Skip to comments.Arizona Official: Cliven Bundy's Acts Are Legal
Posted on 04/22/2014 6:39:28 AM PDT by xzins
The Nevada cattle rancher at the center of a land dispute with the federal government should not have to surrender his property, an Arizona official says, because he has been acting within the boundaries of the law.
Barry Weller, vice chairman of the Apache County Board of Supervisors, told J.D. Hayworth and John Bachman on "America's Forum" Monday on Newsmax TV that he thinks Cliven Bundy was right in standing up to the Bureau of Land Management, which sought to seize his ranch.
Bundy says his family has homesteaded since 1877 on the land, which the federal government says belongs to the United States. As part of a conservation effort to protect the endangered desert tortoise, the Bureau of Land Management banned cattle grazing on the land in 1989. Bundy continued to graze his cattle and refused to pay fines levied against him, calling the federal policy a land grab.
The case is similar to another in Nevada, in which Wayne Hage won a protracted battle with the federal government by successfully arguing that he had the right to graze his cows within two miles of water sources he developed.
"The Bundys and the Hages are standing on what's called their water rights and their grazing rights," which, Weller said, "were pre-existing in territorial times, long before the government took over and these states became states and these water rights are mentioned, and any federal law or policy act that comes thereafter is always stated, 'subject to pre-existing rights.'
"So, when people say they're not legally doing what they're doing, they are. They are doing what they're supposed to be doing: standing for their rights," Weller said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This really is the opportunity to start rolling back the dead weight of Washington on so many fronts.
Good news and reference!
Stolen, Executed and Buried !
Not a thought of returning the cattle to their owner, paying for the cattle or even giving the beef to a charity.
Even the seize and impound order was questionable.
The US feral government should be forced to divest itself of all American lands and turn them over to the states.
There’s nothing about the BLM’s entire operation so far that strikes me as remotely necessary, and, to be honest, remotely legal.
I hate the lockstep media’s talking point: “Bundy was a tax dodger, but the blm shouldn’t have used snipers.”
If they think Bundy should pay for his cows eating open range grass, do they think they should pay fees when they drive across so-called federal land?
Good point and I know on the Bundy’s blog they said damage was done to their infrastructure
but the Fox reporter on the scene said he saw no evidence of damage.
this from the link
“ A Fox News reporter, among others, who viewed the bull holding pens after the livestock were euthanized noted that any evidence of wild behavior such as damaged gates or fencing were not evident.”
I have no doubt the Fed pigs killed and destroyed but it won’t be portrayed that way in the MSM
Those lands should have been disposed of long before now. Nevada’s been a state since the Civil War.
It’s not like the Fed hasn’t had time to do something with them. Oh wait....they did...they identified them as OPEN RANGE.
Therefore, they now belong to Nevada.
The BLM was already under indictment in Wyoming, I think, for their helicopter herding techniques.
They had experience to know that they were going to kill a lot of those cattle.
There is a growing movement by states in the West to claim BLM land.
If they can do so, I am all for it. However, those lands have used by the Fedgov as collateral for loans. I don’t seem the Fedgov letting them go that easily, and with the recent change in the narrative to be “We have the guns, so we make the rules” it may come down to troops sent to the state house of those nine states.
If it does work, it means that the USA will probably stop being a going concern real soon (actually that will happen one way or another). New York and Connecticut can’t enforce their laws inside their own borders, and the BLM almost got shot to pieces doing something they have done for years. When the state loses the monopoly of force (We have the guns, we make the rules), it will soon stop being a state. For New York, this means that Bloomberg and his cronies are going to have a hard time enforcing their will on upstate folks. For the Fedgov, it means they will have to either send troops in, or let the West go increasingly its own way. Either choice will lead to fracture.
whats disturbing is that BLM has its own army. What happened to the normal process of law enforcement. BLM are not law enforcers
This sound very much like Babylon 5’s Nightwatch, where the earth alliance president have its own private paramilitary force that answer to him alone and not thru the normal chain of command
Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 27. The Federal Government is limited to own 10 square miles in a ny given state.
BLM = Nigthwatch
Nope. The paragraph in question states: "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".
Ten miles square is not the same as ten square miles. Ten miles square is a square that is ten miles long by ten miles wide, and would be 100 square miles in size.
This was the clause that was used to establish the District of Columbia that was to be the Federal Capital, and used land that was originally part of Virginia and Maryland.
This really pisses me off. How dare they do this?
Here’s a family that is part of the community, productive and dates back a century and a half and these thugs come along and try to bully them around.
One report said that one animal had seven shots to the head.
Hey Reid, who’s the domestic terrorist?
