Agenda 21 end game is going to look like, only instead of ranchers it will be suburban homeowners.
I dislike the BLM. I once worked a few months for the USFS, but the Forest Service was a very different organization in 1979. I loathe the environmental laws Congress has passed, and their refusal to rein in the BLM, EPA & USFS.
However, this is a pretty straightforward case: the rancher refuses to pay for grazing permits, and has argued in court that he is not a US citizen. This is NOT the place for conservatives to rally!
BLM should be split up along with the lands they administer and handed off to the states.
And, really, the lands themselves should be sold off by lottery to US citizens. And BLM disbanded.
Aside from military bases and office complexes, the federal government has no need to own vast swaths of land.
“...US Constitution says it CAN own land.”
Be a little more specific. What kind of land does the constitution say the feds can own?
The original reason for the feds showing up is now a moot point.
Someone will have to back down, or there is going to be a firefight.
The feds can’t really back down, or they, from there on out, have no federal enforcement power.
So, that leaves The People backing down and capitulating, or it is settled with arms.
“What part of a civil dispute warrants over 200 federal agents with guns, and tasing protesters?”
When cops are faced with a riot, what do they do? They go in with force and try to keep things under control by having a LOT of control. This is a standard police action. The guy is a nutjob who believes US law doesn’t apply to him. He thinks he has the right to graze as many cattle anywhere and anytime he wants - which will destroy a desert environment. It did it before, in the early 1900s.
Want to fight about something? How about the town in Arizona that can’t restore its water lines except by hand? THAT would be a fight I would drive to and support! But a rancher who wants free forage, while every other rancher in the US pays for it? Nope. Wrong fight, wrong cause.
This is as good a place as any for it to begin. Lock and load.
We may be seeing the beginning of a real Sagebrush Rebellion II and an uprising of the silent majority. People are VERY fed up with the feds.
land used for a legitimate government purpose
“What is he doing that he wants to divert attention away form? “
I think there are limits to how long posts can be :-)
Jim, This is a disgrace, and it’s not going to end well unless the BLM leaves the area, which they are not likely to do. Texans always talk about how they are stalwarts of the Republic, well my wife’s family were farmers in Northern Nevada and Texas has nothing on Nevada ranchers! The larger issue here is the fact that the Federal Government “owns” 85% of Nevada (and nearly half of California for that matter). That needs to be changed.
Why has Obama created this crisis? What is he doing that he wants to divert attention away form?
Look at Harry Reid first, the sockpuppet not so much. The current BLM fuhrer is a kid protege of Harry Reid and has some roots in this area.
I’d expect a lot of other disgruntled ranchers then...
Ruby Ridge, and the government settlement of millions to Weaver jumps to mind. Weaver was a 'nut-job' according to the government and media.
Whatever the situation, the government needs to de-escalate the situation to ensure violence doesn't occur.
That’s not what it says.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The gov of NV ought to send out the state police and arrest the BLM hoods.
They’ll attempt to either provoke a response or fake a response, kill everyone that can testify against them, hide all the evidence, and blame the protesters for being massacred.
“Be a little more specific. What kind of land does the constitution say the feds can own?”
Given that the ratifying states then handed over large swathes of land to the US government, I’d have to say the original intent allowed the US government to own large swathes of land:
“Federal land ownership began when the original 13 states ceded title to more than 40% of their western lands (237 million acres between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River) to the central government between 1781 and 1802. Federal land acquisition from foreign countries began with the Louisiana Purchase (530 million acres) in 1803 and continued via treaties with Great Britain and Spain (76 million acres) in 1817 and 1819, respectively. Other substantial acquisitions (620 million acres), via purchases and treaties, occurred between 1846 and 1853. The last major North American land acquisition by the U.S. federal government was the purchase of Alaska (378 million acres) in 1867.”
Are folks suggesting we need to give Alaska back to the Russians? Or revoke the Louisiana Purchase in 1803?
Meanwhile, our government turns unelected, unaccountable, unconstitutional bureaucrats into unconstitutional military-like armed police forces to conduct war against we the people. Under Marxist/fascist leaders like Obama, America is fast becoming a fascist police state.
If the bureaucrats at the BLM can get a valid eviction order from the court, then they should get the county sheriff to serve it.
Theyll attempt to either provoke a response or fake a response, kill everyone that can testify against them, hide all the evidence, and blame the protesters for being massacred.
I think they will confiscate or destroy more cattle, threaten Bundy with further action, call it a win and then leave. Everyone will go home. Things will go quiet. Then some dark night fedgov assassins masquerading as “law” enforcement will disable local communications and wipe the man and his family out.
Would a county sheriff serve a Federal eviction... maybe it would save face for this fellow.
What do you call those running the fedgov who ignore laws on a wholesale basis, as matter of routine, all while rewarding millions of illegal alien trespassers who break our laws?
They have zero respect for our laws and rules and they don't think US law applies to them.
How come you're so excited about this one guy and his cows in Nevada?
What’s the BLM so upset about? I’ve never heard of a cow eating turtles much less endangered ones.
Heard on Glenn Beck radio show that the rancher owes 1.1 million in fees, but it costs the government over 3 million to remove the cattle.
Got to watch out for those turtle-eating cows.
apparently DC insiders have given oil drilling permists for the same land...
think bengazi was about video
Yes, the fedguv can own land. I always wondered about what kind of needful buildings were located on vast wastelands. Yes, we really needed 100,000 acres for ranger stations that are needed...because now we have 100,000 acres of land. Maybe someone has a different take on that clause :)
So you can’t graze around oil rigs?
Anyhow what about the cows. If he cared about the cows they’d be moved to some other grazing.
I have heard everything possible on this situation. He refused to pay. The cost was raised to the point it was ridiculous. The BLM stopped taking lease money. Since 50 grazers have been forced out already something smells like B.S.
That is what I was waiting for ... Thank You Starstruck. Has anyone interviewed any of these 50 to have their opinions on the record?
A couple hundred armed feds using dogs and Tasers against people who are not an immediate danger, and armed militia members who are not “afraid to shoot”, all triggered by grazing fees? If this is a contest to see who can be stupider, both sides look capable of accomplishing surprising things. I’d warn the militia that the feds are led by the world’s expert in the area of acting stupidly. I hope those civilians will be cautious, make prudent decisions, and ostentatiously film everything so that the facts will come out accurately. It would be nice if both sides would back off, but I’m not an optimist, not with the facts on the ground for both sides.
I wonder, since there are those here that argue the FEDERAL government is the almighty in this, and other cases, and they quote 19th century rulings and treaties, that if they would oppose the old Land Grants that were given back in those days.
So, they quote 19th century rulings, treaties et al, but ignore a 18th century document that founded the United States. A document that, it was the States who formed this federal government.
What if the shooting does start? Think about that. I mean, really think about it. Maybe he should have submitted and paid the unjust fees like everyone else, but he didn’t. He took the risk and stood up against them. Does that make him a criminal? Remember, the government is are our servant. So what if the shooting starts? A man who isn’t a criminal will be murdered by the federal government that you would agree is tyrannical. The same government who is ignoring our borders and has given up huge chunks of Arizona to drug cartels. That government has come out in force against a cattle rancher.
I think the shooting will not start. The feds will deescalate.
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.