xzins, I had a long talk last night with my rancher friend, who was my college roommate in the 70s. He has lost 2 allotments outright in the last 6 months and is scrambling to find grazing anywhere. He said he was very sympathetic to Bundy because he’s tired of needing to kiss butt each year with the BLM and is beginning to think his sons will have nothing to inherit.
However, he also said that around 1990, there was a guy who went around telling ranchers that they didn’t need to pay grazing fees, and that the federal government could not own land and that people were citizens of states, but not of America. One of his close friends bought off on it and has spent 20 years refusing to pay income taxes, get a drivers license, etc.He’s sympathetic to his friend as well, but admits it sounds pretty crazy to most people.
Regardless of what one thinks about a law, I think it is important to at least be clear what the law currently is. Under current law, the US could sell much of the BLM land in Nevada to a Chinese investor to build whatever. The Chinese investor would probably soon learn what many settlers learned in the 1800s - that in the mountain west, land without water rights isn’t worth squat. That is why land was not given away during the 1800s: No one wanted it because it has no steady water. No water, no life. You cannot run a factory or a farm without water.
Water rights law might have made it possible for Bundy to make a case. But as it stands, his case is based on his not being an American. That won’t get him or us far in political debate. It will not get him anywhere in court.
It is completely reasonable to argue that the federal government should turn over most of its land to the states. I’d love to see that in Arizona. But I shouldn’t go around telling people that the feds have no authority in Arizona. If I drive to the north of Tucson and hike in the Catalina Mtns, and park along the road without paying, my car will get a ticket and they can collect that ticket in court. I’ll lose, and so will anyone who follows my example.
I’ve not heard Bundy say he is not a US Citizen. On the other hand, I’ve not heard him say he is a Nevada citizen. I have heard (or read? it all blends together sometimes) him say that he owes to Nevada or the county, iirc.
So, is it appropriate for Nevada to claim sovereignty over all the land within its borders and assert that it has first ownership to the land in the state?
That would be dispute decided between a state and the Fed, and I’d like to see the result, because it would have to be decided by the Scotus according to the Constitution.
I think the “dispose of” clause is the clincher argument. If they can dispose of Nevada contrary to the wishes of Nevada, then Nevada is not a sovereign state.
However, he also said that around 1990, there was a guy who went around telling ranchers that they didn’t need to pay grazing fees, and that the federal government could not own land and that people were citizens of states, but not of America. One of his close friends bought off on it and has spent 20 years refusing to pay income taxes, get a drivers license, etc.I knew sovereign citizen tax protesters were in there somewhere! Anytime you hear the ever-changing stuff that Bundy was saying in court and on TV about who the land belongs to, it's "freeman on the land" woo.