re: Breaking: Confiscating Legal Weapons at Bundy Ranch in Nevada

I see things have changed in the situation...

on another note:
I was always under the impression that a LEO's oath to uphold The Constitution trumps an unconstitutional order given by their superiors(like military)...I guess they eventually(or maybe even have already) are eliminating that part of the oath...because any officer that violates Constitutional rights is unworthy of his badge anyway...we only need LEO's that are oath keepers...

contrary to what many overzealous LEO's think, You can and should point out any order given that is unconstitutional and refuse to comply on those grounds and document it in anyway possible right up the chain of command...you may just end up Sheriff of chief of police one day for standing up for the people instead of the department...

quote:

---

Bundy's dispute with the government began about 1993 when the bureau changed grazing rules for the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area to protect an endangered desert tortoise, KLAS reported. Bundy refused to abide by the changes and stopped paying his grazing fees to the federal bureau, which he contends is infringing on state rights. His family has been ranching since the 1800s, before the U.S. Department of Interior was created and endangered species became a federal issue, he said in an interview with KLAS. "My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station.

---

So they WERE paying grazing fees. That is evidence that is is NOT their property.

It doesn't matter when the Dept in Interior was created, what matters is when the federal government was created and when Nevada entered the Union. If his family was granted the land under Spanish rule, they should have filed their claim when Nevada was admitted, and then paid their taxes every year - just like my ancestors did. But by paying the grazing fees for as long as they did, they are admitting that they are only tenants on the land. Maybe he should get together with other tenants in the area - or the State of Nevada - and make an offer to the feds to buy the land outright.

Suppose I owned a house that I rented out. Now suppose that after a while I decide that it's too much trouble to manage the property myself, so I hire a management firm. That doesn't convery ownership the the management firm. Now suppose I want to tear down the house to build commercial property to increase my returns. So I tell the manager to inform the tenant that they will have to move at the end of their term. If the renter tells the manager to FO because he was renting that property long before the manager ever showed up, I would call the sheriff to evict the tenant.

If in fact this is STATE land we're talking about, the BLM has no authority. If it is federal land, the BLM was created to manage the land. I really have no idea how this is in any way about states' rights. It's my understanding that the federal government acquired the Nevada territory through war with Mexico. Therefore the expense for the land was borne by the federal government and gives them the ownership. From there, they can grant it or lease it as law allows.

Hell, Mexico has a better claim to the federal lands there than the state Nevada.

There is a thread about this on page 3 I'll bump it for you.

quote:

---

Did they confiscate any weapons? Can anybody confirm that?

---

I would say no because they have no legal right to confiscate lawfully possesed firearms.

They do have the right to ask people to hand over their weapons, but the People maintain the right to refuse. That might not stop the ignorant from handing over their weapons, however.

quote:

---

That's all great until the government says imminent domain.

---

I'm aware of imminent domain, and here is the critical clause:

"the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property"

ie, the state will pay "fair market price" for such acquisitions.

I was threatened with emminent domain, untiil I pointed out that my neighbor's property was FAR more suitable for the public good - and I could easily prove it in a court of law. All of my neighbor's high-powered attorneys couldn't prove that there was a more suitable location for a public right of way than their client's property, and lost. Sucks for them.

I am also aware of adverse possession (which is far more onerous than imminent domain):

"By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period. For example, squatter's rights are a specific form of adverse possession."

Unfortunately for the Nevadan rancher, adverse possession does not apply to public lands.

quote:

---

Just like I wasn't okay with the FBI searching peoples houses after the Boston bombing.

---

I still think that this is one of the least talked about but most egregious abuses of government in our lifetime

I think there is more at work here than just tenant/ owner conflict. I think the rancher holds some disputed water rights, a big thing in a desert area, that the Govt. Has been trying to Billy him into giving up. Bully. I don't know the whole situation but I don't think any of us does.