Has ANYONE really confirmed that the Desert Turtle in question is really endangered???
I mean, it would be great to be able to, without ANY ambiguity, be able to laugh in the face of anyone that brings up this issue, if it turns out to be false...
Take it completely off the table and get folks to concentrate on the real problem here...
When Harry Reid tells the story, he says that Bundy has not paid his grazing fees, making Bundy sound like a deadbeat. When will the media correct this outright lie.
This is what the Fox reporter was referring to. There WAS other evidence BLM officials vandalized water lines, tanks, etc.
Agreed. Once again, he might owe "fines" but there were NO GRAZING FEES APPLICABLE!
Someone should compile a list of all the instances of FISH, TORTOISE, BIRDS, ETC., the gubmint has used to justify seizing other people’s land. There is surely a pattern of creating an endangered animal scenario as justification for seizing land.
They NEED the land as collateral for ALL of the debt we have!!!!!!
The whole “he didn’t pay his grazing fees” thing is a red herring.
Bundy was not allowed to pay his fees until he signed a BLM document which surrendered all of his rights. He wouldn’t sign, they would not allow him to pay grazing fees.
I didn’t say it was right, but that they did it.
And you probably don’t own the mineral rights to your land (very, very, few do).
I do wonder how many in power realize just how fragile their hold on power is. The USSR broke up because people stopped believing in it long before the Wall came down.
What I saw reported, was that the BLM took over the land due to the endangered species Act (desert tortoise) and eliminated grazing on said land. Bundy continued to graze his cattle. Therefore, if grazing was off limits, there were no grazing fees due. The government went to court and won against Bundy, but he failed to cease grazing, incurring penalties/fines.
Recently, it was reported that the desert tortoise is no longer an endangered species, and therefore, the BLM should return the land back to open grazing status. I doubt the EPA will oblige.
Really? I haven’t heard that before; where’d you find it?
I don't have Fox News or cable, so I don't know what you saw, but if it came across that way, then the video footage has been selectively edited. What that cowboy said was "This bull was in this enclosure, and you can see he was absolutely no threat to anyone. The corral is not bent nor damaged. There is no damage to this corral." He was trying to explain that the evidence concluded that the bull was not charging the gates in the corral, that he was standing still when he was shot. So if they are using that clip and saying there is "no evidence of damage," then that is an outright lie using selective, out of context editing.
The BLM tore down water tanks, ripped up piping, and shot holes in troughs. They also tore down corrals and gates. Here is the original Fox clip that I saw: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/feds-accused-leaving-trail-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/
The public needs to understand that this area is 660,000 acres. That's almost the size of Rhode Island. They are still searching for dead cows and traps and broken infrastructure. Hopefully the BLM didn't have enough time to do more damage than they did.
Here are some videos taken by a militia member who toured some of the acreage. He has made these public, so you don't need to have a Facebook account to view them:
One of the earlier threads noted that the Feds had in fact been destroying these turtles, because there was now too many.
Also mentioned a new study that the reason the turtles were dying was a virus that the turtles not exposed to cow patties could not fight off.
The turtles that had access to cow patties had the protein they needed to fight off the virus and did better than the others lacking this nutritional source.
I did not bookmark the threads.
Thank you, That makes sense now
another poster Civilwar explained that the Fox reporter meant the bull hadn’t done any damage to the pen he was in, which means the feds just shot him for meanness, NOT because the bull was any danger
Thank you for those great links
I think people are paying attention to the gestapo tactcis of 0dumbo’s thugs
That argument is now irrelevant.
That's probably the next part of their plan... if they haven't already implemented it. Take your home and they're also planning on taking your 401k.
Arizona and Utah should take back their territories. ;-)
That left front shoulder looks to be broken. That usually happens when a cow gets hit by a truck. The gunshot might have been necessary to put old bawley out of his misery after the hit because they usually make a gawdawfull racket when they’re hurt. I don’t see any tire tracks in the pic but he could have limped a ways before going down for good. Disgusting either way.
It was a bull not a steer, a steer is a neutered bull as far as I know.
Which? The one defined by the Constitution? I was responding to the 10 square miles argument above, not anything else. As far as I'm concerned, the fed gov should not control any land but that specifically defined in the Constitution. No National Parks, Forests, Grasslands, Monuments, BLM land, anything. It should all be under the control of the states. The fed gov should be allowed bases for National Defense, but that's about it.
Now that the Angel is about to blow the Mighty Trumpet, we hear this.
>> “Theres nothing about the BLMs entire operation so far that strikes me as remotely necessary, and, to be honest, remotely legal.” <<
Well, they do oversee the mapping and survey records operations. Bur everything else is unlawful.